[1:37] Just checking audio live stream. Thanks.

[5:13] Hopefully that's the most exciting thing that happens this evening.

[5:17] » Mr. Green is not a party until

[5:28] » I do.

[5:36] Mr. You're the engineer. The engineer's just

[5:40] going to sit there. >> He's not going to help.

[5:44] » You know, I'm in. [laughter]

[5:50] All All right, enough of the shenanigans here. Everyone, come on.

[5:55] Welcome everybody to our regular council meeting for July 27th, 2026. Uh to call

[6:00] the meeting to order. I just want to acknowledge that we gather on the

[6:02] traditional territories of the coast and straight salish peoples and specifically

[6:05] we recognize lungan speaking people known today as the sanghes and the

[6:09] casaps of more squamalt nations and how their connections to these lands and

[6:12] adjoining waters continue to this day. Our first order of business uh is

[6:18] approval of the agenda. Can I have a move seconded? Any discussion?

[6:22] All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. We have two adoption of minutes

[6:26] from the regular council meetings on July 13th. Same mover and seconder. Uh

[6:32] any changes, corrections, or amendments to the minutes?

[6:36] Not seeing any. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And then just a

[6:40] motion to receive the comm the Heritage Commission minutes June 3rd. Move

[6:44] second. All those in favor? Any opposed? We have no rise and report. My mayor's

[6:48] remarks will be brief. Um I just want to acknowledge the very rare rare

[6:52] cancellation rain cancellation that we had with with the music in the park.

[6:55] That's the first time in my experience that that's happened. Um I just want to

[6:59] thank the staff and participants who did set up and tear down the stage uh with

[7:03] anticipation of a break in the web that never happened. Um so um uh just uh but

[7:08] it is still continuing this summer. So make sure you get out to see those. Um I

[7:13] was able to attend on July 21st the change of command. So um this is the CFB

[7:18] squymalt. So Kevin Whiteside uh took down his penant and Captain Navy Doug

[7:23] Leighton has taken over as base commander. uh seems a bit remote from

[7:27] Oak Bay, but uh they're actually very engaged with municipalities uh across

[7:30] the region, both in housing as well as many other uh initiatives. Um in fact,

[7:36] the base commander often joins we have a semi-regular lunch meeting with the

[7:40] mayors in the region and he often joins us as that as for some of the common uh

[7:44] common issues. So uh Mr. Captain Whiteside has been done a great job.

[7:48] We're looking forward to working with uh the new Captain Leighton. Um, I also

[7:53] just wanted a little reminder uh that school district school district 61 is in

[7:58] changing their electoral system to award system which means that uh this year

[8:03] will be the first year that Oak Bay uh elects a Oak Bay specific representative

[8:08] on the school board. So just [clears throat] uh wanted to make that

[8:12] uh raising it here just for public awareness if people are interested in

[8:14] representing the interests of Oak Bay at the school district 61 table. Uh it is

[8:19] an election process. you would have to put your name forward and I'm just

[8:21] encouraging people to to consider that. Um, also not directly in Oak Bay,

[8:26] although you can watch it partially from Oak Bay, the the official viewing site

[8:29] of the Snowbirds is happening on August 4th at 5:00 p.m. at Clover Point uh with

[8:35] a very strict warning that there's very very very little parking. So, if you

[8:38] want to go walk uh or ride uh your way down there, again, August 4th at 5:00

[8:43] p.m. And finally, just a reminder that we

[8:46] have we do have many activities, including music in the park, but also

[8:49] yoga in the park, open air piano concerts, um um and of course, one more

[8:55] night market in August and one in in September coming up. So, uh council

[9:00] takes a bit of a breather over August. We don't have any scheduled meetings,

[9:04] though. We sometimes have to have special meetings, but typically we

[9:06] don't. Um, so I just want to thank uh staff and council for all the work so

[9:10] far this year and wish everybody uh some relaxation and renewal over the next

[9:14] month. I know obviously staff uh and even council are continuing to work

[9:18] through the month. Uh that concludes my comments. Uh we now go to section seven

[9:23] which is public comment and question period and I um an opportunity for

[9:28] people to address council. This is on items not on the agenda u but of general

[9:33] interest to the community. an opportunity to raise uh make comments or

[9:37] make ask questions of council. Um and we did have a a member of the public

[9:42] actually send us a picture ahead of time and wanted to speak. So we have the

[9:45] picture uh and that is Mr. Tatty who I see has raised his hand online. So why

[9:49] don't I start there and Mr. Tatty you can demonstrate the process which is to

[9:53] state your full name and your municipality of residents not your

[9:56] address just your municipality. Welcome. >> Uh Tim Daddy Oak Bay. Um can you hear

[10:01] me? Okay >> we can. Thank you. Now, thank you very

[10:05] much and and thank you to staff. I got this picture to them uh late this

[10:09] afternoon and I was very appreciative of their quick response to get it to you.

[10:14] I'll be very very brief. I always appreciate these opportunities, Mr.

[10:17] Mayor. Um I was struck at one of the recent council meetings when um a

[10:23] gentleman uh raised the issue of beach access uh with regard to the marina

[10:28] lease for taking his kayak and canoes and whatnot on wheels and walking down

[10:33] the street and putting them on. And it reminded me of something that's been in

[10:37] my back of my mind and it may involve a couple of departments. So I thought I'd

[10:41] go through you. Um, this is the foot of Baler and I would just draw your

[10:46] attention to several quick things. The passageway where walkers go, many, many

[10:52] of us have been there, has [clears throat] a telephone pole and

[10:56] another concrete abutment and a concrete abutment with Chris Hidlay's very good

[11:00] signs that they put so much effort into. And then as you go, there's a chain in

[11:06] the garbage can and then a stack of signs, the top of which is uh ruined and

[11:12] vandalized and and it's just a hodgepodge of signs. So my proposal,

[11:18] again, this is related to access, and there's the obviously the blue multimat,

[11:22] which is excellent. So my quick proposal is for uh staff or council, however this

[11:28] works, to look at making some some very inexpensive changes that would make

[11:33] accessibility u easier for everybody. So the first

[11:38] thing I would propose is please note that [clears throat] the sign to the

[11:43] left pointing to the left has no parking and that is I think because of the chain

[11:48] I think that must be because of picking up garbage. to the right. Parking is

[11:53] midnight to 6:00 a.m. So, what I propose, um, if you'll go back to the

[11:58] walkway, the chains have been up year round usually, but whether it's been

[12:03] vandalized or whether one's been taken down, they've been up across.

[12:08] Cars are parked hodge podge there all the time. This one was taken without

[12:13] cars. And the only option if one is uh trying to get through to the blue mat is

[12:19] to go through the walkway and across the sand of course, but there's the

[12:24] telephone pole. And it's equally hard for old people like me with kayaks and

[12:28] canoes to wheel down through there. You can't actually bend the kayak. So my

[12:34] proposal would be pretty simple that you take advantage of the opportunity to

[12:38] clean up the signage. Keep them all. They're all very important. but somehow

[12:42] clean them up. Make the no parking sign uh clear to the left and take down that

[12:50] chain so that people like uh that that can't lift their kayak can take it down

[12:56] whether the blue mat's there or not because the blue mat's seasonal. But I'm

[13:00] proposing the the access for wheeling in where there's no parking to be year

[13:05] round. And then to the right, I'm proposing that you make that handicap

[13:09] parking. there's plenty of space so that in fact the garbage truck would still be

[13:14] able to get his garbage because that's where people like me would take our

[13:17] kayaks through on wheels. Um, [clears throat] walkers would not be

[13:21] impeded and we would be introducing a handicap parking spot so that when

[13:27] people do want to take advantage of the blue mat, they don't have to do an

[13:32] awkward twirly around to get to it or come down from up higher on on Willows

[13:37] Beach where the parking lot is. And and so that's essentially it. I appreciate

[13:42] you listening to me. I know you can't respond, but if you can move that

[13:45] forward if you think it makes sense, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you.

[13:49] Thank you very much, Mr. Teddy. And and we do have our director of engineering

[13:53] in the in the hall here. And I think I'll leave that as a bit of a conduit to

[13:57] staff for for consideration of those pieces. So, uh and yeah, generally

[14:02] speaking, um these a lot of the great ideas in our community do come from the

[14:06] community as people walk about and see these kind of things. So, um always

[14:10] appreciate people raising them. You don't have to come to the council.

[14:13] You're certainly welcome to. Uh you can often just send a note in to staff. uh

[14:18] you can CC Oak Bay Council on these things. Uh but generally they're the

[14:21] ones who go do an assessment and see if it makes sense. So appreciate you

[14:25] raising it. So have a good evening. Uh next in our speaking agenda I have here

[14:30] uh is anybody in the room who wishes to speak? I'll invite the person in the

[14:34] room come forward. >> Mayor, do I stand or

[14:36] » uh come come up to the chair. >> Thank you.

[14:39] » And what we'll have you do is uh again you can demonstrate for those in the

[14:42] room. If anybody else wishes to speak, have a seat. You can push the button in

[14:46] the middle. Okay. >> And just state your name, municipality

[14:48] of residence. Then you have up to three minutes.

[14:50] » Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. Uh my name is

[14:54] David King, and I'm here this evening with my wife and neighbors. Uh we reside

[14:58] on Hampshire. I would like to address a bit about the

[15:02] property at 1538 uh Montterrey that is owned by the municipality and is going

[15:07] to be subject to a temporary use permit application this evening.

[15:12] Uh the property was purchased by very pardon me. We'll actually have an

[15:16] opportunity to speak to that when it's on the agenda.

[15:18] » Would I be able to just put this comment forward or um Sure. I guess.

[15:22] » Sure. Okay. Thanks. It's it's um I live very adjacent to the property.

[15:28] Uh the property was purchased in Oak Bay in 2016. Has been allowed to fall into

[15:32] disrepair. Um if you visit the old house this

[15:36] evening, the yard's unckempt, the buildings run down. uh windows are open

[15:41] as they have been for months and resulting as I understand in pest and

[15:45] rodent issues. Uh the site is also used as overflow

[15:49] parking and smoking hole for local businesses and uh people in the area and

[15:55] the fences are falling down. The site is actually covered in cigarette butts and

[15:58] garbage. Um recently the house has been used as a

[16:02] training facility for the Oak Bay Fire Department. When this first happened, I

[16:07] was alarmed to see smoke billowing from the windows and firemen on the site in

[16:12] full protective gear. It turns out there was no fire. Uh but

[16:17] the house was being used for training using simulated smoke and houses being

[16:21] dragged through the house. Um I recognize the the requirements for

[16:25] training and I really do appreciate our local fire department.

[16:29] I do have questions about the property and the tup. Um, Oak Bay is already

[16:34] using it as an immersive training facility without putting the appropriate

[16:37] TUP in place beforehand. What I would ask today is that we as the

[16:43] neighbors um be consulted on this. Um, I understand that the first thing I saw

[16:48] was a flyer come to my door on the TUP and uh I had seen no consultation before

[16:55] that. I see that a lot of the things that are being uh asked for in the TUP

[17:00] are already being done on the property. Um I have had conversations with the

[17:05] municipality about other things such as parking in in in uh theater lane which

[17:09] have been an issue. Um I've had some responses but no thorough responses

[17:13] back. So um I think this property has been

[17:19] treated somewhat poorly. And what I would ask is that Oak Bay act

[17:25] as good neighbors. Um, and really what I would ask is that they consult us before

[17:33] um any of the tups and other actions go forward. Uh, I I I'm I'm not against

[17:38] development on the site or any other location, but I would love to be

[17:43] involved in the uh the process. So, thanks Mayor. That's all I have to say.

[17:49] » Thank you very much. Uh, I move to uh the uh Eric Zelka

[17:56] online.

[18:02] » Mr. Zelka, you have your hand raised online.

[18:06] » Yes. Can you hear me? All right. How's that sound?

[18:08] » We can. Yes. Thank you. >> Wonderful. Um, uh, hello. My name is

[18:12] Eric Zulka. Uh, living in northern part of Oak Bay, uh, proper. And, uh, I just

[18:18] wanted to follow up on an additional item. Um uh ripping off of uh Tim

[18:22] Teddy's uh suggestion from a few moments ago, that area uh um uh that has the

[18:28] wonderful map that heads down right down to the water for the um accessibility

[18:31] aspect. That area uh especially if the chain is going to be adjusted, it really

[18:35] needs two additional items. Every time I go down there, especially when I'm

[18:38] leaving the beach, which be wonderful to have an opportunity to wash my feet like

[18:43] I do at almost every other beach in the uh in the district. Uh plus down at

[18:47] Willows Beach, you know, uh there is a way to wash your feet in the water

[18:51] fountains. Uh unfortunately, I don't want to do it in the water fountain. I

[18:54] don't know where else to do it, but a foot wash would be fantastic. It's

[18:59] something that could also be um you know, nice for the for the dogs as well,

[19:02] maybe not combined. Uh and uh ideally a washroom because I do notice that uh for

[19:08] those who who have a need, there's a certain smell in that area. And for

[19:13] those of you who visit the bu the bushes nearby, especially the house that lives

[19:16] right next door to that, I'm sure everyone would appreciate a washroom

[19:20] right there. Uh since uh unfortunately nature calls. Thank you.

[19:25] » Thank you very much, Mr. Zulka. Uh I do think those are probably slightly more

[19:30] complicated implementations than some of the other signage pieces, but we can

[19:33] certainly have a look at that as well as consideration for future projects.

[19:38] Anybody else in the room wish to speak to council? Again, uh it's intended for

[19:42] items not on the agenda. Um

[19:47] okay, I don't see any other hands raised either online or in person. Uh so with

[19:51] that, we will uh conclude this portion of the agenda and move on to the uh next

[19:56] piece which is recommendations from the meeting held on July 20th. Uh we had one

[20:01] uh recommendation that came out of that that council direct staff to engage with

[20:04] community green map and report back on the organization's proposed partnership

[20:07] model. So can someone move that recommendation? Thank you. Seconded. Um

[20:14] discussed it at that meeting, but if there's any further discussion, happy to

[20:17] take some now. Not seeing any others in favor. Any opposed? None opposed. Thank

[20:23] you. Uh not everything's going to be this quick. Uh so we now move to item

[20:29] 9.1, which is preliminary performance measures and council signoff. Um we have

[20:33] Mr. Bull here, our director of community building and planning. Um this was a

[20:38] fairly lengthy discussion at the uh committee of the whole and there's been

[20:42] some uh some additions uh based on that conversation coming back to this table.

[20:46] So over to you Mr. Bull. Thank you mayor. Just pulling up my

[20:52] notes. [clears throat] So today's report follows up on the

[20:56] broader discussion that council had last week and it responds directly to

[20:59] council's direction from April uh to return with preliminary performance

[21:03] measures and KPIs and also seeking final sign off on part two of the project and

[21:09] optimizing development processes has been a key component of the housing

[21:12] action program and is intended to prepare the district for increasing

[21:16] development activity, new provincial housing requirements and anticipated

[21:20] growth under the up propos updated OCP. Part two of the project builds on the

[21:26] assessment completed in part one last year which included process reviews,

[21:30] municipal benchmarking, industry consultation and the identification of

[21:34] opportunities to improve development and building permit processes. The the

[21:39] report before council today is about ensuring that we not only implement

[21:43] process improvements but also establish clear ways to measure whether those

[21:46] improvements are delivering better outcomes for applicants, staff, council

[21:50] and the community. A total of 11 initiatives are proposed that are

[21:54] intended to improve the entire applicant journey from initial inquiries and

[21:59] pre-application discussions through to development approvals and building

[22:03] permitting and construction rather than focusing on a single part of the

[22:06] process. Miss Cook will um continue the introduction with a couple of additional

[22:11] details regarding the proposed performance measures. Thanks.

[22:15] » Thank you and welcome Miss Cook. >> Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and

[22:18] Council. Um, as you'll see in the report, staff undertook an updated

[22:22] outcomes impact assessment to analyze the cost benefit of each initiative.

[22:27] This included assessing each initiative by the level of effort required, the

[22:31] anticipated outcomes, and then rating the level of impact from high to low.

[22:35] This assessment indicated that some initiatives are anticipated to have a

[22:39] higher level of impact than others, but um that the proposed initiatives are

[22:43] anticipated to generally have a high level of impact on the targeted outcome

[22:48] or beneficiary. Following the updated outcomes impact assessment, staff

[22:53] identified preliminary performance indicators to provide a framework to

[22:56] measure the success of the initiatives. This includes quantitative and

[23:00] qualitative key performance indicators as appropriate for a particular

[23:03] initiative including time frame KPIs i.e. achieving an output of a particular

[23:09] initiative on time and within budget customer and staff surveys to measure

[23:14] qualitative impacts and quantitative data on improved sorry improved process

[23:18] time frames for development approvals and building permitting. Staff

[23:22] anticipate that further KPIs will be identified after each initiative is

[23:26] launched and more detailed scoping specific to the initiative is

[23:29] undertaken. KPIs will be used to provide updates to council on the success of the

[23:34] initiatives and the project as a whole. Considered altogether staff anticipate

[23:38] that the 11 initiatives will systematically improve the development

[23:41] and building application processes and to end. Therefore, all 11 initiatives

[23:46] are recommended for inclusion in CPP78. staff are seeking today for sign off

[23:51] from council on CPP78 after which we will begin the process of pro procuring

[23:56] external support and launching the project. Um we're happy to take any

[23:59] questions that you may have. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you very much for that. Are

[24:03] there questions for members of council to staff?

[24:07] Go ahead. Ed Watson and then Green. >> Yes. Thank you very much. Thanks mayor

[24:12] for allowing me to raise something. Um, and this is very high level to staff and

[24:18] it it was something that really just came to me today when I was rereading

[24:22] this package and thinking about the overall process and how the public um

[24:28] perceives their their the service level. and it was about the relationship

[24:35] between public works permits and planning permits and the extent to which

[24:41] um there is coordination around that and

[24:46] well I guess maybe I'll just think about my issue here

[24:49] for certain projects I assume like larger ones people need both planning

[24:55] and development permits and they also need engineering and public works

[24:58] permits because they've got driveway winding they may have sewer or water

[25:02] upgrades they need to do. And I wondered to what extent that those processes

[25:08] would end up as a result of this being integrated and sort of um managed to the

[25:15] same level or standard so that um somebody who's got one of those bigger

[25:19] projects, these improvements around planning and building also spill over to

[25:23] the other things that they have to do to get their project through the pipeline.

[25:28] So I just a comment about that. I'm not expecting anything more than just a

[25:31] reflection on that. >> Sure, Mr. Bull.

[25:35] » Yeah, thank you, Mayor, through you. Um, yeah, there's a number of related

[25:39] permits that uh might come up during either development applications which

[25:43] are the planning stage or building permits uh in preparation of

[25:47] construction. Um so usually those are coordinated because the the development

[25:53] application has been made and some preliminary comments are made and some

[25:57] requirements will be identified at that time and for building permits it's more

[26:01] practical. For tree permits for example uh tree protection fencing needs to be

[26:05] identified and installed and for any servicing needs uh uh the engineering

[26:10] and public works department identifies the requirements and so that usually

[26:15] makes sure that all these things are coordinated. the timing might be

[26:18] sometimes u different. Um but when we did the

[26:22] review last last year uh the focus was very much on the development application

[26:27] process and the building permit process not so much on the other permit

[26:30] processes. We we had uh definitely input from those groups as well u wasn't

[26:35] coming up as a as a as a major issue at that point in time. So uh I think the

[26:41] the improvements that we have here uh do have some relation those other kind of

[26:45] permits as well because in the case of simplification for example for building

[26:49] permits there may be uh options where a little bit of time can be gained if

[26:54] there's either less or no involvement from other teams or there's less people

[26:57] involved of a certain permit but so that's kind of the general answer I can

[27:01] give or flection I guess. Thanks. >> And if I could just follow up. So

[27:06] there's um one of the projects and it's a large one is about applicant resources

[27:11] and I just wondered if in the in the in the scope of that project applicant

[27:15] resources will will applicants be pointed to these other things as part of

[27:19] that pre-screening all the things for this project I might have to do so that

[27:23] if they point to parks you mentioned for parks tree permits and and other kinds

[27:28] of permits that that that in effect becomes part of this project even though

[27:32] it relates to departments outside your Cook,

[27:36] » thank you for the question through you, mayor. Um, I would say definitely yes.

[27:39] When we think about the applicant resources, it will be anything that we

[27:43] consider is important to the applicant as part of their permitting process. So,

[27:48] I think we'd be looking at applicant resources related to working with parks,

[27:51] working with engineering, and working with fire as those are all interrelated

[27:55] with our building permitting as well as our development approvals. Thank you.

[28:00] » Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor Watson. Councelor

[28:02] Green.

[28:07] Thank you very much. Um and thank you for the report through you mayor. Um

[28:12] just a couple of questions on on the report. One is around the demolition

[28:17] permits and waste management. Um I just wanted to ask uh first of all expediting

[28:25] demolitions. um wondered what the rationale was behind that. And then

[28:29] secondly, on the waste management side um of of the demolition waste and I'm

[28:35] asking the question only because I know many Oak Bay residents are concerned

[28:39] about demolitions and and older housing stock. So that was the the purpose of

[28:44] the question. And my other question is what is meant by

[28:49] right-sized? And and that's just my own my own question. I I I wasn't clear how

[28:55] that was being used and and the context for that. Thank you,

[28:59] » Mr. B. >> Yeah, thank you to you, mayor. Um, for

[29:04] demolition permits, oh, sorry. Uh, there's a couple of steps that need to

[29:08] be followed. It's it's some one of the types of permits we'd like to look at.

[29:12] It's not specifically on the radar to be faster or or slower. Um, right now, um,

[29:19] it's just one type of permit. uh we have some OP policies that in the future we

[29:24] might look at uh dealing differently with construction waste but right now we

[29:29] don't have specific uh requirements for de demolition permits besides uh if they

[29:34] are a designated or registered property uh in certain cases it does come to

[29:39] council be first uh but in most cases it won't um then with regards to what right

[29:45] sizing means um it's it's contrasted with um the current approach

[29:50] particularly for building permits where um every permit

[29:56] uh most building permits as you say this doesn't apply typically to plumbing

[29:59] permits but building permits are treated first in first out so everybody gets

[30:02] their turn but everybody regardless of the size of their project a small

[30:07] kitchen ren or new house or complicated renovation perhaps all goes in the same

[30:12] queue and that is a one sizefits-all that's not very efficient for the

[30:17] smaller scope projects right sizing it about uh is there other ways and

[30:21] pathways or a route for a quicker approval for something that is small and

[30:25] also u less eyes that already happens I think the the smaller projects don't

[30:30] have as many reviewers of course uh but to try to create a separate shorter

[30:35] route for for those projects that don't need that much time or review time

[30:39] effort that's what we uh try to convey with the term right sizing thanks

[30:45] » thank you and just a quick followup through you on on um on demolition. I

[30:52] think there was at one time I I don't know if it was a policy, but it was a

[30:57] suggestion to deconstruct as opposed to demolish. Could you tell me where that

[31:03] um that approach is at this moment in in Oak Bay? Thank you,

[31:09] » Mr. Bull. >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor Through. Um it's

[31:14] sometimes it already happens. Um but what the what council has considered a

[31:18] while ago was a project options analysis for a deconstruction bylaw. I think that

[31:23] is currently still on the long list long listed list of projects future potential

[31:27] projects that might be picked up in the future. So that's the current status of

[31:32] that particular topic. Thanks. >> Thank you very much.

[31:35] » Thank you. I I will note there is a uh CRD is working on a model bylaw based on

[31:40] the city of Victoria's bylaw that they will be sharing with other

[31:43] municipalities. Um and just procedurally here I have one

[31:47] more person on our council uh list of questions uh too. Um procedurally if

[31:53] anybody wishes to speak to this item um after council ask questions. This is

[31:57] true for all things with public input. Council ask questions then we will go to

[32:02] the public for any comments and questions. Then we'll come back to this

[32:05] table. Council may have more questions or they may give direction and we'll

[32:09] speak to motions to give some some things forward. So that's the process

[32:12] for all of these. So at this point we're I'll come back to this table for

[32:15] questions. Councelor Braithweight and then Patterson.

[32:17] » Thanks so much mayor and just a little bit on the technology. I'm just

[32:20] wondering if the new digital tools that we're going to be using are compatible

[32:24] with our existing software and if there's going to be any ongoing

[32:28] licensing or maintenance costs that that are going to remain after the grant

[32:33] funding ends that we'll have to take on. >> Mr. B.

[32:39] » Thank you mayor through you. um um not for e apply in my district. Those are

[32:45] specifically tools that connect to um a wider tempest system that the district

[32:50] already uses and it's simply building out our toolbox so to say and using more

[32:56] of the bells and whistles that that program allows for. So um I don't

[33:00] anticipate increased cost there except for uh what

[33:05] will happen through this project uh making sure it's all set up and works

[33:08] properly. that is something that we can mostly do with in-house expertise. Uh

[33:13] but we do need from time to time some support from basically the provider of

[33:16] that software to make sure all the all the things connect as they should.

[33:20] Thanks >> Patterson.

[33:24] » Yes. Thank you, mayor, and through you to staff um in the uh initiative 10

[33:30] performance measures and monitoring. It's recommended that we um utilize the

[33:35] services of a consultant to um help develop those performance measures. Um,

[33:42] and I I just wonder if staff could speak to is there a standardization or a

[33:47] tailorization for these because I imagine some of the performance

[33:51] indicators are um uh kind of tailored for each community in that um

[34:00] big communities might have a different way of processing things than the

[34:04] smaller communities and there will be certain things that they'll that both um

[34:09] developers or permit that applicants or the general public um consider important

[34:16] here with this this process. So, I'm wondering how uh if it if it's a hybrid,

[34:22] if it's something they take from um generalized um benchmarks that other

[34:29] municipalities would use, and um also if what will be captured with this

[34:35] reporting is uh not only what is recommended, but what items may have

[34:42] been examined and um considered perhaps too um resource intensive

[34:49] um so that they they're they're not chosen as a performance

[34:54] indicator. So just a bit of the the background on on the on what we would be

[34:59] seeing as a council. >> Sure. I'll give it to Miss Cook.

[35:03] » Thank you through you, Mayor. Um so I'd say that for the one big piece of that

[35:09] question. So they'll definitely be tailored to Oak Bay. So as part of part

[35:12] one, we already have done some municipal benchmarking, but as we move into that

[35:16] initiative, we'll definitely look at, you know, what other municipalities in

[35:20] the region do in terms of key performance indicators and performance

[35:24] measures and we'll tailor it to what's important um to Oak Bay. Um in terms of

[35:29] the use of a consultant, I would say that in terms of determining the

[35:33] performance measures, we already do some performance measuring within uh planning

[35:36] and building permitting. the use of the consultant won't be I'd say more focused

[35:41] on what those um KPIs will be but more setting up um the tools and the software

[35:48] um to establish that and I'm not actually I may have to ask you to repeat

[35:51] the last part um of that question if you don't mind councelor Patterson thanks

[35:55] » I think that captured it but something else councelor Patterson

[35:58] » yes and the last part was just um whenever you go through these

[36:02] examinations part of it is uh you can get all kinds of data in in a report,

[36:08] but sometimes the it's resource intensive so that it it it's hard to

[36:13] justify actually including that. So, I'm wondering if uh when we get this there

[36:18] there will also be just some highlighting of things that were

[36:22] considered and then were decided the decision was to not include them because

[36:28] of them being resource intensive. >> I think that's more

[36:33] » Thank you, mayor. Is the is that specific to the initiatives or the

[36:37] measuring of of of yeah performance measures within that initiative?

[36:42] » It it's really I think through you may it it's really about the performance

[36:47] reporting and and the data that's gathered because some data can it it's

[36:52] so resource intensive that we can't we can't justify it reasonably.

[36:57] » Thank you through you mayor. think that we'll definitely focus our performance

[37:01] measures on data that we think is important um to the district and that we

[37:05] would think would be um important to our senior leadership team um and to

[37:08] council. I think that um what we're looking to do is set up um a tool that

[37:16] makes measuring performance actually quite simple. So, we'll be putting in

[37:19] the effort to set up something that's going to help support our uh housing

[37:23] target order um reporting by um so we already have the data in Tempest and

[37:28] it's going to be kind of produced into a dashboard that's actually going to make

[37:31] it a lot easier for us to to report on our performance. Thank you.

[37:37] » Thank you. Um I guess I just my my questions here

[37:41] are um uh I should probably leave more probably more comments and questions.

[37:48] Yeah, I'll leave my my questions at this point and come back to it. So uh is

[37:52] there any members of the public? Uh I don't have anybody with their hands

[37:55] raised online at this point but I would certainly if you [clears throat] have

[37:58] wish to speak I do have one. Anybody in the uh room here who would like to speak

[38:02] to item this is item 9.1 performance measures.

[38:08] Okay, I'll go to Mr. Zulka online related to item 9.1.

[38:14] » Uh, hello. Can you hear me? >> Please go ahead.

[38:17] » Um, oh, hello. >> We can hear you, Mr. Zulka. Please,

[38:21] please go. >> Can you hear me? Thank you very much.

[38:23] Okay. Hello, Eric Zulka again. Um, north part of Oak Bay. Uh, regarding this item

[38:28] on the agenda, um, yes. Uh, [laughter] this is near and dear to my heart. Uh,

[38:32] first of all, I do note that uh when I look up on the British Columbia uh

[38:37] digital building permit uh website, if I put my address in there, I'm informed

[38:41] that Oak Bay does not participate in this digital program. Check with local

[38:46] government to learn how to apply. Okay. So, I'm hoping that uh that the $200,000

[38:51] that was received by Oak Bay will not go to consultants, but will somehow allow

[38:54] Tempest or whatever it is can to connect to this system since there's quite a

[38:58] number of uh of benefits uh to be able to offload some of this uh uh work to

[39:03] the province since they're offering it anyway. Number two is now that we've got

[39:08] this situation where a homeowner who would normally go to apply for a single

[39:13] residence and is treated as a home residential owner for what's referred to

[39:18] as small projects, you know, and obviously uh um is treated that way.

[39:23] Now, this residential owner who's wanting to uh expand uh can now put up

[39:28] three, four, five, six, six units on their single family home property,

[39:33] they're now being treated by OPAY staff as full-fledged developers.

[39:39] The language is not appropriate. The uh the assistance uh uh for the two or

[39:44] three situations that I'm aware of is not appropriate. the forms that that

[39:48] come through are it's it's just gobbly goop to to a to a homeowner who's used

[39:53] to putting in a a a bathroom and now just wants to put in two additional

[39:57] units for their grown-up kids to live with them and they're being treated like

[40:01] a developer. So when you talk about all these wonderful buzzwords I see in the

[40:05] report, great buzzwords make sense to council, make sense to development

[40:08] staff, makes no sense to the residents of Oak Bay in general. So please, when

[40:14] you're talking about customer service, just realize you've got people out there

[40:18] who haven't a clue what you're talking about. Thank you very much.

[40:23] » Thank you, Mr. Zulka. Uh any other uh members of the public

[40:27] online or in person to speak to this item?

[40:32] I don't see any other hands. We'll come back to this table. Uh we have a

[40:36] recommendation here and my understanding of this uh is really that uh the

[40:41] recommendation here is to approve this is this will advance the projects the 11

[40:45] priority projects. It gives authority to going go forth and do those projects. Um

[40:51] uh but that the specific uh measures and so forth will will be coming back at a

[40:56] future time for for final approval. There's some suggested uh KPIs and

[41:01] measures there but they're not final we're not approving those at this point.

[41:04] and it's really approving the the projects at this point. Is that is that

[41:07] accurate? >> Yeah, thank you mayor. That's that's

[41:11] correct. Um um a number of the initiatives do require council input

[41:16] particular for bylaws particular but also particularly the ones for

[41:19] performance measures and uh right sizing of processes. Those will definitely come

[41:23] back to council and some of the other more um less complicated or less or not

[41:30] really needing further direction. they will simply be implemented um as as we

[41:34] go by but we'll definitely keep council posted of what the progress is on this

[41:38] program. Thanks. >> Okay. Um at this point we haven't we

[41:41] haven't define the reporting back correct like the reporting back on the

[41:45] uh the status of the projects or the uh or the KPIs like are they going to be

[41:50] annual semiannual by we haven't determined any of that at this point. Is

[41:55] that correct? >> Uh yes mayor that's correct.

[41:58] » Okay very good. Um any >> move the recommendation.

[42:03] » Thank you. Move and seconded. Uh any discussion?

[42:10] Uh [laughter]

[42:13] uh yeah I I just have a couple of uh comments here. One, thank you. I mean I

[42:17] think these are all incredibly important projects and uh and good to see them

[42:21] moving forward. Um I do think that there's probably benefit for us to kind

[42:26] of uh have the outcome metrics come back to this table for sign off at some point

[42:30] in the future and probably also the um excuse me for my voice is just coming in

[42:35] and out for some reason the last couple of weeks. um uh that the the timeline

[42:40] for the status reporting and so forth should probably also we should figure

[42:43] that out uh at some point not in the immediate future but I think as we

[42:46] develop those KPIs and so I'm just uh going to uh turn to staff because I had

[42:50] a thought of perhaps just amending [clears throat] the seeing the motion

[42:54] amended just to be clear that the target outcome metrics that they that they do

[42:58] come back to council for signoff and that the reporting timelines uh come

[43:02] back as well. uh is that something that count that staff would see as as

[43:06] reasonable? >> Thank you, mayor. Definitely the targets

[43:11] and the performance measures uh progress reporting uh other council priority

[43:15] projects we usually report on semiannually for the updates that we

[43:19] provide for all projects. Uh so that would be um our intent. Uh but if

[43:25] there's something different that council would like to see for this particular

[43:28] project, uh definitely open to hearing that. Thanks. [laughter] I see Miss H

[43:32] reaching for the microphones. Walter inter.

[43:35] » Thank you, your worship. I just wanted to clarify when you speak about status

[43:38] reporting, are you meaning in terms of the implementation of the various

[43:41] initiatives or status reporting once we have those outcome metrics that we would

[43:45] be reporting back to council on an annual basis with with a measure of you

[43:50] know the metrics against the targets. Uh so just to clarify that please. Yeah, I

[43:54] I think probably the the important piece from a governance level I would see

[43:58] being more the uh a retainment of the KPIs once we've signed off on those. I

[44:02] you know at a high level here um you know my my hope is that and this is sort

[44:08] of a a bit of a maybe a cultural shift but you know I mean ideally we're not as

[44:14] a council getting into too so far into the weeds on the individual projects.

[44:18] Um, you know, it's helpful to have the information, but at the end of the day,

[44:21] we're, you know, here to essentially set the the goals and and and staff to come

[44:26] back with with with projects that help achieve that can achieve those. Um, and

[44:30] and hopefully if we're setting, uh, you know, the outcomes, the desired

[44:33] outcomes, then, you know, if we all agree on that, both staff and council,

[44:37] then we're, you know, that sh that should shape decision- making. So, as

[44:40] you're working on the projects and you have to prioritize to say, "Okay, well,

[44:43] we've all agreed that these are the priorities and here's the outcomes and

[44:46] and if there's things that staff, you know, need to come back and check in for

[44:49] council to get approval on, then that's clear, right? That's so the intention

[44:53] here is to kind of get us back to the KPI piece." And I think that's the

[44:56] primary piece. The status of the individual projects, I think, is less

[45:00] important than it is the status of the outcomes. Um, they're obviously driven

[45:04] by the status of the outcome of the of the individual projects. Does that m

[45:09] » Yes. Thank you very much. that helps. And uh what I may suggest is that um uh

[45:13] we introduced a trimester reporting progress uh report just recently which

[45:18] primarily included financial and HR indicators. Uh we can build on that

[45:22] trimester reporting um to include you know community building uh and planning

[45:27] indicators. Um you know we could do an annual performance report. I think um

[45:32] you know there are avenues where we're already reporting to council in terms of

[45:35] KPIs and we can add uh to that. you know, the annual report is another one.

[45:39] Um, so I think if you let us take that away, we'll make sure that um, you know,

[45:43] we figure out the best um, reporting back process on that. In terms of

[45:48] determining what those targets are, I think what Mr. Bow um, mentioned is that

[45:53] as we work through sort of the bylaw changes that that we will become to

[45:57] council and talk about those bylaw changes and um, there will be choices

[46:02] for council in terms of how they relate to the outcomes. And so at that point

[46:06] we'll be having more of a discussion around those outcomes that council wants

[46:10] to see because if we make a bylaw amendment in one way there might be a

[46:14] certain outcome uh or target associated with that but if we do it in a different

[46:18] way there would be a different target or outcome associated with that and so I

[46:21] think those discussions will will come as part of the process in terms of um uh

[46:27] yeah for finalizing the initiative. So I'll let Mr. Bull add on if he has

[46:32] anything further. >> Okay. Oh thank you. So just for my

[46:35] clarification uh and I'll get to the main motion here in a second. um just

[46:43] because we haven't yet defined those KPIs and they will drive the decision-m

[46:47] that goes forward like when does is like I guess my question here is either can

[46:53] you can we be clear about when those KPIs will come back to council for sign

[46:56] off or is it something that we should just put in as a as a as a amendment to

[47:00] the motion that those will come back to council so that there's actually on the

[47:04] record that they're coming back uh for council

[47:15] Sorry. Thank you, Miss Cook. >> Thank you, mayor. Um, so yeah, the

[47:18] [clears throat] initiative 10 performance measures and monitoring has

[47:22] kind of two phases um in which we're planning on rolling it out. Um, so

[47:26] there's kind of that Sorry, just let me go back to the program.

[47:38] So the first phase um so Q3 2026 so about I'd say about October um of this

[47:45] year we will um have established some some KPIs and performance measures that

[47:50] we'll then use to measure the success um of the initiative and I think that that

[47:54] it'll be a bit of an ongoing process um because as I mentioned before when we

[47:58] get into the more detailed scoping of each initiative we'll be developing kind

[48:03] of further KPIs to measure that specific initiative. So, I think we can report

[48:07] back on performance measures um when we first established them in Q3 2026, but I

[48:13] do think potentially through that tri um trimester uh report that we could update

[48:18] on KPIs specific to each initiative if that's something that council would like

[48:22] to hear from us. Thank you. >> Okay. Yeah, Mr.

[48:26] maybe to add um specifically for building permits for example uh because

[48:31] that's worked on uh starting later this year and next year in the first quarters

[48:37] uh I anticipate we would as part of that initiative come back to you about how

[48:41] those processes can be changed and that will also directly relate to number 10

[48:45] performance measures so I see that with those two initiatives coming together

[48:49] there and we'll come back to you with options and specifics at that point in

[48:54] time so you get to direct specifically for building permits at that time and

[48:58] then at other times other topics may come up that require your input. Thanks.

[49:02] Okay. So, just for my clarification, there's not a spec in October we expect

[49:07] some of the KPIs to be coming back and and presented to council. Is that what

[49:11] I'm I'm hearing? Is that the sort of Well, October is a terrible time because

[49:15] it'll be right in the middle of an election. [laughter]

[49:19] » Probably early in the new year. >> Yeah. Your worship. Um I think let us

[49:25] take it away. Uh we I understand exactly what you're looking for. You're looking

[49:29] for council to set the targets in terms of those broader outcomes. Um and we

[49:34] will make sure that we return to council to have that discussion as we work

[49:37] through this project um later this year as we look at the individual uh KPIs.

[49:42] That goes to councelor Patterson's. I don't want to get me down in a whole

[49:46] variety of different KPIs and I think what you're looking at are those top

[49:49] level ones in terms of outcomes and uh we will make sure we come back to

[49:53] council once we've got into this um to have that discussion with you.

[49:57] » Okay. Is there any benefit in amending the motion to sort of be clear about

[50:00] that? Is >> okay. I'll leave that to turn to council

[50:04] if they feel that's important um um to have that language in there, but

[50:09] otherwise it's just a general understanding that that will come back

[50:12] for council consideration. Um

[50:16] council read, >> I think that um it's my understanding

[50:21] that staff, both planning staff and senior staff have an understanding of of

[50:25] what you were talking about. I'm not sure we need an amendment per se, but

[50:29] » No, that's fine. I I I tend to agree sometimes it's beneficial to have

[50:33] clarity, but it's not always required. So, um I'll leave my comments there and

[50:37] thank you to staff for the for the work that's been going on on this. So, right

[50:41] now we have a motion on the floor which is the staff recommendation. I don't see

[50:46] any other discussions. We'll call the question. All those in favor? Any

[50:49] opposed? Not opposed? That carries and good luck with all the projects.

[50:55] Uh move to section now section 10. These are also both available for public

[50:59] input. Uh item first one up is uh item 10.1 288 Hampshire Lane. This is a

[51:06] request for a development variance permit. Um and I will hand this over to

[51:11] is it Miss Clever. Welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening Mayor and

[51:16] council. Uh the purpose of this report and application pertains to an

[51:22] application for a development variance permit as you just mentioned to

[51:26] specifically increase the lot coverage and also reduce um the setback

[51:32] requirement of 3 mters between buildings and structures um to permit the

[51:38] [clears throat] construction of pergola in on an existing patio um of a

[51:42] relatively newly developed residential lot. Um the property owners and

[51:47] applicant are actually here today if you have any questions later. But

[51:51] essentially they're asking for this permit um to for a custom design pergola

[51:57] um to better enjoy their their rear yard um and also just for protection from the

[52:02] sun for health purposes. So uh design plans are in um attached as attachment

[52:09] five um which also the rationale behind the intentionality of the project is in

[52:15] attachment six. So as I mentioned before the variance triggers two requirements.

[52:22] So the increase of block coverage as well as the um reduction of sighting

[52:28] between um or the spatial separation of 3 m between buildings and structures um

[52:35] so that it can be positioned in a specific place that makes sense uh on

[52:39] the existing patio. Um ultimately they've they've consulted neighbors.

[52:44] They have strata approval um to proceed and uh staff recommend approval of the

[52:50] development variance permit. Thank you. >> Thank you very much for the overview.

[52:54] Are there any questions from members of council to the applicant or to staff? Go

[52:58] ahead, councelor briefly. Um, >> thanks very much. My question would be

[53:01] to staff. I'm just wondering if um the reduced separation would create any um

[53:06] fire separation or building code concerns um or will those have been um

[53:11] addressed through the building permit process? Thank you.

[53:14] » Yeah, great question. Uh the 3 m setback historically was developed decades and

[53:20] decades ago um for that very reason to ensure that if a fire occurs that it

[53:24] doesn't um spread. Uh ultimately because of the nature of uh the opening of the

[53:30] pergola. Yes, it goes through a building permitting process. The building

[53:34] officials will evaluate this. But ultimately um the nature of the

[53:39] pre-existing patio, what's there uh staff have already kind of evaluated

[53:44] that there wouldn't be that um that that hazard. Um but it still has to go

[53:51] through the B building permit process. you may just one other question and this

[53:56] is probably for the applicant and I'm just wondering if the um pergola is

[54:00] intended to remain open or is there a future intention to enclose it at all?

[54:07] » I'm going to ask the applicant and property owners to come to the stage

[54:13] or to the podium I should say. >> Oh, just come to the desk here.

[54:17] » You can actually go and sit right there. No, it's okay.

[54:20] » All right. Okay. >> So, you probably heard the process. just

[54:24] state your name and municipality and uh you can answer the question about the

[54:28] » I'm new to Oak Bay so I'm going to say Oak Bay um and my name is Kevin Flanigan

[54:32] and it's going to the intent is to remain open it will be a slant or

[54:37] slanted uh pergola so that it kind of gives you some protection from the sun

[54:42] » thank you any other questions for the applicant not seeing any um we then open

[54:49] this floor up to uh members of the public who wish to address any of the

[54:53] issues related to this variance. Um, again, this is for 2088 Hampshire. I did

[54:59] lower a hand that was online earlier, so I'm not sure if there seems if the

[55:02] speaker I think it was just a legacy hand remaining from an earlier uh

[55:06] request. So, does anybody any members of the public either in person looking

[55:11] around not seeing any uh or online uh don't see any public input?

[55:17] » Staff recommendations second.

[55:19] » Seconded. Thank you. Um, any further discussion?

[55:23] All those in favor? Any oppose? You're approved. Good luck with the project.

[55:28] Enjoy the pergola. Hope we get some sun that you can actually use it. Um item

[55:34] number 10.2, which is 1538 Montterrey Avenue. This is the temporary use

[55:38] permit. Um for 1538 Montter Avenue. We have Mr. Green here, our deputy director

[55:43] of community building and planning to introduce the item. Same process will

[55:47] take place. There will be staff introduction, questions from council and

[55:51] then opportunity for public input. So you can come back and speak again if you

[55:54] wish. Please go ahead, Mr. Green. >> Uh good evening, members of council.

[55:59] [clears throat] The district has received a temporary use permit

[56:01] application for the property uh at 1538 Montre Avenue. The applicant is the

[56:07] district's facilities department who has submitted a temporary use permit in

[56:11] order to allow the use of the property to be used for temporary municipal

[56:14] office storage space and staff training facilities for the Oak Bay Police

[56:18] Department and the Oak Bay Fire Department for a period of three years.

[56:22] Staff have reviewed the proposal in context with the science area and based

[56:25] on this review staff believe the TU is supportable in accordance with the

[56:28] legislation and in accordance with council's development application

[56:31] procedure bylaw. uh staff did give uh notification so a development

[56:36] notification letter was sent to all properties within 50 meters as well as

[56:39] an advert placed in the Oak Bay news on two separate occasions. Uh the applicant

[56:43] is also here to answer any questions that council may have on the application

[56:47] and planning staff are also happy to answer any questions that council have

[56:50] on the technical merits of the application.

[56:55] » Thank you very much Mr. Green by the applicant as Mr. Graham. Is that the

[56:59] green? Welcome. Good to see you. Councelor Patterson and Councelor Green

[57:02] and then councelor Briew. >> Yes. Thank you, mayor, and through you

[57:06] to staff. Um just to follow up on uh Mr. King did speak about this earlier on,

[57:11] but his comments are certainly echoed by many of the residents that are u

[57:16] particularly on Mterrey. And so as part of this temporary use permit and the

[57:23] uses we're we're planning for this um what are the plans to uh provide more

[57:31] particularly um clean up and maintenance of the of the green space around the

[57:36] building proper. >> Mr. Graham

[57:41] » uh through your worship uh currently we maintain the property to just a minimum

[57:46] standard uh with in alignment with our budget uh restraints and parks generally

[57:51] cleans it and cuts the loans twice a year. So currently it wasn't our intent

[57:55] to change that.

[58:01] » I have councel green in the brief. >> Thank you and through you uh to staff.

[58:06] Thank you very much for the report. Um just wondered following on councelor

[58:12] Patterson's comments. Just wondering um what if any plan consultation there will

[58:16] be with immediate neighbors that obviously have concerns about about the

[58:20] property. Um I think the end result will address many of their concerns as it

[58:27] becomes utilized and maintained. But is there any plan to at least talk with

[58:31] them and and just um get a really good understanding of what what is concerning

[58:36] to them? Thank you.

[58:41] Um I guess from planning staff's perspective obviously we have complied

[58:45] with the legislation in terms of sending a notification letter out to everybody

[58:48] within 50 meters as well as place an advert in the paper and obviously this

[58:52] is the opportunity for the public to have their say on the vacation.

[58:55] Obviously, if the applicant uh wants or if council wants the applicant to do

[59:00] further consultation, then that's the will of council, then that could also be

[59:03] an opportunity that you could add a condition to the temporary use permit or

[59:07] either as a pre-issuance condition or before council considers that

[59:10] application to for the applicant to host some kind of information session with

[59:14] the immediate neighbors is also an opportunity for that could be if council

[59:18] so chooses. >> Thank you.

[59:22] » Thank you, councelor Green. Councelor Braith in Appleton. Oh, thanks so much.

[59:25] And my mine were around um some of the neighborhood impacts as well. Um and

[59:29] questions around like um you know, how often will the fire department training

[59:32] occur, the police training occur? Is it in evenings, weekends, overnight? Um

[59:37] will there be sirens, smoke machines? I think we've heard that there are smoke

[59:41] machines. Um you know, similated emergencies, those kind of all came up

[59:45] when I was reading the report. You know, where will the trainee park? Um will

[59:49] there be any impact on the neighborhood parking? and how will the neighbors know

[59:53] when the training is going to occur? So, those are some of the questions I have.

[59:58] » Over to you, Mr. Graham. >> Uh, thank you through your worship. Um,

[1:00:01] if if I missed any of the questions, just there was a list there. Um, signage

[1:00:06] is placed out in front of the building whenever there's um training. Uh,

[1:00:09] training um I won't say will happen daily, but based on the training

[1:00:13] requirements we have under the provincial legislation, it could be that

[1:00:16] often. It is done during the day, not in the evening. So it would meet with our

[1:00:21] um all of our um noise bylaws and those sort of things. Um generally we do um I

[1:00:28] won't say occasionally, quite regularly use an actual smoke machine. Uh the

[1:00:32] other opportunity with um the fires, they'll use full blackout face masks,

[1:00:37] but the intention is to create as realistic conditions as possible. Uh we

[1:00:41] typically leave the windows open for a few hours afterwards to allow the smoke

[1:00:44] to come out. It's just a standard smoke machine that you'd use on any film set

[1:00:48] type of a condition. Um, did I miss

[1:00:53] sorry >> parking for the trainees that are there?

[1:00:56] » Oh, for parking being that it's so close to the um uh the fire department, the

[1:01:01] police department. Uh generally they just bring the apparatus over.

[1:01:06] » Thank you. And then um the the report also mentions plumbing upgrades and

[1:01:11] safety upgrades and and do we know what plan what um work is um is actually

[1:01:16] planned and and what the cost of that might be

[1:01:20] » uh through your worship that uh building permit is actually related to our

[1:01:23] ongoing maintenance of the building. It's not related to the temporary use

[1:01:27] permit. Um we did some uh extra bracing on the back deck for instance just

[1:01:31] recently. Uh, I believe there's a toilet in there we're looking at replacing, but

[1:01:35] being that the building isn't in use, we're likely just going to shut that

[1:01:38] toilet off. >> Um, thank you. And if I may, mayor, um,

[1:01:42] and what I noticed in the report, it said that we're going from two lots to

[1:01:46] one lot for the TU. I think it said somewhere in there that we we have to

[1:01:50] make it into one lot. Is that correct, Mr. through your worship to council bra

[1:01:55] from planning stress perspective. We are adding that as a condition to the TU

[1:02:00] that consolidates the lot given that I think there's an expectation that this

[1:02:03] lot be brought into compliance with the zoning bar rather than being a a legal

[1:02:06] non-conforming use. And so the planning staff have

[1:02:10] recommended that condition be added to that draft permit.

[1:02:13] » Thank you. And so then my question would be um after the 3 years if if um the TU

[1:02:19] is has ended after the three years will it then go back to the two lots or will

[1:02:24] it stay as the one lot? >> Mr. through your wish to cancel the to

[1:02:30] in order then to create two lots the uh the applicant or the land owner need to

[1:02:35] submit a subdivision application to subdivide a property into two lots if

[1:02:39] that is the what is the requirement but at the end of that three years there's

[1:02:42] an expectation that the slight be yeah uh remain as it was prior to uh

[1:02:49] commencement of the development but there isn't the lot consolidation is a a

[1:02:54] condition that we are the planning staff are recommending be

[1:02:57] um undertaken.

[1:03:02] » You go ahead, councelor Appleton. >> Thank you, worship. So, just expanding

[1:03:06] on the idea of of just public information. So, I heard that there was

[1:03:10] the proposal to put signage out to sort of inform people what was going on. I

[1:03:13] just and this may be more a question for the fire service rather than Mr. But is

[1:03:18] there any other is the nature of the training and the timeline of the

[1:03:23] training consistent enough such that we the fire service might be able to uh

[1:03:28] provide to local neighbors at least a rough idea of approximately the the

[1:03:34] timing and the nature of what to expect as far as that I think that might help

[1:03:39] neighbors a lot >> uh threeear worship I can't speak in

[1:03:44] detail because the fire chief isn't here but generally The answer is yes. We're

[1:03:47] consistent of training short of being called out on actual emergencies. Uh the

[1:03:51] training would be uh set regularly uh during the uh daytime.

[1:03:57] » Go ahead, Council. >> Thank you, Worship. Less of a question,

[1:04:00] more just a comment. I think it would be I guess yeah, without being able to

[1:04:03] speak directly to fire services. I think that it would be useful if there was

[1:04:07] even some kind of circular bulletin or some type of regular posting on the

[1:04:12] district's website that local residents could consult to just sort of get a

[1:04:15] sense of when those things might be going on. So, just make that notation

[1:04:19] for staff.

[1:04:22] » Before I go back to second time questions, uh are there any the first

[1:04:26] time? Um I just have questions to follow up on on the line of questioning

[1:04:30] already. Um the while there's what's proposed for us

[1:04:36] is the is a maintenance or continuation of the current maintenance model. There

[1:04:40] is a possibility that we could direct that maintenance level becreased with a

[1:04:45] thing with that thing. Thank you. The other question I have was just around

[1:04:48] parking there that is because it's adjacent to the village is a high use uh

[1:04:53] space. Does the and you you there's a comment made that the equipment would

[1:04:57] come over from the fire hall, but that's would that parking space would it would

[1:05:01] that be uh impacted? Would that be have to be reserved for chunks of the day for

[1:05:06] the fire department use or would that would they be able to use their

[1:05:09] equipment around the corner or other places that doesn't use up parking in

[1:05:12] the village or adjacent to the village? Mr. Graham,

[1:05:16] » uh to your worship, the the apparatus usually parks in the front of the

[1:05:20] building right on Mterrey. Uh there is a fire hydrant there. So there is a no

[1:05:24] parking section that they generally park on. From observing the the the test

[1:05:29] exercises that we've done there to see how well the apparatus fits, it will

[1:05:32] take up a couple of parking spots on Montre Avenue. We don't generally bring

[1:05:37] the apparatus down a theater lane to park. Um the firefighters would carry

[1:05:42] ladders around to the back of the building and do um practice evacuations

[1:05:46] um things like that. >> Okay. So So do we have a sense of what

[1:05:50] would be required then? If it's using up two parking spaces, would those parking

[1:05:54] spaces have to be reserved ahead of time because obviously people might be

[1:05:57] parking there on a regular basis and then the parking the equipment couldn't

[1:06:01] park there if they if they needed the space.

[1:06:04] » Uh to your worship, yes, they generally the days that they're going to be

[1:06:06] training, they would put up signs really early in the morning to uh block those

[1:06:10] spots open. >> Okay. And again, do we have a sense of

[1:06:14] the frequency of that training? >> Worst case scenario would be daily. I

[1:06:19] think it would be fairly consistent that it would be almost daily.

[1:06:23] » Okay. Uh and the other uh question I have is just in the uses here. I mean

[1:06:29] there was temporary municipal office office storage uh and staff training for

[1:06:33] the police and fire departments. So is there any in thought here that that

[1:06:37] would actually would would this be used for municipal offices or office storage?

[1:06:43] » Uh to your worship, we do store some spare furniture in there. Part of it is

[1:06:46] mockups for the uh the fire department to maneuver through um uh almost like a

[1:06:51] little bit of a maze. Uh we do have it set up in case there is a flood or other

[1:06:55] emergency just as part of business continuity for the district. If we had

[1:06:58] to, we could move people in there temporarily to do temporary repairs or

[1:07:03] something. But to date, we've never had to do that and we're not really

[1:07:06] expecting to. >> Okay. Thank you for those answers. I

[1:07:10] have second time speakers and Patterson. >> Uh thanks mayor. Actually, you you've

[1:07:14] kind of asked one of mine questions, which was um because the the report

[1:07:18] emphasizes the value of the site for the training, but it doesn't ever indicate

[1:07:22] how many days a month it'll be used or how long the ex exercises will typically

[1:07:26] typically last. But what I heard you say was that they're daily and they could go

[1:07:31] on all day. So, okay. Um if that if there's it would be nice for the

[1:07:38] neighbors um that that they would have that because then we can maybe assess

[1:07:43] the impact for for them if if they knew in advance exactly how many days um the

[1:07:50] training was going to go on. >> I think it's more of a comment than a

[1:07:54] question. So we'll uh do you say anything Mr. Grim?

[1:07:58] » Uh through your worship uh training at at like I say at worst could be daily.

[1:08:02] It's usually only a few hours is our intent. Um there's uh I can get you

[1:08:07] those exact details on the provincial standards for the number of hours of

[1:08:10] training they have to put in per week. Um but uh I'm I'm like I say I'm I'm

[1:08:15] showing kind of worst case scenario could be every other day but I I do want

[1:08:19] to be clear it could be every day for a few hours. Usually they try and take

[1:08:22] care of it in the morning and um the afternoons get a little busier for

[1:08:25] callouts. >> Councelor Patterson.

[1:08:30] » Yes. Thank you, Marin. I I will just comment because I have I have to

[1:08:35] maneuver through the area when we d when the training is is going on and um it is

[1:08:42] very close to the accessible parking in the village. So, I think that that's

[1:08:47] something that we unfortunately the fire chief is not here to speak to it

[1:08:50] tonight, but that's something we have to consider. I have also been caught a

[1:08:54] couple of times of um there wasn't good direction for where pedestrians go. uh

[1:09:01] because you then might have to maneuver out into the street and walk around the

[1:09:06] fire truck on till they get set up because there's obstructions across the

[1:09:10] sidewalk. But also, I've been caught in the um uh the circumstance of I guess

[1:09:16] they had an alarm and so everybody had to come running out of the house and get

[1:09:20] on the truck and away they go, which if you're a pedestrian caught up in that,

[1:09:24] it's so I think logistically there needs to be uh um some uh review

[1:09:32] of this. But also a question through you, Mayor, uh for Mr. Graham. I

[1:09:37] believed at some point in time you talked about um removing the uh the

[1:09:42] garage from the site and if if Mr. Graeme could just refresh my memory on

[1:09:48] that. >> Mr. Graham

[1:09:51] » uh three worship that was one proposal I think it was in January that we looked

[1:09:55] at if we did want to turn part of that site into parking. Um it was it was not

[1:10:01] something we were moving forward with at this time. We do find people, we have

[1:10:06] had garbage dumped off around that garage. As soon as we notice it, we

[1:10:10] clean it up. Uh we've also put uh doors and secured that building much better

[1:10:14] than it was. So, uh hopefully that happens a lot less often, but there's no

[1:10:18] intention of removing the garage at this point in time.

[1:10:25] » I don't see other questions for members of council. So, if there's any members

[1:10:28] of the public who wish to speak to council, yeah, uh you're welcome to come

[1:10:30] forward. Uh same process as before, just uh state your name, municipality of

[1:10:35] residence. >> Hi again. Uh David King. Uh thank you

[1:10:39] very much. I'm sorry I didn't realize the procedure before, but um I live

[1:10:42] actually immediately adjacent to the property and uh our neighbors are here

[1:10:46] who are also adjacent and I have actually been in conversations with our

[1:10:50] neighbors who are directly beside it as well and we're all kind of collectively

[1:10:53] on the same page. I'd like to challenge a couple things um around the parking

[1:10:59] and the way these exercises have gone. I mean, number one, we have not been

[1:11:02] informed. Um, as you're aware, the alley between Montree and Hampshire is one way

[1:11:08] that does not exit on the north. Our only exit is onto Theater Lane. Theater

[1:11:13] Lane is already exceptionally busy. Uh, garbage pickup every day, large garbage

[1:11:17] pickup, deliveries to local businesses, with trucks, uh, to the pubs, and to all

[1:11:23] the businesses there. when you have added the fire trucks in

[1:11:28] the last little while because the fire trucks were actually on Mterrey in

[1:11:32] theater lane and up our alley and when I've asked the firemen cuz I was unable

[1:11:38] to get out if they would move the trucks. They were very very polite and

[1:11:41] kind but it did take them 10 or 15 minutes to gather somebody up to to be

[1:11:46] able to move a truck. Um, I also just say it is it is a pretty, you know, with

[1:11:52] the with the smoke coming out and the firemen coming around, it it I think

[1:11:56] it's a lot more activity than most people would want in a daily basis um in

[1:12:02] their backyard. Um, I'd also like to speak if I could on

[1:12:07] the the minimum standard that was discussed about mowing the lawn twice a

[1:12:11] year. I I really would love to go out with the mayor and council and have a

[1:12:16] walk over the property because um it is actually frankly a little bit

[1:12:21] embarrassing this the state of of the property and um and the lack of the lack

[1:12:27] of maintenance on the property. Um so so really as I said we always probably

[1:12:32] understood that there would be some development there and I understand that

[1:12:35] there is a requirement for that but what I would appreciate is some more

[1:12:40] consultation with us with the neighbors. uh this letter I got. I appreciate it,

[1:12:45] but it was the first time I'd heard about this. And when I had and when our

[1:12:49] neighbors had tried to make inquiries to the municipality about the nature of the

[1:12:54] training, we we didn't get much of a response. And uh there are other

[1:12:59] elements with that property that are uh that are a challenge right now. And

[1:13:04] again, that is the the the parking on Theater Lane. Again, uh as I said,

[1:13:09] Theater Lane's very busy. It is being used as temporary parking. The

[1:13:14] municipality did put up no parking signs. Um what happens is the people

[1:13:19] come, they throw the signs behind the the buildings and they park there

[1:13:23] anyways. And when I've made my inquiries to the municipality, I've been told

[1:13:28] they're going to look into it. I've yet to ever hear back. Uh last thing is on

[1:13:33] the garbage. Um I would challenge what was said. uh that area is used as a

[1:13:39] pretty reg routine dump and that that material is left there for months and if

[1:13:45] you were to go and have a look there now people are using it as their as their

[1:13:49] garden dump and dump for other materials behind the garage. Um I would really ask

[1:13:56] that at this stage uh there's some time for that this be denied. There be some

[1:14:00] more time for consultation with us and see if there is more that can be done uh

[1:14:07] to support us and figure out a way forward with this property. So thank you

[1:14:11] very much Mary. I really appreciate the time the opportunity to speak.

[1:14:14] » Thank you very much Mr. King. Yes. Please come forward.

[1:14:19] Exactly the same protocol. Just uh have a seat. uh turn to the microphone on

[1:14:23] your name and municipality and then uh please address council.

[1:14:28] » Good evening. I'm Michael Shan Danaher. I'm next door neighbor to the person

[1:14:32] that just spoke um living in Oak Bay on Hampshire and I am the property directly

[1:14:37] adjacent behind uh the property we're discussing. I would just like to

[1:14:42] reiterate my neighbors comments the state of disrepair. I don't want to be

[1:14:47] disrespectful, but I don't think I would be a good

[1:14:50] neighbor if I cut my grass twice a year. I don't think I would be a good neighbor

[1:14:56] if I didn't take care of my trees, my shrubs, if I left garbage in my yard, if

[1:15:02] I left my house in a state of disrepair. I think Obey is a beautiful community. A

[1:15:10] lot of people take great pride in their buildings

[1:15:14] and it's a black eye on the township. You really should take a look at the

[1:15:20] state of it. Several months ago, there's a garage that's um gravity is slowly

[1:15:27] winning the battle and garbage and refuence was in disrepair. So, temporary

[1:15:35] fencing was put up. The township's solution was rental fencing, green

[1:15:40] rental fencing because cars were illegally parking. They there's a pub

[1:15:45] nearby. There are restaurants nearby. Parking is a premium and they were

[1:15:50] coming into the laneway and illegally parking. So solution, let's put

[1:15:55] temporary fencing up. Um temporary is temporary half a year.

[1:16:02] I I just I I don't want to be disrespectful, but I don't think this

[1:16:06] property is being taken care of properly. And now an application has

[1:16:09] been put in to put the h the house in greater state of disrepair.

[1:16:15] It's let's abuse it. Let's have firemen regularly conduct drills in there. And

[1:16:21] at some point, I imagine the house will be torn down for a future developer

[1:16:27] because not much is being done to maintain it. As has already said, a

[1:16:31] toilet is in disrepair. Okay, let's just shut that toilet off. So, as a neighbor,

[1:16:37] I see the writing on the wall that this house is going to be abused until it

[1:16:40] comes down and the town will cut the grass twice a year and barely maintain

[1:16:46] standards until someone actually builds something and uh respects property.

[1:16:53] » Thank you for your comments.

[1:16:58] Uh, any other members of the public wish to speak to council?

[1:17:04] » Oh,

[1:17:12] hi. >> Just thank you and council. Um, my name

[1:17:17] is Anton Brackage. Um, resident of Oak Bay.

[1:17:22] Live fairly near to the the area in question and and pass through the area

[1:17:27] fairly frequently. Um, I guess what I would like to ask is

[1:17:34] since this location, as I understand, is being used for training for police and

[1:17:38] fire, um, if this was not approved, what is

[1:17:42] the alternative for training, is there any alternative location they could use

[1:17:48] or would this just mean not being able to meet the training standards? And I

[1:17:53] think that's something I'd like some clarification on.

[1:17:56] Thank you. >> Thank you for that.

[1:18:00] Any other members of the public? Uh we have a hand up online. Eric Zelka,

[1:18:04] please go ahead.

[1:18:08] » Uh council, uh mayor, uh thank you. Uh Eric Zulka from the north part of Oak

[1:18:12] Bay. Oh my goodness. Uh quite a interesting bit of information regarding

[1:18:17] this property. Uh so many things to talk about. Number one is um the state of the

[1:18:23] property is rather I agree with many other members who have spoken. The state

[1:18:27] of the property is terrible. Absolutely terrible. It reflects incredibly bad on

[1:18:31] the owner of the property which is the district of Oak Bay and is an indication

[1:18:36] a proxy measure of the lack of standards of the lowering of standards within Oak

[1:18:42] Bay. Now this may not be true but it sure looks that way with the way Oak Bay

[1:18:47] treats this property and treats the neighbors in that area. So absolutely

[1:18:50] the property must be um uh uh at the very least they grass cut more than

[1:18:54] twice a year. That's ridiculous. Number two is um I know the the fire department

[1:19:00] has been looking for training uh uh uh places for quite a number of years. Uh I

[1:19:05] know they were looking at the uh fifth Gary Oak uh building at one point but uh

[1:19:09] I guess that didn't work out. Uh mutual aid. This is what this is the point of

[1:19:13] mutual aid. I don't know know why we are not uh um getting into contract with uh

[1:19:18] with Sandwich Fire or with uh Victoria Fire or if we have to drive all the way

[1:19:22] over to Souk or whatever to do our training, why is it why why aren't we uh

[1:19:26] uh considering mutual aid or is there something else going on? This is

[1:19:30] definitely a place for mutual aid. Uh number three, uh I'm I'm quite alarmed.

[1:19:35] Thank you uh councelor Braithway for bringing forward the question about the

[1:19:38] two lots being forced to combine into one. I was on council years ago with

[1:19:43] many of you when we the building was purchased. It's a land bank and having

[1:19:48] two lots gives greater flexibility to council for what it can be done in the

[1:19:52] future. Forcing it to be combined is ridiculous. So council should tell staff

[1:19:58] that no, do not combine the two lots. Keep them separate. And if staff insists

[1:20:03] because of some, I don't know, provincial regulation, well then do the

[1:20:06] tup only on one of the two lots. do not combine the two lots until we know we

[1:20:12] the royal we all bay what's going to be done to to with that area whether it's

[1:20:17] going to be a new police station whether it's going to be what the money was was

[1:20:21] intended for which is a parking for downtown businesses or some other

[1:20:26] appropriate uh use uh that that's uh that's a benefit to all of Oak Bay. Uh

[1:20:32] so thank you very much uh uh council and please um u uh you know brush up, paint

[1:20:37] up uh uh make us proud uh as opposed to being a terrible example for the rest of

[1:20:42] us. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments, Mr. Zulka.

[1:20:47] Don't see any other hands of people wishing to speak.

[1:20:51] Okay. Uh I don't see any more online. So I'm going to come back to this table. Uh

[1:20:56] we have a report in front of us. We've had an opportunity for questions. Is

[1:20:58] there any further questions from members of council at this time?

[1:21:04] If not, go ahead, councelor Watson, then I'll seek a direction and we have a

[1:21:07] motion. >> Yes. I just like to follow up on the

[1:21:10] question that we got from a member of the public about alternative locations

[1:21:14] for this training. Um uh and I I understand we don't have our fire chief

[1:21:18] here, but I think that's a fair question. if not here, is there anywhere

[1:21:23] else within the municipality that we can we can meet our requirements and

[1:21:27] standards for that that very regular training? Um, so I I don't know who to

[1:21:31] give that to. Maybe I guess it is Mr. Graham. Thank you,

[1:21:34] » Mr. Graham. >> Uh, through your worship, the there were

[1:21:38] a couple of uh comments made. One was having training off off outside the

[1:21:43] district. If we do that, we have to take the crew offline. So, we'd basically be

[1:21:46] paying two crews uh to do it. Uh there's no other training that's within the

[1:21:51] response time zones. The the training being very close to the

[1:21:56] existing fire hall allows us to keep that crew in an active status and that

[1:22:00] that if there is an emergency call, they can respond immediately. Uh getting too

[1:22:04] far outside of um you know, too far south or too far north, the trucks won't

[1:22:08] be able to respond adequately. Um so there is no other location that we've

[1:22:13] currently identified.

[1:22:17] » Thank you, Mr. Uh, thank you. I'm going to just do a

[1:22:21] followup before I go to councelor Braithweed and that is just the the fire

[1:22:25] department does do current training. I think it is in the scout hall or some

[1:22:29] other areas. Is there uh and you may not know this question maybe more for the

[1:22:34] fire chief but is there a mechanism by which um the frequency of use of this

[1:22:38] building is not daily or near daily but is more sort of uh as is used more

[1:22:43] episodically and the existing uh sites that are being used continue Mr. Mr. for

[1:22:49] him. >> Uh to your worship, I can certainly

[1:22:52] explore that with the fire chief and and get a more accurate schedule from him

[1:22:56] and get that uh bring that information back to council.

[1:22:59] » Councelor Brie. >> Uh thank you, mayor. I'm just wondering

[1:23:02] um if this uh if we did want to go and have a meeting with u the neighbors

[1:23:08] around um this property uh and it puts um a bit of a delay on this. Is there

[1:23:15] would there be any issues with with putting a temporary delay on on passing

[1:23:20] this um to give us an opportunity to perhaps get some more information um for

[1:23:26] the public and from the public? Graham

[1:23:30] » uh through your worship that what I would want to refer to the fire chief. I

[1:23:35] know that um if we're not doing training adequately enough we we do fall out of

[1:23:40] our our standards but we do have we do have some leeway um currently some of

[1:23:44] the training we've been doing um in the parking lot which creates its own issues

[1:23:48] with the playground adjacent to it um is meeting the minimum standards but um we

[1:23:54] are now falling out of standard. We need we need a structure to work with.

[1:24:00] » M Anderson. >> Uh thank you, mayor. I believe Chief

[1:24:02] McDonald has joined us online.

[1:24:08] » Uh do you want to put that >> Yeah. Do you want to put that question

[1:24:11] to the uh Chief McDonald? >> Uh sure. Um, Chief McDonald, I'm not

[1:24:14] sure if you heard the question, but it was in regards to um if we uh if we did

[1:24:19] um delay this decision uh so that we could go out to the public and perhaps

[1:24:24] get more information for them and um for for council, um would that um would that

[1:24:31] be an issue for the fire department? >> Go ahead, Chief.

[1:24:38] » Hi. Can you hear me, your honor? And >> um yes, I heard the uh the question. Uh

[1:24:44] uh thank you and good evening. I have been uh following the uh the past 10

[1:24:48] minutes or so. Um yes, if we do delay that that will have somewhat of an

[1:24:53] impact on our our day-to-day uh uh training. Uh we can do some limited

[1:24:59] interior training at the fire hall, but we can't do multifloor training and we

[1:25:03] are extremely limited with regards to our options to perform our provincial

[1:25:08] job uh performance requirements under the uh the OFC um playbook and the

[1:25:13] provincial training requirements where we can do interior search and multifloor

[1:25:17] training. Uh this is one of the few locations that we can actually do it in

[1:25:21] the district.

[1:25:25] » Thank thank you very much. Um because I I'm just trying to find a a solution um

[1:25:31] that we could uh move forward with this but and yet give the the the the

[1:25:36] residents an opportunity to have some input into um or to gather more

[1:25:42] information for them um to be able to make them feel comfortable about this

[1:25:47] happening within their neighborhood as well. And I'm just not really sure how

[1:25:50] to go about that. >> Okay.

[1:25:54] » Yeah. If I uh uh if I may, um we we c we do have a um a training calendar for the

[1:26:00] year and it is possible for us to uh you know de develop a schedule uh that we

[1:26:06] can make uh available. We could also uh post it when we do plan on on being on

[1:26:11] premises providing our operational schedule uh allows it.

[1:26:17] » Thank you for that chief. Um, I guess my other question would be around the

[1:26:23] maintenance as well. Um, because that that to me is is kind of shocking um in

[1:26:27] regards to uh us allowing a property to be if it's in that sort of disrepair.

[1:26:34] Um, I would like to know um from staff if we can up the maintenance on that

[1:26:38] property and take care of some of the um the things that the the residents around

[1:26:43] there have have talked about tonight because that to me seems like that would

[1:26:48] be an issue that we would really want to take care of.

[1:26:53] » We give that to the chief. Chief, how's your green thumb?

[1:26:57] » Mr. Graham. >> Oh, miss.

[1:27:00] » Well, through the chair, I I I can jump in actually in in assistance with to Mr.

[1:27:05] Graham. Uh, you know, the fire department does have uh some um some

[1:27:09] funds that were allocated for capital uh improvements to support training uh

[1:27:14] which you might be able to to work with facilities to provide some uh support

[1:27:18] and financial options um uh over the coming uh period of time.

[1:27:24] » Wanted to add something? >> Yes. Uh thank you, worship. uh you know,

[1:27:28] council could direct staff to uh to consult with the neighbors and have a

[1:27:33] conversation with them, report back to council in terms of what we can do, um

[1:27:37] you know, u to increase the maintenance and the the costs and resources involved

[1:27:41] in that. We can report back to council, but uh that is something that council

[1:27:44] could direct staff to do. >> Right. Thank you for that. Uh I'll go to

[1:27:49] councelor Green and then I have a question.

[1:27:51] » Um are you taking comments yet or just questions at the moment? We don't have a

[1:27:55] motion on the floor, but uh so probably try and really keep us to questions at

[1:27:59] this point, then we can get some direction from council and speak to that

[1:28:02] for comments. [snorts] >> Okay, then through you mayor to staff

[1:28:05] and thank you very much um for all the information. Um,

[1:28:10] it says in the report that part of the intended use was temporary municipal

[1:28:16] offices. And I guess my question is what is required to make those habitable then

[1:28:21] given the state of of what the neighbors have reported and and the fact that the

[1:28:26] house is being used for something very different at the moment. Um, what was

[1:28:31] the plan around um temporary office space? Thank you.

[1:28:37] Go >> ahead, Mr. Green.

[1:28:38] That will be a question for the applicant.

[1:28:40] » Okay. Yeah, Mr. Sorry, I thought I saw you raise your hand. Uh, Mr. Graham, my

[1:28:44] my impression here is that the municipal office space is essentially not not

[1:28:47] really on the books at this point. >> Uh, through your worship, there's

[1:28:51] there's no active plans to do that. It is an emergency backup for business

[1:28:54] continuity. If if one of our other facilities had a flood or something like

[1:28:58] that, the interior of the building is is clean, usable. There's one toilet that I

[1:29:02] would probably replace if I had it. Uh, the roof doesn't leak, the windows are

[1:29:06] sealed. Um it is not in uh in inside it is in good condition.

[1:29:13] » Thank you. >> Thank you. Um and then I'll my question

[1:29:17] is is probably to Mr. Green and I'll sorry I'll go to councelor Smart first.

[1:29:23] » Oh thank you um three mayor just a procedural question to staff. Um just

[1:29:26] following up on the conversation around the table. Um just trying to take into

[1:29:30] consideration the the timelines but the um needs we've heard today. I wondered

[1:29:34] if we were potentially to go ahead with option two to approve with conditions

[1:29:39] and to request that council um have an opportunity to approve a proposed

[1:29:45] maintenance and training um schedule. Would that address some of the um

[1:29:51] concerns around um delaying approval of the project um at all or would it have

[1:29:57] the same um time implications that were a concern for the chief?

[1:30:04] Mr. Green for your worship to council smart I guess um you know council could

[1:30:10] approve this with some conditions that are delegated to staff to work with the

[1:30:15] applicant on. So you could say that you know council could approve subject to uh

[1:30:20] pre a preissuance condition subject to receiving a maintenance plan or a

[1:30:25] training schedule from the applicant to address council's concerns or you could

[1:30:29] ask for that to come back. You know, the benefit of a temporary use permit is

[1:30:33] that council can add whatever generally whatever condition they so choose as

[1:30:38] long as it's generally related to that application. That is the benefit of a

[1:30:41] temporary use permit. And so council could ask add a specific condition to

[1:30:45] that permit. Or you could defer it to receive that information and defer a

[1:30:50] decision to a later date. I it would be ideal to a specific date. So then we

[1:30:55] wouldn't need to give notification again if you indeed deferred it to a specific

[1:30:58] date um to receive that further information. That is also an option for

[1:31:02] council as well.

[1:31:06] Um and then my question is to Mr. Green and it just touches on

[1:31:11] a couple of comments made in the course of the of the discussion and that is

[1:31:15] around the uh the uh combining of the two lots. There is certainly some some

[1:31:20] value for us to continue to keep them as they as they currently are. Um, so is

[1:31:24] there is there a legal require I know the building does straddle both lots.

[1:31:28] Um, but is there a legal requirement? Could we do two temporary use permits

[1:31:31] essentially bridging both lots or is there a legal requirement for a

[1:31:35] temporary permit to be attached to a single lot? Mr. Green,

[1:31:39] » thank you worship. No, I guess from the planning department's perspective, we've

[1:31:42] been treating this applicant as if they were any other applicant. And so if this

[1:31:47] was a private land owner, not the district, then we would have that same

[1:31:51] requirement that we would want to try and address that legal non-conforming

[1:31:55] nature, i.e. there's an expectation that a property is brought into compliance

[1:31:58] with uh the district's zoning bylaw. Acknowledging that if if from a

[1:32:03] council's perspective, if council wanted to remove that condition because they

[1:32:07] felt that it would be uh more uh beneficial in the long run to have two

[1:32:12] legal locks rather than one, then obviously council could delete that

[1:32:16] condition. Um but it's just that we would have been essentially acting as a

[1:32:19] as this development authority and treating this applicant like we would

[1:32:23] treat any other applicant uh in this process.

[1:32:25] » Right. Okay. Thank you. And yeah, I guess I'm looking at this really through

[1:32:28] the lens of the the the temporary part of the temporary use permit and and try

[1:32:32] to minimize the uh both impact and and changes if we since we don't know what

[1:32:38] the future holds. So >> I guess there one thing that I would add

[1:32:42] is that obviously that is a legal non-conforming building. It cannot the

[1:32:46] legal non-conformant can't be exacerbated and so there can be no

[1:32:50] changes to that building that would exacerbate any of those existing

[1:32:55] non-conformances and without either uh bringing that by bringing that property

[1:33:00] into compliance by removing the building and meeting those setbacks or seeking a

[1:33:04] development variance permit to en allow those exacerbation of that that variance

[1:33:10] or that encroachment. >> Sure. And just to that point, is there

[1:33:14] anything in the proposed uses here that that would be anticipated?

[1:33:21] » No. Uh your worship, in terms of what the applicant has currently submitted is

[1:33:26] an applicant to use that building in its current form with no further changes to

[1:33:31] the building in relation to u that legal nonconforming building in relation to F

[1:33:37] and um the uh straddling of the uh that legal lot line.

[1:33:42] » All right. Thank you very much. Any other questions? If not, we're going

[1:33:46] to try and seek a proposed motion here to to speak to councelor Appleton.

[1:33:53] » Thank you, worship. So, I will I'll test the will of council here and see whether

[1:33:56] this works. Um, so I will uh propose a motion based on option two. So, I will I

[1:34:03] will propose to move that council uh approve the temporary use permit for the

[1:34:09] property located at 1538 Montterrey Avenue. uh with additional conditions of

[1:34:13] use uh of which there are two. Uh firstly that Oak Bay facility services

[1:34:20] and the fire service host a joint public information session to outline fire

[1:34:25] training scope and schedule and receive feedback with respect to parking and

[1:34:30] site upkeep. And secondly, let the applicant explore options to utilize

[1:34:36] fire services training capital funds to expand the program of site maintenance.

[1:34:43] second that and I would like to put a little amendment on there for one other

[1:34:47] condition if I could. We'll >> let the uh the mover speak to it first

[1:34:51] and if there's a go ahead councelor Appleton

[1:34:55] your comments if you wish to hear councelor brief's proposed motion if you

[1:34:58] wish. >> I guess it depends on the scope thereof.

[1:35:00] » Sure. >> My my my um amendment would just be

[1:35:03] around um a schedule of maintenance for the property to be included. I think

[1:35:08] that was essentially included in there that that conversation

[1:35:13] » that that was sort of the intent your worship but I think clarifying is fine.

[1:35:16] » No, it's fine as long as as long as we have that maintenance for that property

[1:35:19] that's great. >> I think there's in the second part of

[1:35:21] that is to expand the program of site maintenance. I think we've heard that

[1:35:25] the current program of site maintenance is is not adequate. So or at least

[1:35:30] as per the discussion. >> So why don't you speak to your motion

[1:35:32] councelor Appleton? >> Thank you worship. Um, you know, just

[1:35:37] there is there's a balance to be struck here uh with with this and I and I hear

[1:35:41] loud and clear from the neighbors and the members of the public that want more

[1:35:44] information about what's going on. It represents a change in in use of the

[1:35:48] property. There's no doubt about it. Um, there's going to be an unsignificant

[1:35:52] amount of activity that's going on around the site and I think that

[1:35:55] everybody in the neighborhood deserves a chance to understand really clearly

[1:35:59] what's happening um and at what time what to expect. That's important. and at

[1:36:04] the same time uh ensuring that the the property as a whole is is kept up and

[1:36:10] hopefully you know improved cosmetically as part of the ongoing use of the site

[1:36:15] for training. So I think that that would constitute an improvement. I do believe

[1:36:19] I am in favor as per the motion of the temporary use permit going ahead now and

[1:36:24] it's important for the public to to be reminded of the fact that it is becoming

[1:36:29] increasingly more complex for the fire service. Uh fire training requirements

[1:36:34] are expanding. Uh we have as the public is well aware we have reduced training

[1:36:42] capacity ability on the actual firefighters park site because we were

[1:36:46] in need of a new fire apparatus which requires its own building which requires

[1:36:50] an expanded footprint. This uh constrains what fire services can do on

[1:36:54] the site and at the same time they have expanding training requirements. As has

[1:36:58] been referenced here, training cannot happen outside of the district. as we've

[1:37:02] talked about around this table many times that we we only have one crew and

[1:37:06] so that's while training that service that crew has to be available to deploy

[1:37:11] while they're doing that training. So it severely limits the number of potential

[1:37:15] options for training sites and and I can certainly recognize that there are uh

[1:37:22] suboptimal things about this particular site. It is in close proximity to the

[1:37:26] village. Um there's there's certainly a discussion to be had with the local

[1:37:31] community about how operations are deployed on the ground and I'm sure our

[1:37:35] fire services will work with the community to kind of come up with the

[1:37:39] best solution on that side of things. But uh I think that there's a

[1:37:42] conversation there to have but I do think that it's important that the

[1:37:45] temporary use permit move ahead now with the understanding that uh those services

[1:37:49] will consult with the public and have that conversation with the neighbors.

[1:37:53] Thank you worship. >> Thank you. Further discussion council in

[1:37:58] the briefly. >> Yes, Mayor, if I may. Um the the second

[1:38:02] part of that um the second part of those conditions does raise a question for me

[1:38:07] and I wonder if I could ask it to staff. It was about the actual source of the

[1:38:12] funds for the maintenance. Would that be in order?

[1:38:17] » It is. Although I'm not sure they would have an absolute answer at this point.

[1:38:20] We had a comment from M from the chief that they may have some funds available.

[1:38:24] Mr. Graham as the applicant. I'll give that over to you.

[1:38:28] » Uh through your worship, if I understand the question correctly, is is the amount

[1:38:32] of funds or where they're coming from. Sorry.

[1:38:34] » No, my question was going to be about this motion is very specific as to the

[1:38:38] source, but I wondered if it would if there was a possibility that there be

[1:38:41] other places where those funds could be sourced from that weren't capital

[1:38:45] accounts that could also um solve this problem. So, I just didn't want our

[1:38:50] motion necessarily to be too narrow if we we should go broader and that was

[1:38:55] with all respect to the mover. >> Mr. Graham,

[1:38:59] » uh through your worship, uh we would actually we would actually have to use

[1:39:03] an operating account. We can't use a capital account for landscaping and and

[1:39:06] upkeep that way. But, uh what we can do is through budget amendments. We can we

[1:39:11] can shift money around. I'm paraphrasing, but yes, we can make that

[1:39:14] work. >> Thank you. So, if I may, I maybe I would

[1:39:19] I if it's possible, I could suggest to the mover that we just make that

[1:39:23] language a bit more generic as opposed to pointing to a fund that can't

[1:39:26] actually be used. Is that >> to the mover?

[1:39:32] » I'm amendable about your worship. Yeah, it's I I understand completely the end

[1:39:35] the the the inability to apply capital funds to maintenance. For sure. Um, I

[1:39:40] was just reflecting what I've heard, you know, Chief McDonald reference as far as

[1:39:43] some available funds and that sort of thing. But, uh, certainly if there were,

[1:39:47] uh, operating surplus or another, uh, another location that facility services

[1:39:53] might be able to find those operating funds and if necessary amend the

[1:39:57] financial bylaw in order to reflect that, then I think that that's certainly

[1:40:02] an option as well. >> Sure. If I just before I go on with

[1:40:05] other comments, I just probably worthwhile just can you just read the

[1:40:08] proposed motion again just so we all have the uh the language fresh in our in

[1:40:12] mind. So then I would I guess then I'm looking

[1:40:15] to amend part two then your worship because that so I specifically

[1:40:19] referenced capital funds but I think it >> with your with the amendment to remove

[1:40:22] the >> amendment would be and that the

[1:40:24] applicant explore options uh to uh

[1:40:30] uh reallocate district funds to expand the program of site maintenance.

[1:40:35] » Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. So there's two two

[1:40:38] parts to that. One is consultation with neighbors and and improved maintenance.

[1:40:42] Is that the two pieces? Okay, councelor Wraithweight.

[1:40:46] » Uh yeah, thanks very much. Um and I think this this is far more supportable

[1:40:49] than um option one. Um I think that we do have to support our fire department

[1:40:54] uh to assist with their fire training, but I also think that we have to support

[1:40:57] our the neighbors as well and the residents. So I hope it alleviates some

[1:41:01] of um their concerns. Um and I'm sure that if it doesn't and if there's issues

[1:41:06] that they'll come back and talk to us. Thank you.

[1:41:11] Counc Patterson. >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I I will support

[1:41:15] the amendment put forward and and in general, I support this. In fact, it's

[1:41:21] already being used for this. So, putting into place a temporary use permit is is

[1:41:27] is a little late in coming because it is

[1:41:30] already being used. But, um I particularly um appreciate the uh

[1:41:37] consideration of improved site maintenance. uh because we are not

[1:41:43] really being a good neighbor and it if we if we want residents to maintain

[1:41:49] their properties in good condition. I think that it uh it's up to us to set

[1:41:54] the example. So, and I I I think also um and chief isn't in the room, but I I

[1:42:01] think that the fire department will uh be able to review just the logistics of

[1:42:06] how the training exercises are carried out because it is a very very public

[1:42:11] area, heavily used during the day, and there isn't um there is not an easy way

[1:42:17] to cross the street to avoid it unless you go all the way back to the the

[1:42:21] crosswalk at the fire hall. So um you know so there are a few things but I

[1:42:26] think it we are already putting the building to this use. We understand the

[1:42:30] reasons why we have to do this to support our fire department but we can

[1:42:34] certainly um look at improving the site conditions for the neighborhood.

[1:42:40] » Thank you. Any other speakers on the Oh go ahead. Councelor Green.

[1:42:44] » Thank you very much and I too will support the motion. But I just want to

[1:42:48] say I think this is a really good lesson for us as as a property owner. Um, we've

[1:42:52] talked about a maintenance bylaw in Oak Bay off and on over the years. Um, this

[1:42:57] um, unfortunately we we're the poster child for why we need a maintenance

[1:43:01] bylaw on this particular home. And that's not a criticism of of anyone, but

[1:43:06] I know this house has been the object of many ideas and and and minations about

[1:43:11] its future. So, I'm very pleased with the motion. And I um appreciate uh

[1:43:16] councelor Appleton's motion and and councelor Braithweight's amendments, but

[1:43:20] I I just want to say that, you know, we we must be good neighbors. We are

[1:43:25] setting the example for the rest of the community. I think it's really important

[1:43:29] and that maybe we have a chance now to sort of reexamine that. I also agree

[1:43:33] that we have to support our fire department. Um knowing the chief as I

[1:43:37] do, I think he will work hard to develop a working relationship with neighbors. I

[1:43:41] think that's an absolute imperative. and I know the neighbors will appreciate

[1:43:45] that and I'm sure that they will get back to us if there are any challenges

[1:43:50] ahead. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Green. Um I have

[1:43:56] one question for the chief with the motion that's on the floor uh to Chief

[1:44:00] McDonald through myself. um you know hearing the concerns raised about the

[1:44:05] impact on the on the uh parking and on the transport of people and on the

[1:44:11] village itself. Um as as the uh schedule is developed uh is it fair to to uh

[1:44:21] assume that the fire department will look at the days of use of that

[1:44:24] particular house recognizing that some have to be done on twotory as noted. uh

[1:44:28] there are some aspects of that that that the house is essentially unique in the

[1:44:32] in the readily available sites but that they can look at that as to how often it

[1:44:38] has to be used and minimize the use of that site uh to minimize the impact on

[1:44:42] the neighborhood. Um so I'm just going to give that over to you chief just

[1:44:46] because I think that's one of the concerns that I've heard from the from

[1:44:48] the neighbors and I think probably from the business community would would

[1:44:51] reflect that as well. >> Uh thank you worship. Um, you know,

[1:44:56] excellent point and and yes, the you know, the fire department um can be very

[1:45:01] diligent in in developing our training plan to um you know, be very conscious

[1:45:06] about the uh you know the options that we have and where we are are using it.

[1:45:11] And I think we can also be a bit more mindful with regards to you know how we

[1:45:16] are are um managing uh the site when we are on scene and ensure that we do have

[1:45:22] a um a safety officer who can either you know stop training and you know shaffer

[1:45:28] um you know the public uh through the the area safely and and be um you know a

[1:45:35] a respectful neighbor in this regard.

[1:45:40] The question was really just at this table because one of the points raised

[1:45:43] here was around the uh the direction whether or not to require the um the

[1:45:48] staff follow the staff recommendation which I think the current motion does of

[1:45:51] amalgamating the two lots or do we want to keep those two lots separate for the

[1:45:56] time being subject to future planning with the village area plan. Um, so I

[1:46:01] just throw that out there as a for conversation with the council because I

[1:46:05] think it was discussed, we should probably be clear in the motion uh going

[1:46:08] forward. I would probably suggest if someone

[1:46:12] wants to given I think the current motion as it stands would essentially

[1:46:17] keep the uh the merging of the two lots that I think any decision by the council

[1:46:21] to not do that would probably require a motion to amend the the to give that

[1:46:26] direction as part of the motion to to retain the two lots.

[1:46:32] » I I think it makes sense to keep the the lot separate actually. Yeah. Um I I I

[1:46:36] know that in in the future. >> I was just going to ask if that's if if

[1:46:39] you're interested in doing that, just to make an amendment to the to the motion

[1:46:42] that >> So I would also include that direction.

[1:46:45] » I would move an amendment to um keep the two lots separate and not amalgamate

[1:46:50] them >> for the duration

[1:46:52] » for the duration of the of the t. >> Is there a seconder for that?

[1:47:01] » Okay. Yes. not uh so uh we'll leave that there. Um those are the only two set of

[1:47:09] questions I wanted to make sure we clarified before we move forward with

[1:47:11] any other pieces. Any other discussion? So the motion on

[1:47:15] the floor is to approve the TUP but subject to uh consultation with

[1:47:19] neighbors on the use and and the impacts and uh dedication of resources to

[1:47:26] improve the maintenance of that lot.

[1:47:31] So I'm going to and put that to question. All those in favor and those

[1:47:36] opposed, seeing none opposed, that carries. Uh that was a more complicated

[1:47:41] application than I was anticipating. So, thank you everybody for the uh for the

[1:47:44] discussion and thank you very much to the neighbors for coming out and sharing

[1:47:47] your experiences uh and uh and input. Um you're welcome to everybody's welcome

[1:47:53] to stick around, but uh you don't have to. [snorts] Um because we move on to

[1:47:58] 10.3, which is another temporary use permit. Um, and this one for Cadbury Bay

[1:48:02] Road and Cranmore Load Road parking lot. Uh, we've had a number of pieces of

[1:48:06] correspondence on this one. Uh, and I'll give this over to Mr. Hatfield. Welcome.

[1:48:11] Thank you, worship. This is another district initiated temporary use permit

[1:48:14] application for council's consideration. This application is for the unadressed

[1:48:18] district-owned parking lot located at the corner of Cadaro Bay Road and

[1:48:22] Cranmore Road. The purpose of this application is to permit the use of the

[1:48:26] property for a limited recycling depot use for a period of three years. The

[1:48:31] applicant for this application is the district's engineering department. This

[1:48:34] application was initiated by the district in line with council direction

[1:48:37] received at a special council meeting held on June 15th, 2026. Staff were then

[1:48:42] directed to participate in the capital regional districts beyond the curb

[1:48:45] initiative and prepare and submit a temporary use permit application for the

[1:48:49] subject property in question. Planning staff are recommending the

[1:48:52] temporary use permit application be approved based on the proposal's

[1:48:55] alignment with district official community plan policy. The proposed

[1:48:59] temporary use also represents a service level enhancement to the existing

[1:49:02] recycling drop off services offered to residents while posing no cost to the

[1:49:06] district. No permanent site changes are proposes are proposed and operations

[1:49:10] would be limited to weekends from 8 a.m. to 6 pm as a condition of the temporary

[1:49:14] use permit that staff are recommending avoiding the peak congestion in this

[1:49:18] area often associated with school operations.

[1:49:21] Planning staff are here to uh answer your applications and speak to the

[1:49:24] application. Steve Renick, the uh district's director of engineering

[1:49:28] public works is present today to answer any questions council might have on this

[1:49:31] application as well. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Did you wish I had

[1:49:35] anything uh director Renick? >> Uh thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. No, I

[1:49:41] believe that uh between the discussion that we had in June and Mr. Hatfield's

[1:49:45] introductory comments, um I think I'm I'm happy to take questions.

[1:49:49] » All right. Thank you very much. We have had some correspondence from the public

[1:49:52] on this. Um and I'll turn it over to the members of council for questions. I'll

[1:49:56] go to councelor Smart and then brief. >> Thank you um through Mayor um to

[1:50:02] director Renick. Um my first question was just with regards to whether or not

[1:50:07] parking within the parking lot will be um reserved to allow people to park in

[1:50:13] the lot when they're using the facilities. I just wondered if there's a

[1:50:16] parking plan at this point. Mr. Rick,

[1:50:21] » uh through the mayor, we had not intended on having reserved parking in

[1:50:25] that lot for uh the use of the depot. Uh ultimately putting restrictions on

[1:50:32] municipal parking lots is something that council has delegated to staff. I think

[1:50:37] that if we were seeing a persistent problem of people parking vehicles there

[1:50:42] and then walking to the rec center or something like that and and impeding the

[1:50:46] ability for that site to be used for recycling, uh I think we would have

[1:50:50] tools in the toolbox to be able to manage that.

[1:50:54] » Anything else? >> Uh yes, through you may director. My

[1:50:58] other question was just with regards to some of the emails we received and I

[1:51:01] wondered if can you um uh remind us is street parking enforced on the weekends

[1:51:08] um just if there's some incorrect parking

[1:51:12] » Mr. Renick Mr. B. >> Thank you, Mayor. To you. Um, during the

[1:51:20] weekends, uh, there is less enforcement uh on parking. However, if there are uh

[1:51:25] serious things that need to be addressed, a way

[1:51:28] police will be able to address those. Thanks,

[1:51:33] » Dr. Smart. >> Thank you. and three emerges. My last

[1:51:37] question is just with regards to um has there been communication or response

[1:51:42] from the the school district on this? >> Give it to staff I think for the

[1:51:48] notification I think or Mr. Enick. >> Uh thank you through the mayor. They

[1:51:53] school district would have received a notification because the high schools

[1:51:56] within the notification window but I'm not aware of any response from the high

[1:52:01] school or from school district 61.

[1:52:06] Breathway. >> Thanks very much. Yeah, mine was around

[1:52:09] traffic as well because there there's no I know there we haven't done a traffic

[1:52:12] study around that area. Um but um [clears throat]

[1:52:17] there there may there could be um people queuing up for to get in and out of that

[1:52:22] um to drop off. And I'm wondering whether or not um the vehicles uh could

[1:52:28] be interfering with emergency access because of the the fireh hall being so

[1:52:33] close by. And I'm wondering if there's anything in place for that or if you

[1:52:37] have any anticipation of there being that many vehicles that could interfere

[1:52:41] with emergency access. >> Mr. Renick,

[1:52:46] » uh through the mayor, I don't see the amount of vehicles really being a major

[1:52:51] concern and ultimately uh they are vehicles. They do have a requirement to

[1:52:55] to pull the right and stop if they hear an emergency vehicle approaching with

[1:52:59] with lights and sirens on. So, uh, on the whole, I I I don't think that's a

[1:53:03] concern.

[1:53:06] » Patterson. >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor. And I I would,

[1:53:10] uh, through you to staff. Just wondering if there has been any further

[1:53:13] considerational for directional traffic because the traffic can approach that

[1:53:19] site either from Cranmore or from Cadbur Road. um Cadro Bay Road, of course, it's

[1:53:25] the bus stop and the uh the crosswalk is located in that location. And while

[1:53:33] Sunday it may be quieter, Saturday it's very busy busy pedestrian and traffic

[1:53:39] flow. Um so I I I fail to understand how we will have um smooth interaction

[1:53:50] between the cycling lane, the pedestrian crosswalk and vehicles if they're coming

[1:53:55] from both directions and and then exiting. So I just like further

[1:54:01] clarification to see if staff have given that more consideration.

[1:54:05] » Mr. uh through the mayor. Similar to the

[1:54:09] response with regard to the parking restrictions, I I think that those are

[1:54:13] are tools that we can use in consultation with the operator if we do

[1:54:18] see a need. I do understand the concern that's being raised of well, would it be

[1:54:23] better for the flow of traffic if it was if you made one entrance the entrance uh

[1:54:28] and and the other one the exit? But then you have the concern of well now do

[1:54:32] people have to make a left turn off of Cadro Bay Road in order to get into the

[1:54:36] site when they would rather come around from the Cranmore side for example. And

[1:54:41] I I'm just overall of the opinion that I think we should see the site in

[1:54:45] operation before we make changes to how the vehicles uh enter and exit it.

[1:54:54] » Yes, thank you. So for clarification, what I'm hearing then is that if this is

[1:54:59] if if this goes forward tonight, the staff will be still monitoring this and

[1:55:04] making adjustments as ne necessary to protect the safety of uh pedestrians and

[1:55:10] cyclists too. >> Mr. Rick

[1:55:14] » through the mayor that is 100% correct. >> All right. Thank you.

[1:55:20] Other questions? There's a process here. As there's no

[1:55:23] more questions, we'll go to the public for comments and we'll come back to this

[1:55:26] table for potential direction. Um, I think I'll leave my questions for the

[1:55:31] time being and and invite members of the public who wish to speak to council. We

[1:55:35] do have some correspondents for consideration. Please come on in.

[1:55:41] You probably heard the process before. We try to be not intimidating. Just uh

[1:55:45] have a seat, turn on the microphone, which is the center button. Perfect. and

[1:55:49] then just state your name, municipality of residence, and then you have address

[1:55:52] council. >> My name is Sasha Vilber, and I'm a

[1:55:56] resident of Oak Bay for many years. Uh, and I rent an apartment in one of those

[1:56:03] apartment buildings uh near Oak Bay High Oak and I support this temporary use

[1:56:09] permit for a recycling site at this location. Um, I think it's a great idea

[1:56:14] and I look forward to using it to recycle uh my glass and soft pla

[1:56:19] plastics and batteries etc. Um, I hope that this new recycling opportunity will

[1:56:26] help to reduce the amount of recyclables in the uh the landfill and um I'd like

[1:56:32] to suggest that uh you also put some kind of collection option for um

[1:56:37] clothing on the site. [snorts] Um, for example, uh there are those pink uh uh

[1:56:46] Lifetime Network bins like the ones at St. Phillips on uh on Easttown. I don't

[1:56:51] know if you've seen those. They're in the parking lot. Um and uh those bins

[1:56:55] are for clothing, shoes, and um household items like um bedding and toys

[1:57:01] and that type of thing. So yeah, thank you.

[1:57:06] » Thank you very much. I should just point out uh this is a capital regional

[1:57:10] districtwide program that they're driving the the standards with the

[1:57:14] bottle depot and setting those. So it's not our program that we're selecting

[1:57:18] what kind of services are going there. Uh we're agreeing to a temporary use

[1:57:22] permit or not uh to allow a site for them to run that operation. So

[1:57:26] » Oh, I see. >> Yeah. So that we the the type of things

[1:57:30] like flexible packers, styrofoam, etc. batteries, light bulbs are set by the uh

[1:57:35] by this regional program, not by Oak Bay.

[1:57:38] » Okay. Well, um >> you can just have a seat down so people

[1:57:41] at home can hear if you have anything else. I'm just just for your

[1:57:43] clarification. It wasn't >> Yeah. Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah. Um, so I

[1:57:47] just for your clarification, um, I just want to say that it this, uh, Coastal

[1:57:51] Networks, um, is an organization that like they, uh, they run the the bins and

[1:57:58] they have people pick things up and, um, and regularly empty them. They don't

[1:58:03] allow things to overflow from the bins and uh, they have uh, phone numbers on

[1:58:09] the bin to contact if there's any problem. Um, and yeah, so yeah,

[1:58:14] » thank you very much. Thank you. >> Um, any other members of the public

[1:58:20] either online or in person wish to speak?

[1:58:24] Okay, I have uh Mr. Zulka online. You're welcome to uh to address council. Just

[1:58:28] unmute you. There we go. Same process as before. Name and municipality, please.

[1:58:34] » Uh, wonderful. You can hear me? Okay. >> Can please go ahead.

[1:58:37] » Lovely. Uh, hello uh um uh your worship uh counselors. My name is Eric Zelka in

[1:58:43] the north part of Oak Bay. Uh, thank you for the time to speak today. I stand

[1:58:46] before you firmly opposed to the temporary use permit for the proposed

[1:58:50] recycle depot at Cadbury Bay Road and Cranmore Road parking lot. While the

[1:58:55] idea of expanded recycling sounds appealing, it sounds great. Sounds like

[1:59:00] we're doing something. Yay. The practical evidence and realities and the

[1:59:04] direct impacts on our community simply do not justify this location. If you

[1:59:09] absolutely must proceed with this, then the district Oak Bay lands north of

[1:59:13] Cedar Hill crossroads at Henderson Recreation Center uh which are not used

[1:59:17] on the weekend. It appears might be much more appropriate or possibly Harleen

[1:59:22] Point uh might be a good place. Both those areas have very few services

[1:59:26] available and uh might as well spread the services around across Oak Bay uh

[1:59:31] and because they would have fewer impacts on on a residents. And first we

[1:59:35] must acknowledge the actual efficacy of what we're collecting. The narrative

[1:59:38] around soft plastics and styrofoam is highly misleading. According to numerous

[1:59:41] news reports, including from the CBC, only about 5% of this soft plastic waste

[1:59:46] and styrofoam is actually recycled. Soft plastics normally jam up processing

[1:59:51] machinery, etc., etc., and end markets often reject mixed or contaminated bales

[1:59:55] of it. It ultimately ends up being burned, sent out of province, goes to

[1:59:59] landfill, etc., etc. um uh we're forcing uh a local

[2:00:04] neighborhood disruption for a global processing system that is fundamentally

[2:00:08] broken. And by the way, the the current system was built assuming everything

[2:00:11] could be sent to China. China no longer receives our recycling. So um uh it'd be

[2:00:16] interesting to see how much money we're actually making from styrofoam and soft

[2:00:20] plastics uh from our current operations. Recycle BC suggests 98% of materials

[2:00:25] actually collected are recycled. Having worked for this BC government and seeing

[2:00:29] many, many failed initiatives with great marketing, I do not believe those

[2:00:33] numbers. Second, I question the basic necessity of this new site. We already

[2:00:37] have a working facility, the district's dropoff depot public works yard on Elgen

[2:00:41] Street, just north of Oak Bay, down the road from this site. It already accepts

[2:00:45] soft plastics and styrofoam. Importantly, that Oak Bay facility is

[2:00:49] already fully staffed and open to residents on Saturdays. Duplicating this

[2:00:53] exact smelly service beside a school and in the middle of residential area makes

[2:00:58] no sense. And finally, we must consider the severe impact on the immediate

[2:01:02] neighbors. There's a vast difference between community youth fundraiser uh

[2:01:06] and and a recurring depot. The impact to community groups such as the Fifth Gary

[2:01:10] Oak Scout Group, the Girl Guys, and other community groups who already do

[2:01:13] bottle collection uh such as the one in Canarvin Park. Uh those one-day

[2:01:17] localized volunteer events are are fantastic. They will be impacted by

[2:01:20] this. Uh what is being proposed with this permit is completely different

[2:01:24] operation. This depot will be staffed by return of personnel handling depot

[2:01:28] deposit materials. Introducing a cash exchange for empties guarantees a steady

[2:01:33] stream of heavy traffic. People will be lugging bags of clinking bottles and

[2:01:38] cans in a residential area, broken glass, etc., etc. These are realities.

[2:01:42] If you any of you have actually tried to return uh stuff down to to the uh um

[2:01:47] return it facilities downtown, constant vehicle idling, noise and disruption

[2:01:52] that's entirely inappropriate for this location. How will you, council,

[2:01:57] guarantee that no leftover garbage, broken glass or smell will be left over

[2:02:02] uh for the for the schools and for the neighbors to deal with? And finally, how

[2:02:06] will parking be maintained at the end of this TUP since this um permit says it

[2:02:12] must be returned to the zoning as indicated and that zoning does not allow

[2:02:17] parking. So again, the TU has to be modified in this case. I urge council to

[2:02:21] deny this permit should you happen to silly to in my opinion go ahead. Thank

[2:02:26] you. Bye. >> Thank you councelor Zilka.

[2:02:29] Uh, any other members of the public who wish to address council?

[2:02:36] I'm just going to pass one question off to staff. Um, my understanding of this

[2:02:41] is can you just clarify the uh um the funding of refundable deposits? Is this

[2:02:48] a return for cash or is it a drop off uh facility without payment?

[2:02:54] » Thank you for the question, Mr. Mayor. Uh this was the first that I had heard

[2:02:58] about it being a cash refundable. Uh certainly the way the program was

[2:03:02] presented to us by the CRD was that it was a drop off recycling. Um certainly

[2:03:09] do not anticipate that it's being cash returns.

[2:03:13] » All right. So we may want to make that

[2:03:16] clarification as part of our approval of the T if that's a concern of council. Um

[2:03:22] uh any other questions? Uh, I don't see any other members of the public who wish

[2:03:26] to address council. If you wish to speak for a second time,

[2:03:31] we don't usually allow that, but you're >> I very much appreciate it.

[2:03:34] » Very brief. >> Thank you again. It's Eric Zelka in

[2:03:37] North Oak Bay. The staff report, if you read it carefully, it actually talks

[2:03:41] about returnables before cash with exchange. It's in the staff report. So,

[2:03:47] if you approve this, you are approving [gasps] money exchanged by the return of

[2:03:51] st personnel. Please read the >> Mr. Zelka.

[2:03:55] » Thank you, Mr. Zelka. It does refer to refundable beverage containers. It does

[2:04:00] not speak specifically to it, the refunding happening at the site. Um, if

[2:04:05] you could just make your comments briefly. We don't usually have

[2:04:07] secondary. >> I didn't hear a lot of um support like

[2:04:10] um backup for the assertions just made and um I support uh your idea of just

[2:04:17] going ahead and doing it and seeing how things go. I mean, I look in our garbage

[2:04:23] cans every day at the building I live in.

[2:04:26] » That's fine. >> They need to try something.

[2:04:29] » Yeah. Thank you for your comments. >> Uh, I'm just going to make sure every

[2:04:33] member public that wishes to speak has a chance to speak. I don't see any other

[2:04:37] hands raised though at this time to speak. Oh, Mr. B, please come forward.

[2:04:40] Same process. Name, municipality, residents.

[2:04:44] Then I'm going to bring it back to this table for discussion and direction.

[2:04:53] if you just turned it off. >> Hello everyone, mayor and council. Thank

[2:04:56] you again. Uh my name again is Anton Brackage, resident of Oak Bay. Um

[2:05:03] from from what I've heard, I think this this sounds like a perfectly reasonable

[2:05:06] thing to approve. I would support it as well. Um, [sighs]

[2:05:12] and I would say that I I would agree with this that the what criticisms we've

[2:05:18] heard of it do not appear to be particularly wellounded in my view.

[2:05:22] Thank you.

[2:05:26] Thank you, Mr. Brackich. One more chance for the members of the

[2:05:29] public to address council.

[2:05:33] All right. Seeing none, I'm going to come back to this table. Uh, I'm going

[2:05:37] to seek there is there's I'll just see if there's any questions before I go to

[2:05:41] seeking a motion. No more questions. Go ahead, Council Watson. Uh, yeah. I'd

[2:05:46] like to move the staff recommendation that council approve temporary use

[2:05:48] permit TUP00002 for the property located at the corner

[2:05:52] of Cadar Bay Road and Crmore Road. >> Second.

[2:05:57] » Seconded. Thank you. Just to speak briefly to you. Uh yeah, just to say I

[2:06:01] think this is a great initiative and it's a lovely marriage between a program

[2:06:05] that the CRD is willing to come forward and do and our own uh needed direction

[2:06:10] to staff to find some options for pedestrians and cyclists to be able to

[2:06:15] uh access recycling facilities within the community. So I think uh it solves

[2:06:20] it it it solves that issue uh really beautifully and provides um regular

[2:06:25] access to the same kind of facility that they don't have access to at the

[2:06:29] municipal yard. Thank you. >> Thank you Appleton.

[2:06:35] » Thank you worship. So certainly support what's on the table here. I I I guess I

[2:06:39] would call the public and and council's attention is is very good timing. There

[2:06:43] was actually an article presented on the CBC just today um with respect to what

[2:06:48] they referred to as wish cycling which is sort of crosscontamination of

[2:06:52] recyclables um and how this has actually become a significant concern in some

[2:06:57] other municipalities u as council's probably aware and staff

[2:07:01] certainly knows that you we're required when operating our municipal recycling

[2:07:06] systems to keep uh contamination by other materials down below a certain

[2:07:12] level or actually in some cases risk financial penalties and

[2:07:17] in and in uh certain situations too much contamination can obviously result in

[2:07:21] the whole load of recyclables not being recycled and in fact landfilled. So

[2:07:26] there was just a recent article about how significant the issue is becoming.

[2:07:31] So this I think really provides a directed opportunity for us to provide

[2:07:36] an opportunity for folks to recycle things which are not bluebox. Many

[2:07:40] things are not bluebox materials. Some things are not available for recycling

[2:07:44] at our current dropoff depot. Uh so provides a real tactile and a real

[2:07:48] practical way for people to minimize crosscontamination which has real uh

[2:07:54] real concrete and uh significant potential results for the district if

[2:08:00] contamination be expands beyond a certain level. So it has a lot of

[2:08:03] practical benefits in my mind your worship. Thank you.

[2:08:07] » Thank you very much councelor Green. >> Thank you very much and I'm happy to

[2:08:11] support the motion. I think we also have a year in which to assess the location

[2:08:16] in terms of traffic safety and public pedestrian safety and so on. And I think

[2:08:22] um neighbors will have a chance to weigh in and uh so we have a a year to sort of

[2:08:27] trial this program and I think it's it's a good opportunity to do that. But I am

[2:08:32] mindful of some of the concerns that have been expressed about traffic noise

[2:08:36] and parking.

[2:08:40] » Uh thank you councelor Patterson. Yes. Thank you, mayor. Well, I I guess I'm

[2:08:46] hesitant at supporting this, but uh I I recognize it is a temporary use.

[2:08:51] However, I I must admit I am a bit disappointed that we are placing yet

[2:08:58] more traffic flow in in a in a part of the community where where people have

[2:09:04] already expressed so many concerns about transportation issues and I live through

[2:09:11] that daily. So, I I certainly appreciate those those concerns and uh I think that

[2:09:19] while we are considering this, we haven't as a council um received a

[2:09:25] transportation overview of this area and how it does function and the changes and

[2:09:31] how they will be monitored um to ensure that we are not um it it feels like

[2:09:40] we're overburdening a part of the uh community uh that is

[2:09:46] already taking more than their share of the burden while relieving it from from

[2:09:50] other areas. And so I just put those comments out there while I I support

[2:09:55] some of the initiative by the CRD and certainly it will provide the

[2:09:59] opportunity for people to access this on foot or or other methods like that. Um,

[2:10:08] I could see certainly where it it also could add to a lot of the transportation

[2:10:13] problems that the area is already experiencing. So, while I'll support it,

[2:10:18] I think that we we need to we need to pay more attention to what we're doing

[2:10:23] transportation in that whole area. Thank you.

[2:10:27] » Thank you very much. Um, don't see any other discussion. I just want to raise

[2:10:33] the flag. I think the the question was raised and and it seem to be just a lack

[2:10:37] of clarity on the on the question of whether or not this would be acting as a

[2:10:42] as a commercial payer of refundables. Uh and so I think if that's not part of I

[2:10:47] mean I will point out there is payable refundables immediately across the

[2:10:50] street basically at Savon Foods and at the liquor store. And so if there's

[2:10:54] something we don't we want to be able to receive them but don't want this become

[2:10:57] a commercial transaction place we may want to make that as a condition of the

[2:11:01] of the top at least we get the information back. So Miss Hunt

[2:11:05] » yeah thank you your worship I did actually have a look at the CRD's beyond

[2:11:07] the curb website and it says beverage containers and in brackets donation

[2:11:11] only. So I don't believe that they are thank you for looking that up. I was

[2:11:16] trying to find it but a few too many things going on here. Uh thank you for

[2:11:19] that clarification. So I don't think we need any more clarification for that. Um

[2:11:24] and I don't see any other hands. I'm going to call the question. All those in

[2:11:27] favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Uh thank you very much. I move to 10.4 uh

[2:11:33] which is a correspondence management policy update. Miss Anderson, this was

[2:11:37] before committee of the whole and there's been a couple of changes based

[2:11:40] on the feedback. Uh so over to you for the uh for the update.

[2:11:45] » Uh thank you mayor. That was my opening comments. [laughter]

[2:11:50] Um but it is providing clarity for council corresponding with the public

[2:11:54] related to governance related matters and correspondence timelines and process

[2:11:58] when it relates to bylaws subject to public hearing. So the revisions are

[2:12:01] incorporated into the version before you for consideration of approval.

[2:12:06] » Thank you very much. It is subject to public input. So I'll take questions

[2:12:09] first and then public and then back to this table. I have please wait then.

[2:12:14] » Thanks very much mayor. Um and thanks so much for um implementing those um those

[2:12:17] suggestions from last week. That was awesome. Um, and I I just have one

[2:12:21] question in regards to the to the words disregarded and deleted when it comes to

[2:12:27] um, council submissions around the public hearing process. Um, I I'm just

[2:12:31] wondering I I understand the legal reasoning for that, but I'm just

[2:12:36] wondering whether um, deleting correspondents might raise questions.

[2:12:40] So, I'm wondering if it might be more appropriate to say that the

[2:12:43] correspondence would will not be considered as part of the public hearing

[2:12:47] process, but will be retained as part of the corporate record rather than

[2:12:51] deleted, or is there a reason why we would say um disregarded and deleted?

[2:12:57] » Miss Anderson was looking at Mr. Bull, you can hand

[2:13:03] this off if you want.

[2:13:09] I give it to Mr. Paul. Thank you, Mayor. Um um this is I haven't looked at the

[2:13:15] legislation, but we we could. And uh um I think that there's another uh set of

[2:13:21] correspondents. I think that gets provided later after the decision is

[2:13:24] made. So I think this could be treated the same, but also look at Miss Anderson

[2:13:28] who has spent more time on this policy than I have. So thanks.

[2:13:34] » Yes. Thank you. said um 9.5 is in relation to correspondence received by

[2:13:39] council members. So it is sitting in your inboxes. It isn't a corporate

[2:13:42] record at that point. So there would need to be a transaction between the

[2:13:47] council member forwarding it to corporate in order for it to be on file

[2:13:51] with us. And that there it does muddy the waters on what is being considered

[2:13:54] as part of the public hearing package at that point. So when it hits the inboxes

[2:13:59] of those individual council members, it would be better to disregard and delete

[2:14:02] because then there couldn't be any confusion that it had been considered as

[2:14:06] part of the public hearing. >> Thank you. That makes sense. Thank you.

[2:14:09] » Thank you, Council Wson. >> Uh yes, thank you. And I also have a

[2:14:14] question for Miss Anderson. And it's just a clarification. um when the when

[2:14:18] the up Thank you for the updates to the draft on the flowchart

[2:14:25] document uh the correspondence flowchart attachment three on the second page

[2:14:30] there's just something that I didn't quite understand and it may not have

[2:14:33] gotten updated at the same time as the rest of the policy did and it's stream

[2:14:37] five and that would be on page 140 of the agenda or I think it's page 20 of

[2:14:44] your report um it says council members members who have received correspondence

[2:14:48] after public hearing deadline but before decision. So that's the item and then it

[2:14:52] says inform the member of the public that at the public hearing they will

[2:14:56] have the opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions for the

[2:14:59] public record. The chronology the chronology of that doesn't make sense to

[2:15:05] me. It speaks to something about correspondence after the public hearing

[2:15:09] but it gives advice for what to do before the public hearing. So I just

[2:15:12] wonder if I'm missing something there.

[2:15:18] I think that's referring to the public hearing deadline, not the public hearing

[2:15:22] per se. >> Okay. So, as long as you guys know what

[2:15:26] that me I I I couldn't parse that, but [laughter]

[2:15:30] maybe it just is missing a word. Anyway, I'll leave that to you.

[2:15:35] » And thank you through the mayor. We could we we can update this to include

[2:15:38] the deadline more more consistent language with the policy if it would

[2:15:41] make it easier. >> Yeah, it would. Cuz I actually couldn't

[2:15:43] follow it. So I would I would certainly appreciate that. Thank you.

[2:15:48] » Yeah, it's I I hear what you're saying. I think the wording is correct, but I

[2:15:51] think part of it is just because the carriage return happens after, you know,

[2:15:55] correspondence after public hearing and so you sort of trigger that that's after

[2:15:59] the public hearing, but of course it continues on deadline. And so I think

[2:16:02] anyway, I don't think it affects the actual uh policy. I think that can be

[2:16:06] either a formatting thing or just some minor clarification language changes.

[2:16:12] Any other comments or questions at this point? Uh, anybody from the public wish

[2:16:16] to address this item on the agenda, which is a 10.4 correspondence

[2:16:20] management policy?

[2:16:25] Take a moment. Nope. Nobody has raised their hand online or in person. So, I'll

[2:16:30] come back to this table for direction. >> I'll move the recommendation. This

[2:16:33] » is for approval of the correspondence management policy. Thank you. Moved and

[2:16:37] seconded. Um any further discussion? There's no we had a robust de discussion

[2:16:42] on this a committee of the whole. So I don't uh anybody's wondering why this is

[2:16:46] going through so smoothly. That is why all those in favor. Any opposed? None

[2:16:50] opposed. Thank you very much Miss Anderson for that report and for joining

[2:16:54] us tonight to be here to present it. Uh we move then to section 11. This

[2:16:58] Saturday is not for public input um uh relating to bylaws and permits. 11.1 is

[2:17:04] for 2630 Margate Avenue. This is a zoning bylaw amendment. Miss Claver is

[2:17:09] with us again to uh to introduce this item and the applicant is here as well.

[2:17:14] Please go ahead. >> Thank you. Um mayor and council, this

[2:17:18] report uh as you noted refers to a zoning bylaw amendment application for

[2:17:24] the property located at 2630 Market Avenue. The application specifically

[2:17:29] seeks a sightsp specific amendment to facilitate the construction of a new

[2:17:34] single family dwelling and an associated patio directly outside of the rear of

[2:17:40] the property of the residence. Um there is a protected mature uh atlas cedar in

[2:17:47] the boulevard and so the sighting of the new residence specifically is cited um

[2:17:53] to avoid um or or at least to protect the critical tree uh root system of this

[2:17:59] tree. Um and also because of the sloping of the site the the house is positioned

[2:18:04] exactly where it is. Um because under the district zoning bylaw um patios um

[2:18:11] exceeding 8 in above natural grade um do trigger uh or fall under the definition

[2:18:17] of floor area and floor area and uh being a measurement of density if uh

[2:18:24] [snorts] you exceed the allowance um a zoning bylaw amendment is required.

[2:18:29] Hence why we're here today. So um a tree management plan uh was submitted. Uh so

[2:18:36] it did consider this mature tree as well as the remaining site. Um the parks

[2:18:42] department did evaluate this tree management plan. Um and the walkway

[2:18:46] actually was uh from the the front entrance was actually redesigned to

[2:18:52] consider parks department referral comments. Um and ultimately they're

[2:18:56] they're satisfied with the current plan. Um, ultimately the amendment is pretty

[2:19:01] limited in scale. It represents a pretty modest exceedence of the permitted floor

[2:19:06] area and lot coverage. Um, and which this primarily relates to the inclusion

[2:19:13] of the elevated patio. So ultimately staff recommend first, second, and third

[2:19:18] reading as well as adoption of the bylaw tonight. Thank you.

[2:19:22] » Thank you very much, Miss Claver. Are there any questions for the applicant or

[2:19:26] staff? Please go ahead, councelor Braithweight, and then Um, thanks very

[2:19:30] much, Mayor. I have two questions. Um, the one would be if we did accuse um

[2:19:35] approve this amendment, could a future owner uh choose to enclose the patio

[2:19:40] without getting a zoning amendment, >> M. Clever.

[2:19:44] » So, it would have to fit uh specifically the the variances that were we're

[2:19:50] including in this bylaw amendment speak to the lot coverage and the F or the

[2:19:55] floor area. And ultimately we've increased it ever so slightly. I think

[2:19:58] you could see it's at 32% and um.5 for F to include to include sorry to inclo in

[2:20:07] why can't I speak tonight [laughter] to make the patio incl.

[2:20:15] [laughter] Can we do some bloopers please? um

[2:20:19] ultimately that would trigger even further and so ultimately that would

[2:20:23] very likely exceed what is being um approved tonight and so we would have to

[2:20:27] come back um to council. >> Thank you for that. And then my second

[2:20:32] question um is uh the the rear um setback the required rear set setback is

[2:20:38] like 7.6 6 meters, but the proposal is providing like 18.74 meters. Um, which

[2:20:43] is quite large. And I'm wondering if there was any consideration given to

[2:20:47] moving the house slightly forward if it would still protect the trees. Um, it's

[2:20:52] probably a question for the proponent. Um, just because then because you do

[2:20:56] have such a a large rear setback in the in the back.

[2:21:00] » Sure. So, just need to state your name and municipality residence and then you

[2:21:04] can answer the question. >> Sure. Hi, my name is Louis Harvat. Good

[2:21:07] evening, mayor, council. Um, so if I understand the question correctly, it is

[2:21:12] it if we were to move the building forward toward the toward the street.

[2:21:17] Um, so we haven't considered that only because of the root zone of the tree,

[2:21:23] the root zone is right is touching our building right now. So it's it's as far

[2:21:29] forward as we would like to push it. Um, yeah. [clears throat]

[2:21:32] » Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff or the applicant?

[2:21:38] I'm not seeing it. It's usually a good sign. Yeah.

[2:21:41] » Um so, uh I'll turn to the council to see if someone wishes to

[2:21:45] » I'll move that council give first and second reading to zoning bylaw number

[2:21:49] 3531 1986 amendment bylaw number 4976 2026.

[2:21:53] » Second move and seconded. Any discussion?

[2:21:58] Not seeing any. All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed, please carry. I'll

[2:22:03] move that council give third reading to zoning bylaw number 3531 1986 amendment

[2:22:08] bylaw number 4976 2026 >> and seconded. Thank you. There is a

[2:22:13] debate on third reading. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed.

[2:22:17] » And I'll move that council adopt zoning bylaw number 3531 1986 amendment bylaw

[2:22:22] number 4976 2026. >> Seconded. Thank you. Uh before I call

[2:22:27] the question, since there's unanimous agreement on this, just want to

[2:22:29] congratulate you and uh wish you all the best with the project. It'll be it'll be

[2:22:33] a lovely project and a lovely street. So, good luck. All those in favor? Any

[2:22:38] opposed? None opposed? Car. Yeah. Thank you. Uh moving on then to item 11.2.

[2:22:44] This is 310 King George Terrace zoning bylaw amendment. Mr. Green, this is an

[2:22:48] application we had some time ago, but with some modifications.

[2:22:52] » Yeah, thank you. This item relates to a zoning amendment application that

[2:22:56] council gave three readings to on November the 24th, 2025.

[2:23:02] Since that time, the applicant has received updated survey information from

[2:23:05] the surveyor for the subject property, which has altered the proposed lot

[2:23:10] layout. Because the proposed CD8 zone was specifically for this proposed

[2:23:16] subdivision of the subject property, amendments are also required to the zone

[2:23:20] to accommodate the updated survey information specifically in relation to

[2:23:24] the minimum lot size and minimum lot width. As such, staff are recommending

[2:23:28] that council receive third reading of the zoning amendment bylaws and that

[2:23:31] council amend the bylaw and give third reading to the bylaw. Staff are also

[2:23:36] recommending that a section 219 covenant be registered as a charge on title to

[2:23:40] secure the accessible washroom for the secondary suite and either lot two, lot

[2:23:44] three or lot four and ensure that a residential fire sprinkler system is

[2:23:47] installed in each of the residential units to address the concerns of the

[2:23:51] fire department. The applicant is also here to answer any questions that

[2:23:55] council may over the application and also happy to answer any questions that

[2:23:58] council may have on the uh application. >> Thank you. very convenient having the

[2:24:03] same applicant for for two applications, but I'm too bad that you're here at the

[2:24:08] end of the night, not the beginning. Uh, councelor Brieweight.

[2:24:11] » Uh, thanks very much, Mayor. And I just wanted to um clarify from staff that um

[2:24:15] aside from the res uh revised survey and corresponding lot dimensions that no

[2:24:20] other aspect of the development has changed, including building size, floor

[2:24:24] area, setbacks, landscaping, anything like that.

[2:24:27] » Mr. Green, >> that is correct. There's only those

[2:24:30] changes to the minimum lot area and the minimum lot width that has changed as a

[2:24:35] result of that updated survey information and that was a result of a

[2:24:39] posting plan adjacent to this property which then required the surveyor of this

[2:24:44] property to submit a new posting for this property which then resulted in

[2:24:48] this ability to change the proposed plan of subdivision.

[2:24:53] » Thank you. And then my my next question um is uh does the narrower lot create

[2:24:58] any challenges for uh emergency access?

[2:25:05] » So the the proposed common property i.e. The access driveway for these four lots

[2:25:10] is below 6 m which is the cut off for when a fire department requires those

[2:25:16] buildings to be sprinkled. And that is the reason for the section 219 that

[2:25:20] would require the four buildings to be sprinkled at time of building permit.

[2:25:24] And we're recommending that this be dealt with through a section 219. So

[2:25:28] that at the time of building permit uh that that covenant will be on title for

[2:25:32] the building department to know that there is a requirement for those four

[2:25:35] buildings to be sprinklered. Thank you, Mr. Barv. I can just get you to turn off

[2:25:39] your microphone. It's just that's okay. Thank you. Uh just prevents any feedback

[2:25:43] loop from happening. Uh any other questions for staff or the applicant?

[2:25:47] Councelor Watson. >> Yes, I do. Um actually, um it's about

[2:25:51] the sprinkling requirements in the driveway width and I just wondered um

[2:25:56] the sprinkling adds, you know, I don't know proportionally,

[2:26:00] but it certainly adds cost to the project. And I wondered if the

[2:26:03] alternative of widening the driveway access was one of the things that was

[2:26:07] considered if you could meet those fire requirements without having sprinkling

[2:26:10] and if that was something that was ever discussed with the applicant or a

[2:26:13] possibility. >> Mr. Green uh through your worship to

[2:26:17] council Watson. Yes, that was a a comment back to the applicant to say

[2:26:20] that they the new plan of the subdivision had a a driveway with less

[2:26:25] than six meters which was the requirement for our fire department and

[2:26:27] as such the applicants had already agreed that the buildings would be happy

[2:26:31] to be sprinkling those buildings. >> Yeah. So, if I could also just direct

[2:26:37] can I direct a question to the applicant just so that I I'm clear about that.

[2:26:42] Were you actually able to consider widening the driveway as an alternative

[2:26:46] to sprinkling? Was that was that a design process that you actually contemp

[2:26:51] you you thought through that that might have saved you the cost of sprinkling?

[2:26:54] Maybe it was six of one half dozen of the other. I don't know.

[2:26:58] » Um, >> yes. Uh, we did we did look at widening

[2:27:02] the driveway. Um, what ends up happening is the driveway width comes closer to

[2:27:08] the south property line and there are a number of trees that we're planting and

[2:27:12] we're trying to salvage along that property line. So, that's one reason we

[2:27:15] didn't want to do it. Um the second reason is uh it increases the

[2:27:21] impermeable paving. So I I think we're at our limits right now with impermeable

[2:27:26] coverage. >> So So that's another reason that we we

[2:27:31] decided not to do it. >> Great. Thank you. I just wanted to

[2:27:34] understand that. Great. >> Thank you. I don't see any other

[2:27:39] questions and we don't have public input on this item. So I'll need someone to go

[2:27:43] through. There's a number of uh of bylaws that have to be read into the

[2:27:46] record. Uh so if we can start somewhere, >> uh your worship, I would move that

[2:27:52] council resend the third reading of zoning bylaw number 3531 1986, amendment

[2:27:57] bylaw number 4937 2025. >> Second.

[2:28:01] » Seconded. Thank you. Any discussion? >> Go ahead, councelor Brie.

[2:28:05] » Uh thanks. Um, I actually um went back and looked on this one because I

[2:28:08] remember it um coming to council before and I I did vote in opposition of this

[2:28:13] um based on what I felt was the neighborhood fit and density. Um and

[2:28:17] that rationale for me is is really largely unchanged. I think it's I think

[2:28:22] you'll end up with a nice product, but I think that for me it's it's a little bit

[2:28:26] too much density for that neighborhood fit. So I I'm I'm probably going to end

[2:28:30] up voting against all of these which seems weird to be voting against a

[2:28:34] resins and then um so I might vote for the first two but then I'll be voting

[2:28:39] against the the the next ones. So thank you.

[2:28:43] » Understood. I appre always appreciate comments of voting against things. Uh so

[2:28:47] we have a mover and a seconder uh for the motion to resend. Uh see no

[2:28:53] discussion. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. I worship I would

[2:28:58] move the council amend zoning by law number 3531 1986 amendment by law number

[2:29:02] 4937205 by a revising the minimum lot area in

[2:29:06] section 7.8.5 uh subsection 1 to 286 square meters and

[2:29:13] b revising the minimum lot width in section 7.8.5 subsection 3 to 5.5 m.

[2:29:20] » Seconded. Thank you. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? None

[2:29:27] opposed. Please continue. >> I would move your worship the council

[2:29:31] give third reading to zoning by number 3531 1986 amendment bylaw number 4937

[2:29:36] 2025 as amended. >> Second.

[2:29:39] » Seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor and

[2:29:44] those opposed. Council braith oppose. That carries.

[2:29:48] » This is a large one you worship. Uh, I would move that council direct staff to

[2:29:52] work with the applicant on a covenant under section 219 of the land title act

[2:29:56] registered prior to adoption of zoning bylaw number 3531 1986 amendment bylaw

[2:30:01] number 49372025 as a charge against title to all of the

[2:30:06] land in the proposed comprehensive development zone that secures a the

[2:30:11] provision of an accessible washroom for the secondary suite on either stratalot

[2:30:15] 2, three or four and b the provision of residential potential fire sprinkler

[2:30:20] systems for all units in the development in compliance with the BC building code,

[2:30:25] BC fire code and building and plumbing bylaw number 4247.

[2:30:30] » Second move and seconded any discussion seeing none. All those in favor any

[2:30:36] opposed councelor Braithweight to oppose that carries.

[2:30:40] Uh so this is not for adoption at this point. We come back for a future uh

[2:30:46] piece of that correct subject. Okay. Thank you. Uh we then moved to good luck

[2:30:51] with the project. Although we'll come back here for final adoption after all

[2:30:54] those things are done. Uh we now move to uh sessions items 113 through 116. These

[2:31:00] are all related to the uh blasting regulation changes. Um Mr. B, I'll let

[2:31:06] you provide the introduction for all four and then I'll I'll go through them

[2:31:09] procedurally. >> Thank you. Um the new blasting and rock

[2:31:15] breaking bylaw uh represents the culmination of a review that began in

[2:31:19] 2020 in response to resident concerns regarding blasting activities in Oak

[2:31:24] Bay. Since that time, staff have completed technical review work and

[2:31:28] multiple rounds of public and industry consultation and the proposed regulatory

[2:31:33] framework in the bylaws now seeks to balance community livability objectives

[2:31:37] with the practical and safety considerations raised throughout the

[2:31:40] process. Um, as the bot implemented, staff will

[2:31:45] continue to monitor uh its effectiveness and we would report back to council on

[2:31:49] any significant issues or recommended amendments that might emerge through

[2:31:53] experience with the new regulations. Um, yeah, today these four bas are in front

[2:31:58] of you for adoption and that would introduce the new regime as of tomorrow

[2:32:03] and we have done our preparations. We still have some to complete uh but we're

[2:32:07] largely prepared for this change. Thank you.

[2:32:10] » Great. Thank you very much, Mr. B. Uh, are there any questions on any of these

[2:32:14] before I get to the motions? Go ahead, Council Green. Oh, go ahead, Council. We

[2:32:19] had questions. >> I think she was going to move.

[2:32:21] » Oh, I was going to make a motion. >> I just had a really quick question. Um,

[2:32:25] there there I noticed that it says one blasting permit every 12 months. And I'm

[2:32:30] wondering what happens if a project like legitimately has requires two blasting

[2:32:35] phases. Do we just have to grant an exemption in that case?

[2:32:41] Mr. B. >> Thank you, Mayor. For you, there there

[2:32:45] is an option to either extend the permit uh for certain reasons. That might be

[2:32:50] one option. And the other option uh for an extra permit, I'm not quite sure. Um

[2:33:00] but um yeah, that might be through council decision if the pilot doesn't

[2:33:04] give staff that option. Thanks. >> Thank you.

[2:33:10] Green, >> I'm prepared to make a motion. Second,

[2:33:15] » can I just uh I need you to read it into the motion to the record, please. So,

[2:33:19] for 11.3. >> Sorry.

[2:33:24] » I just need that council adopt blasting and rock breaking by number 4958 2026.

[2:33:30] » Moved and seconded. Uh any discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Any opposed?

[2:33:38] Not opposed. That carries. Can you just continue on council brace if you have it

[2:33:43] handy for 11.4 >> uh for um 11.4? Yeah. I I'll move that

[2:33:50] council adopt anti noise bylaw number 3210 1997 sorry 1977 amendment bylaw

[2:33:56] number 4960 2026. >> Seconded. Thank you. Any discussion on

[2:34:01] adoption? Seeing none. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed.

[2:34:06] And I'll move that council adopt building and plumbing bylaw number 4247

[2:34:10] 2005 amendment bylaw number 49592026 and seconded. Thank you. Uh all those in

[2:34:18] favor opposed and 11.6.

[2:34:23] » I'll move that council adopt planning building and development fees and

[2:34:26] charges bylaw number 48452023 amendment bylaw number 49612026

[2:34:32] blasting. >> Move and seconded. Thank you. All those

[2:34:35] in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Is there any new business or notices

[2:34:40] emotions? Not seeing any. We will see you all here

[2:34:44] in September. Uh so have a great August >> and uh hopefully there's no emergency

[2:34:51] meetings before. Before that, uh we move now to adjournment. I have a motion to

[2:34:54] adjurnn. Move second. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. 929

[2:35:00] and 59 seconds. Just squeeze under the 9:30 barrier.

[2:35:04] Thank you everyone. [sighs]

Council Meeting - 27 Jul 2026

Transcript