REQUEST FOR DECISION
MEETING DATE: August 18, 2026 Report No. APC-26-020
TO: Advisory Planning Commission
FROM: Bill Brown, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: Potential Committee Restructuring for the Advisory Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That the Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council a series of actions that address the concerns raised by the APC at the February 9, 2026 Special Joint Council Meeting.
Body
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Advisory Planning Commission (APC) has raised several concerns about the current structure of the Commission and its relationship with the Design Review Committee and Council. These issues were discussed at the Special Joint Council and APC meeting on Monday, February 9, 2026. At that meeting, Council passed the following motion:
That staff look at options to change the Advisory Planning Commission structure and Establishing Bylaw to reflect concerns raised by the Advisory Planning Commission and Council and provide recommendations for review by the Advisory Planning Commission, then Council.
This report reviews the options available to Council.
BACKGROUND:
The Advisory Planning Commission is a statutory body that has been established by Council pursuant to Sec 461 of the Local Government Act to advise Council on all matters respecting land use, community planning, or proposed bylaws and permits under Divisions 4 to 14 of Part 14 that are referred to it by Council. Council relies on the recommendations of the APC to help inform their decision making on applications that have been referred to the APC. Although Council always appreciates the recommendations of the APC, it must be remembered that the APC is advisory, and Council is not required to follow its recommendations.
Recently, The Advisory Planning Commission has raised several issues related to its role and its relationship with the Design Review Committee and Council. In response to these concerns, Council held a Special Joint Meeting between Council and the Advisory Planning Commission on February 9, 2026. At the joint meeting, Council and the APC discussed the need for clarity between the APC and Design Review Committee, role clarity of the Council Liaison and Staff Liaison, broader scope of work for the APC, and better communication and flow of information between APC and Council.
Specifically, Commission and Council comments included the following:
1) Members of the APC requested more clarity on the distinction between the APC and the Design Review Committee, the role of Council and Staff Liaisons, and how the APC can provide meaningful recommendations to Council and function effectively;
2) It was suggested that the Establishing Bylaw be reviewed to provide more clarity on the APC's mandate and the distinction between the APC and the Design Review Committee;
3) Improved communication between the APC and Council was requested, specifically in the form of Staff Liaison Updates at APC meetings;
4) A broader scope of work is possible under the Establishing Bylaw, but the APC is very limited in what it considers and provides recommendations on, and Council was encouraged to refer items broader in scope than land use applications to the Commission
In response to these concerns, Council passed the following motion:
That staff look at options to change the Advisory Planning Commission structure and Establishing Bylaw to reflect concerns raised by the Advisory Planning Commission and Council and provide recommendations for review by the Advisory Planning Commission, then Council.
ANALYSIS:
Each of the points from the meeting minutes is discussed below.
1) - Members of the APC requested more clarity on the distinction between the APC and the Design Review Committee, the role of Council and Staff Liaisons, and how the APC can provide meaningful recommendations to Council and function effectively;
The specific distinctions between the Advisory Planning Commission and the Design Review Committee are found in the Advisory Planning Commission Bylaw 2012, No. 2792 (Appendix “A”). Specifically, section 23 of the Bylaw states that:
The APC shall advise Council on all matters respecting land use, community planning and proposed bylaws and permits under the Local Government Act, other than matters referred to the Design Review Committee under Section 24, which are referred by Council or by Township staff pursuant to the Township’s development application procedures and fees bylaw.
The role of the Design Review Committee is outlined in Section 24 of the bylaw and states that:
The Design Review Committee shall advise Council on matters of urban design arising with respect to:
a. applications for development permits in development permit areas for the establishment of objectives for the form and character of development, other than Development Permit Area No. 3 unless the Council refers the application to the Design Review Committee, and not including applications that are within the jurisdiction of the Director of Development Services unless the Director refers the application to the Design Review Committee; [Amendment No. 3001, 2020]
b. applications for amendments to official community plans or zoning bylaws that establish or amend form and character guidelines, including applications initiated by the Township;
c. applications for zoning bylaw amendments in connection with which the applicant proposes a specific building design, that are referred to the Design Review Committee by Council or by the Director of Development Services; and
d. applications for heritage alteration permits;
e. applications for development permits in development permit areas referred to the Design Review Committee pursuant to Section 24 (a); include review of guidelines in development permit areas 1, 7 and 8 associated with the application. [Amendment No. 3001, 2020]
With regard to the role of Council and staff liaisons, Section 461 (5) of the Local Government Act states:
The following are not eligible to be a member of an advisory planning commission, but may attend a meeting of the commission in a resource capacity:
(a) a council member;
(b) a regional district director;
(c) an employee or officer of the local government;
(d) an approving officer.
Both staff and council liaison may attend an advisory planning commission meeting in a resource capacity. Resource capacity means they should not attempt to influence decisions, assume a leadership role, or do anything beyond acting as a resource.
Finally, regarding providing meaningful recommendations, Council has consistently mentioned how much they value the recommendations of the APC. Even if they do not follow the recommendations, they are still highly valued.
2) It was suggested that the Establishing Bylaw be reviewed to provide more clarity on the APC's mandate and the distinction between the APC and the Design Review Committee
As noted above, the bylaw provides a clear distinction between the role of the APC and the Design Review Committee. What is probably needed instead is better training by staff - particularly the staff liaisons.
3) Improved communication between the APC and Council was requested, specifically in the form of Staff Liaison Updates at APC meetings;
“Staff Liaison Report” has been added to the APC agenda as a standing item. Staff liaisons have been directed to provide detailed Council updates at every meeting.
4) A broader scope of work is possible under the Establishing Bylaw, but the APC is very limited in what it considers and provides recommendations on, and Council was encouraged to refer items broader in scope than land use applications to the Commission
Council has acknowledged the APC’s desire to review a broader scope of planning items. There are several upcoming projects that Council will likely refer to the APC including but not limited to:
a. Establishment of a DCC and ACC Bylaw;
b. Review of Zoning Bylaw regulations related to Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing;
c. Review of proposed Zoning Bylaw amendments related to Short-Term Rentals;
d. Esquimalt Road Urban Design Guidelines;
e. Major review of the Official Community Plan.
SUMMARY:
The Advisory Planning Commission Bylaw has been specifically drafted to both conform to the requirements of the Local Government Act and the specific attributes of Esquimalt. Rather than amend the bylaw to address the concerns raised by the APC, staff propose to implement a rigorous process that addressed these concerns including but not limited to:
1. Implement better orientation and training that clearly identifies the differences between the APC and DRC and the role of Council and Staff Liaisons
2. Provide a detailed update of all relevant Council decisions that have occurred since the last meeting as part of a standing agenda item; and
3. Recommend that council refer various project to the APC as appropriate including upcoming projects related to DCC’s, ACC’s, Short-Term Rentals, Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing, Esquimalt Road Urban Design Guidelines, and the major review of the Official Community Plan.
OPTIONS:
1. That the APC recommend to Council that the APC Bylaw not be amended but rather a robust suite of changes be made to various process that will address the concerns raised by the APC.
2. That the APC recommend to Council that the APC Bylaw be amended in order to address the concerns raised by the APC.
COUNCIL PRIORITY:
Good Governance & Organizational Excellence
REPORT REVIEWED BY:
1. Victoria McKean, Committee Coordinator
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
1. Appendix “A” Advisory Planning Commission Bylaw 2012, No. 2792