MINUTES of a regular meeting of COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE of the Municipal Council of The Corporation of the District of Oak Bay, held in the Council Chambers, Oak Bay Municipal Hall, 2167 Oak Bay Avenue, Oak Bay, B.C., on Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 7:30 p.m.

PRESENT:	Mayor C. M. Causton, Chairman Councillor H. Braithwaite Councillor A. R. Cassidy Councillor S. F. B. Carson Councillor P. Copley Councillor J. D. Herbert Councillor N. B. Jensen
STAFF:	Municipal Clerk, L. Hilton Confidential Secretary, K. Green Director of Building and Planning, R. Thomassen Design Engineer, R. Ding Fire Chief, G. Adam

Mayor Causton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

FIRE SECTION: (Chairman – Councillor Jensen)

1.

2008-217 2008-217-1

FIRE CHIEF, August 26, 2008 DISTRICT OF SAANICH, June 9, 2008 Re Fire Dispatch Contract

The Fire Chief noted that the current five-year Fire Dispatch and Communications Services Agreement with the District of Saanich will expire December 31, 2008. The proposed new agreement includes a revised fee reflecting the most recent census information for Oak Bay, as well as an anticipated increased service delivery cost and an annual labour cost increase to a total of 3.5 percent per year. Chief Adam added that the proposed increase in the fee for service would put Oak Bay more in line with the other municipalities in the region that utilize Saanich dispatch.

Responding to queries from the Committee with respect to Oak Bay’s experience with the Saanich fire dispatch service, Chief Adam confirmed that during the past five years the day-to-day routines of the dispatch service have been improved upon and said he feels confident that the dispatch service enhances Oak Bay’s response, noting that the partnership with the District of Saanich has proven to be very effective.

MOVED by Councillor Herbert

Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite, That it be recommended to Council that the Mayor and Municipal Clerk be authorized to execute the five-year Fire Dispatch and Communications Services Agreement with the District of Saanich for the provision of the fire dispatch and communication services for the period January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013, substantially in the form attached to correspondence item no. 2008-217-1.

CARRIED

Chief Adam drew attention to the continued good work being undertaken by the members of the Emergency Program, including Deputy Chief Cockle and Sonja Ruthe, noting the upcoming information sessions regarding the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that have been organized, along with sessions on natural gas safety from Terasen Gas representatives.

TRAFFIC & PEDESTRIAN SAFETY SECTION: (Chairman – Councillor Copley)

2.

2008-198 -- 2008-218

DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES, July 8, 2008 EXCERPT FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES, August 11, 2008 GWEN EWAN, August 19, 2008 Re Traffic Calming at Intersection of Central Avenue & St. Patrick Street

Noting that this item had previously been discussed at the August 11, 2008 Committee of the Whole meeting and then deferred to a future meeting when a full complement of Committee members would be present, Councillor Copley explained that Mayor Causton had originally asked the Director of Engineering Services to look at ways to improve a visibility issue for vehicles and pedestrians at the intersection of Central Avenue and St. Patrick Street created by the parking of buses.

Attention was drawn to the Engineering Department report detailing two options for alterations, one involving curb extensions only on the east side of the intersection; the other contemplating such extensions on the west side as well. The principal objective of the extensions on the east side, it was noted, would be to allow drivers and pedestrians to proceed out to a point where they could see around a parked bus without coming into conflict with traffic on Central Avenue. A secondary objective would be to reduce the crossing distance on Central Avenue for pedestrians.

Responding to questions with respect to Option 2, the Design Engineer noted that it would not be feasible to narrow the west side of the intersection with chicanes as proposed on the east side as the Central Avenue roadway is only currently 4.1 metres wide on that side.

With respect to the number of accidents at this intersection, Mr. Ding advised that four accidents have been reported since 1999.

Mayor Causton said he felt that the sightlines at the bus layover on the north side of Central Avenue have long been an issue and the pull-in area should have been deepened when this section of the road was redone last year. He acknowledged that while the buses would have to pull out further into the street to get around the chicane, if the work was done as laid out in Option 1, it would improve sightlines and safety. With respect to BC Transit advising that it may increase this bus service over the next five years possibly requiring more space for a layover at this stop, he felt that as it is not in the plans now the proposed improvements should be undertaken.

It was noted that the Traffic Calming budget could be used to fund the extension of the curbs (chicanes) on the east side of the intersection as shown on the plan marked “Option 1”.

While the majority of Committee members felt that the suggested safety improvements were warranted, one member noted he was not convinced that there was a safety hazard at this intersection. It was also noted that the proposed work would eliminate a parking space in an area where the traffic generated by local businesses was putting increased pressure on street parking.

MOVED by Councillor Jensen

Seconded by Councillor Cassidy, That it be recommended to Council that the work proposed for the East side of Central Avenue where it intersects with St. Patrick Street, shown as Option 1 in correspondence item 2008-198, be approved and funded from the traffic calming budget.

CARRIED

(Councillor Herbert against the motion)

3.

2008-219

DAVID BURR LTD., August 22, 2008 Re Request for Parking Restrictions – 1725 Beach Drive

Mr. Rose, Beach Drive, Manager of Marine Oaks Building, was in attendance on behalf of david burr Ltd., requesting that the parking spaces on the east side of Beach Drive directly in front of the 1725 Beach Drive be designated as “residential parking only” with one of the spaces being designated as a “passenger zone” to accommodate the senior residents, families, and health caregivers that attend the building. Mr. Rose added that being adjacent to a busy school often creates limited parking availability for the residents in the area.

In response to questions from the Committee regarding passenger zones and whether limited time parking could be implemented as an alternative to resident only parking, the Municipal Clerk confirmed that a passenger zone and limited time parking zone could be implemented through a traffic control order. It was also noted that residents and visitors would be permitted to exceed the limited time zone if the appropriate permit was obtained.

Following further discussion, and with Mr. Rose in agreement, there was consensus that a 15 minute passenger zone to accommodate a small bus, with the remaining four spaces being designated as two-hour limited time parking, would be appropriate.

MOVED by Councillor Jensen

Seconded by Councillor Braithwaite, That a traffic control order be prepared to implement a 2-hour limited time parking zone and a 15 minute passenger zone adjacent to 1725 Beach Drive.

CARRIED

PUBLIC WORKS SECTION: (Chairman – Councillor Herbert)

4.

2008-220 2008-220-1

MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR, August 26, 2008 LADR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, August 19, 2008 Re Boulevard Encroachment Application – 2757 Dorset Road

MOVED by Councillor Jensen

Seconded by Councillor Copley, That it be recommended to Council that permission be granted for an encroachment onto the boulevard abutting 2757 Dorset Road, consisting of plantings of the size and type and in the locations shown on Sheet L3 (Front Yard Planting Plan) prepared by LADR Landscape Architects, dated July 3, 2008, plus an underground irrigation system, subject to the owners of the property entering into a boulevard encroachment agreement setting out, in addition to the standard terms, the following conditions:

(1) irrigation system to be authorized by permit and to include approved backflow prevention devices;

(2) plantings at both ends to be kept trimmed so that there is no encroachment upon or over the public sidewalk at any time;

(3) plantings at the north end to be kept trimmed so that there is no impedance of access to the ports of the fire hydrant located on the boulevard; and

(4) express acknowledgement by the owners as to the paramountcy of access to the fire hydrant and the potential for damage to plantings in securing that access.

CARRIED

LAND USE SECTION: (Chairman – Councillor Cassidy)

5.

2008-221

DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND PLANNING, August 19, 2008 Re Accessory Building Lot Coverage Limits

The Director of Building and Planning noted that a request by a homeowner to amend the lot coverage limits for accessory buildings to enable him to construct a two car garage on his property was considered by Council at its July 21, 2008 meeting. At that time Council directed staff to prepare a report regarding options to amend the Zoning Bylaw with respect to the allowable size of an accessory building.

Mr. Thomassen provided an overview of the three possible options outlined in his report as follows:

1) Consider no changes with respect to increasing the maximum 5% site coverage for an accessory building as Council has received one request to date.

2) Consider increasing the accessory building maximum site coverage for RS-5 to a suggested amount of 8%.

3) Considering the varying lot sizes found in many of the RS-5 and RS-4 parcels of land, the maximum site coverage for an accessory building could have a limit of the proposed 8% as well as introducing a fixed ceiling amount of 48 square metres (517 square feet), which ever is less.

Discussion ensued with respect to the options available and the advantages and disadvantages of each, as noted in the memorandum and the note supplied by the Municipal Administrator, were acknowledged and discussed.

There was further discussion on Option 3, which would increase the lot coverage from 5% to 8% for both RS-5 and RS-4 lots and set a fixed ceiling. It was noted that the Zoning Bylaw definition could be amended to provide that the fixed ceiling was not considered as density, and so could be varied when individual circumstances warranted it. It was also suggested that a flat square footage limit was another option that could be explored, which would also provide an opportunity for Council to grant a variance should it feel a situation warrants it.

It was felt that the issues surrounding the possible changes were quite complex and it was the view of the Committee that additional deliberations regarding the possible changes to the site coverage regulations for accessory buildings should occur at a future meeting.

Members of the Committee indicated that it would be beneficial to have visual examples of the effects of the various options discussed, and Mr. Thomassen agreed to provide site plan examples in this regard.

MOVED by Councillor Jensen

Seconded by Councillor Carson, That correspondence item no. 2008-221 be deferred to a future meeting of Committee of the Whole.

CARRIED

FINANCE & REGULATORY SECTION: (Chairman – Councillor Braithwaite)

6.

2008-222

MUNICIPAL TREASURER, August 12, 2008 Re July Monthly Financial Reports

Responding to a question about the playground equipment budget not yet being spent, Councillor Carson agreed to inquire about the status of this budget item at the next Oak Bay Parks and Recreation Commission meeting.

MOVED by Councillor Jensen

Seconded by Councillor Copley, That the July monthly financial reports be received.

CARRIED

7.

2008-223

MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR, August 21 ,2008 Re Tree Protection Bylaw – Expand Grounds for Permit Issuance at Council Level

The Municipal Clerk provided an overview of the Municipal Administrator’s memorandum noting that, at its August 18, 2008 meeting, Council suggested that an amendment to the Tree Protection Bylaw be provided to expand grounds for the granting of a permit, exercisable at the Council level, where it found an obvious and well-substantiated potential for damage, even if the tree itself was not unhealthy. It was also mentioned at that time that consideration could be given to allowing Council to exercise its reconsideration authority to allow a protected tree to be removed if considered an impediment to another environmentally beneficial initiative, such as vegetable gardens or facilitation of passive solar heating.

Ms. Hilton drew attention to the draft bylaw incorporating both of the proposed changes prepared for Committee’s consideration.

While some Committee members expressed the view that the bylaw was never intended to be overly restrictive or punitive and that they would be prepared to consider environmental benefits as grounds to remove a tree, it was the majority view of the Committee that it would be too difficult to define and evaluate environmentally beneficial initiatives when considering removal of a protected tree. The majority felt that although the first change (potential for damage) was supportable, the second change regarding having to compare environmental benefits against the public interest in the continued protection of any specific trees in question was not.

Attention was also drawn to the anticipated difficulty of ensuring that an environmentally beneficial initiative, which may be deemed to outweigh the public interest in the continued protection of a tree under the second proposed amendment, is actually undertaken.

Ms. Hilton, responding to a question, explained that the Board of Variance does have jurisdiction to grant relief in cases where undue hardship could be established with respect to a refusal to issue a permit for removal or damage to a protected tree on private property, although she was unaware of any applications that had been heard by the Board in that regard.

MOVED by Councillor Herbert

Seconded by Councillor Cassidy, That the draft amendment to the Tree Protection Bylaw, attached to correspondence item no. 2008-223, excluding Section 21.1(2), be brought forward to Council for formal consideration.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT:

MOVED by Councillor Braithwaite

Seconded by Councillor Jensen, That the meeting of Committee of the Whole be adjourned.

CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m.

Certified Correct:

Municipal Clerk	Chairman, Fire Section
Chairman, Traffic & Pedestrian Safety Section	Chairman, Public Works Section
Chairman, Land Use Section	Chairman, Finance and Regulatory Section