[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]