Transcript: Regular Council Meeting - 2026/07/13

Speaker A · All right, so, good evening again, everyone. It's now time for our regular council meeting. Monday, July 13, 2026. I will call the meeting to order. Begin, of course, by respectfully acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional territory of the Saanich people, which includes the Sartre Ben Seyot First Nations. And last week we signed a memorandum of understanding with the Saanish Leadership Council which will help guide the future of our relationship with the first nations that are under the wlc, that is Sartlip and Sikkim First Nation. Okay. If I could have a motion to approve this evening's agenda with an amendment by adding late correspondence to items 112

Speaker B · and 13 1, could I also move that and ask that the item 14. 12 regarding the public hearing item be moved up on the agenda?

Speaker A · Certainly. Would you like to? We'll place it under item 10. We'll make it 10 point.

Speaker B · Yeah, that makes sense. Under item 10, public hearing.

Speaker A · Yeah, 14 point. 10. 12 will become item 10. 1 with this. If there's a seconder. Thank you. Any further discussion on the matter? Seeing none. Any opposed? None. The motion carries. We move to adoption of the minutes of June 29, 2026, please. Moved. Seconded. Thank you. Any errors, omissions or changes? Seeing none. I'll call the question, any opposed to adoption of the minutes? Seeing none. Business arising from the minutes. I'll go to Councillor Riddle.

Speaker C · Okay, thank you very much. This is in relation to 15. 1 last meeting, which was the draft development permit guidelines. So I just have a minor request that I'd like to move and that's that when our staff do an engagement on those guidelines, that they've done a really great job of highlighting the benefits and the goals of those guidelines, but that we also just help people understand the full suite of implications.

Speaker C · So if there are new process steps, new costs, if there's timeline implications, that those are just made visible to them as well, because I know sometimes they hear concerns. And so I just want to make sure when we're getting feedback that people are responding in an informed way.

Speaker A · Okay, so is that the motion?

Speaker C · That's the motion.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker C · The first part, if there's a seconder.

Speaker A · Moved and seconded. Thank you. Any further discussion on the matter? Seeing none. I'll call the question, any opposed? None are opposed. The motion carries. No rise in report this evening. We are on to item. Oh, no, sorry.

Speaker A · There is 7. 1 from the May 25 to 2026 closed council meeting. It's a peninsula and Area agricultural committee member appointment that Christine Refield be appointed as the district of Machosen representative to the PAC for a term ending December 31, 2027.

Speaker B · Question. Yes, when is the next PAC meeting

Speaker D · at this time? There is no PAC meeting scheduled during the summer. I can't speak to further scheduling.

Speaker A · Okay. This does not need to be moved. This is just a rise in report of a previous appointment. Public questions or feedback, please. Anyone who would like to come forward.

Speaker E · Good evening. For the last number of weeks and probably for the last couple of months, we've had a very large piece of commercial equipment, construction equipment, parked in front of this building, parked along the side, like literally on the road. Often in front or behind that particular piece of equipment, there's a cone expressing caution to any drivers coming for or against that particular piece of equipment. Any car that has to pass that piece of equipment going east has to cross the solid yellow line, literally. You know, if I had to guess, I'd say 1 out of 100 doesn't, but almost everybody does because it's safe. And when I say that, that includes the police vehicles also, they are crossing the solid yellow line.

Speaker E · It's a hazard. I've come up to that vehicle, that commercial vehicle on two occasions and there's been a cyclist in the lane and in that case I have stopped. So has the oncoming traffic. In both of those cases, it's seriously a health concern. Knowing that health concerns are important to this council, I'd like to know if there's going to be anything done about that.

Speaker A · Certainly we can follow up with the nature of it and what can be done to remove it.

Speaker E · I appreciate that. And I'd also like to comment that for a number of weeks that particular vehicle did not have a license plate on it. After the fact, I complained to the local detachment here. After the fact, a plate appeared and it's taped to the window. So during the period of time that vehicle is sitting there without a plate, it was literally contravening the Motor Vehicle Act. The fact that it sat there for weeks, not being questioned by police, I assume is concerning. So I guess my follow up to that would be has anybody actually or when they do actually look at that vehicle and give it some consideration, will they check to see if that plate actually matches the vehicle?

Speaker E · Because that is not apparent based on the fact that it didn't have a plate originally.

Speaker A · Good points and thank you for bringing them to our attention.

Speaker F · Hello, council. I think many of you know me. My name is Taylor Miles, with my husband Robert Miles. We own Bannockburn. Before that, we were one of Terry's neighbors over on Lamont Road for a time. And I'm here today representing over 100 of my neighbors around Mount Newton Crossroad. And regarding Mount Newton Crossroads. And because I'm speaking for so many members of the community, I'd like to read my statement so that in full transparency, I'm not ad libbing what our agreement was. So a grassroots petition has been circulating since late last week regarding local concerns about speeding and safety on Mount Newton Crossroad. In that time, we have a petition with 126 adult signatures.

Speaker F · We have had a total of four households decline support for that petition, which means that 97% of the people that we've spoken to have signed this petition. Of the 12680 people either live directly on Mount Newton Crossroad or live on Sananus Thompson or on the immediate rural roads off of Mount Newton Thompson, primarily off Raley Place. We continue to have requests to add names to this petition as late as 5:30pm this evening. And we would like to continue to allow anybody who would like to add their names to this request to council to do so in the next week. And at that point we'll be forwarding this correspondence to council in due course. I should say there are different ideas among the community about what the best solution would be.

Speaker F · There is a collaborative conversation that we hope to have, and we hope to have it with council and you as our elected officials. We understand that other, better solutions to those we propose may emerge. We understand that ICBC and the engineering, of course, will have a vote. What everyone who has signed this petition agrees is this, that there is a problem on Mount Newton Crossroad. Just last night there was again road racing. There are large trucks using it as a crossroad. People don't feel that they can let their children bike to Centennial park because there are blind hills. They don't feel safe walking pets or baby carriages in the areas along the walking trail where it abuts the shoulder. There have been too many close calls.

Speaker F · And this is more than 100 of your constituents saying that there is a problem on Mount Newton Crossroad. What everyone who has signed this petition also agrees is that we do not want the solution to this problem to be widening the road or cutting the Garry Oaks down. Those who signed this position this petition are in agreement that we wish to see the heritage trees and the rural agricultural nature of this road preserved. The official community plan is a democratic document that was approved with the input of the entire Community in central Saanich after, as we all know, many years. The official plan identifies Mount Newton Crossroad as a minor road and as a designated bike and pedestrian trail area. There is an expansion of Butterfield park and process.

Speaker F · And the community agreement in the official community plan is that active transportation is our shared priority. Those who have signed this petition are asking council to initiate steps to put in place, with all due expediency, the infrastructure and policies required to implement the official community plan to ensure that Mount Newton Crossroad is safe and accessible. And we ask that council and the district undertake this process in dialogue. That includes the residents of Mount Newton Crossroad and the adjacent minor roads. Thank you for your consideration.

Speaker A · Thank you. In addition to the feedback you've just provided, I assume a formal petition that you're speaking to will be submitted. Thank you. Okay. Any other public questions or feedback seeing none, we'll move to presentations and delegations.

Speaker A · We have none. This evening we did move item 1412 to item 10. 1, so we will now go to that item. All right, so this is zoning bylaw 2270. Our community planner is available for questions.

Speaker A · And proposed changes that were asked about should come before third reading, as I understand. So I'll look to Councillor Thompson.

Speaker G · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It was suggested that some wording has been proposed in terms of an amendment respecting mobile homes. I'm wondering if we now would have the opportunity to look at that.

Speaker H · Just a point of order.

Speaker G · Yeah.

Speaker H · Given that I just missed the entire public hearing, it probably wouldn't be appropriate for me to start voting and weighing in on that. So I will recuse myself for this. And if the decision gets deferred, I'll. I can watch the game tape and listen to the minutes, but for the time being, I'll step aside.

Speaker A · Okay. Thank you, Councillor King.

Speaker B · I don't know if this means that Councillor Peltier would be coming back in, but I would move to defer, given the wording, the comments that have been made, but that have been more than, I believe, just the modular or mobile home. I heard other valid concerns as well. And unless there is a time constraint rationale, I would just simply defer till the next meeting.

Speaker A · Second, accept the motion to defer. Does anyone wish to speak to the deferral? Councillor Thompson?

Speaker G · I guess there's one other question to ask, and if there's a simple solution to that question. Question. I wouldn't see the need to defer at this time.

Speaker A · Well, you can move to table the deferral motion and then ask your Question and then we could bring the deferral back.

Speaker G · Okay. It may help that I would move to table the deferral.

Speaker A · Okay, I'll second. Thank you. And any opposed to table seeing? None opposed. The motion is tabled. Councillor Thompson, go ahead.

Speaker G · Thank you. My question was with respect to containers, and the use of containers is limited to five. Would it be a meaningful issue to change that number? And perhaps part of that answer may be why? And excuse me, it's been a while since we've had these discussions as to why we would limit the number of containers, particularly for larger farms.

Speaker A · I would add to that that in a previous meeting I actually raised the concern of containers and I think it was further amended, but there was no substantive council direction one way or the other. So to my mind, I'm curious to see what staff would say. But given that it was already raised, it should be an issue that we can choose to either further amend or just remove. But I'll look to staff through the chair.

Speaker I · It would be a very simple thing to fix. Pac's recommendation that we was that we allow unlimited shipping containers on agricultural properties. I completely. I think that makes a lot of sense for farms that are actively doing farming, but we are balancing it with people that are using it as storage yards or unless non agricultural purposes. So the one issue that we felt as staff with unlimited shipping containers is you do have those folks that are taking advantage of those regulations as well. So striking a balance between supporting farmers and protecting farmland is what we're trying to do.

Speaker G · Understood. So is there a way of limiting the use of containers for agricultural purposes? Is that a simple solution or is

Speaker A · it more complex simply adding the wording, say bonafide farm use and defining that as equipment storage that relates to farming and storage of seed and that kind of thing?

Speaker I · Yes, I think that makes a lot of sense. You could also just increase the number of shipping containers too, as well. That would be a simple fix. Either. Either I think makes a lot of sense.

Speaker G · So my question really is it's something that's amendable to might?

Speaker A · It appears to be, yes.

Speaker G · Okay, thank you.

Speaker A · Okay, so I'll look then to lift. Sorry, Councillor King, did you want to ask something while it's tabled?

Speaker B · It sounds like there are a number of potential options, including a certain number, unlimited amount, et cetera. So it's not specific at this stage as to what the change would be. That's why I think we would defer, in my view, to provide the detail.

Speaker A · Certainly that's an argument in favor. And when the deferral motion comes back, that's probably the best place for it. But you've made your comments so I'll let it stand. Councillor Newton?

Speaker J · Yeah, thank you. I would have preferred to have some sort of debate prior to even consideration of deferral so that we could provide maybe some direction to staff about what and why we.

Speaker A · Well, you have that opportunity right now because the motion to defer is tabled.

Speaker J · I understand. So that was my reason for speaking to this and along with Councillor Thompson's comment around the containers and yours,

Speaker K · I

Speaker J · was unaware that we had sort of comment on this from pac and I think that we should weigh their comments quite seriously. The other I had was around the mobile homes and we've heard the reasoning behind it and I think that that's supportable for sure. I guess again to that point, is it the ALC regulation that limits it to one or was that something we decided internally within Central Saanich staff

Speaker I · through the chair? With the new ALC regulations, it's the same as their regulations for secondary dwelling units on farmland. So they've moved away from regulating the type of building and just saying you're allowed one detached secondary dwelling unit on farmland. So it's based on the ALC regulations.

Speaker A · That number and any additional unit would therefore be subject to a unique application coming to us and then being sent to the ALC for its approval. So where there's two, they've previously approved two. If there were two new, I'm assuming that that would mean that those two new would have to come anyway through the application process. Like we can't change that.

Speaker I · That is correct, yes. And for farm worker housing it is a temporary permit as well too.

Speaker A · Yeah, appreciate that, thank you. Thank you, Councelor Riddle.

Speaker C · Thank you. So I, I am supportive of deferring for a meeting. A couple, a couple things have already been raised but I do think I'd like to see a little bit more work done around prohibiting mobile homes on rural properties. There are rural properties that are farming and when we were making proposing changes around the rural forest and the shoreline that were changing the use, we notified all those property own individually and we gave them the chance to speak up. And I think this proposed change has flown under the radar. So I'd like to understand either is this a small number of people and if so, okay, that that might be more manageable or do we need to do more work to notify around that change of use.

Speaker C · So if the deferral passes then I'll probably make a motion to that effect. If that could be brought back when this comes forward at the next meeting.

Speaker A · Okay. I will look for a motion to lift the deferral. Motion moved and seconded. Any opposed to lifting? Seeing none, it's lifted. Any further debate on deferral? If not, I'll. Oh, Councillor Thompson, it's just more a

Speaker G · discussion in terms of getting clarity. If it. I mean, it will come back when it comes back. It will. We've seen the wording with respect to mobile homes on agricultural land, ALR land, but also I think to give us some suggested text or options with respect to containers. I understand what the issue is from the staff perspective, and perhaps we need to have some specific language.

Speaker A · Okay. I would accept an amendment to the deferral motion then to bring back language subject to those two items because I think that provides additional clarity and if there are any further language requests that we wish to consider at the next meeting, if it is deferred.

Speaker A · So you want to move with respect to language on adjusting shipping containers and mobile.

Speaker G · I guess maybe we already have the wording, but just mobile homes and shipping containers.

Speaker A · So it would show the proposed bylaw with the two changes that are necessary for mobile homes and the shipping containers.

Speaker G · Yeah, I'm speaking specifically. I'm speaking specifically to ALR lens.

Speaker A · Yes.

Speaker G · Clearly there is an issue not related to this.

Speaker A · Yeah. For the time being, I'm dealing with the two that you previously raised. So we'll take that as an amendment. It won't be exclusive, but let's deal with that first. If there is a seconder to the deferral motion to bring those two languages forward. Thank you. Discussion on that. I think it's straightforward that we were looking for specific language covering containers and mobile homes. I will put the question on the amendment. Any opposed? None. Motion carries. Councillor Riddle, did you want to make a further amendment with respect to rural properties that may have.

Speaker C · Gosh. Okay, I'll try. And I guess just that staff report back on the impact of prohibiting mobile homes on rural properties and any suggested engagement.

Speaker A · Thank you. I'll take that as an amendment if there's a seconder. Thank you. Any further discussion? Any opposed? None carried on the deferral motion. Any further discussion? I'll call the question. Those opposed? None carried.

Speaker A · When is the next meeting?

Speaker D · July 27th.

Speaker A · So either at the July meeting or the August meeting, depending on how long staff take to undertake this work, presumably. Okay. I'm just trying to give an indication that it may be on the next agenda, but given that it's summertime, it may also be August. I Don't know if staff want to add additional comment on that

Speaker K · 27th through the mayor. Staff will try to get it completed by the 27th.

Speaker A · Understood. Again, I'm just trying to temper expectations given that it's summertime. If it's not on the July meeting, it may well be on the.

Speaker K · There's language already drafted for the mobile home.

Speaker A · Sure.

Speaker K · And the questions we will be able to answer in that time. I did want to state that there is some limitations to some of the information around where or how many mobile homes. Easily, Unless we were to drive around to all of them because we don't have all of our historical records digitized. And so it's not an easy search. But I think that with respect to notifications, that would be something. I'm not sure if we were considering that today or if you wanted to wait until you received the language. Thank you.

Speaker A · The thought certainly crossed my mind that in my limited tenure here of 13 or so years, there have been certainly a few on agricultural land. I don't really recall any rural properties, but there may be some historic ones. But it speaks to probably a small number, but nonetheless, you'll find what you can and respond to the council motion. Councillor Newton.

Speaker J · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is just a question around process and this would be. Would this be considered new information with respect to the public hearing process?

Speaker A · I don't believe so, because we've already considered rural properties anyway, so.

Speaker J · Right.

Speaker K · Yeah.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker K · Through the mayor. Sorry, through the mayor. And it's being discussed tonight at the. It was discussed at the public hearing. So it's not new information because it

Speaker A · was brought forward at the public hearing and it's clarification.

Speaker E · Yeah.

Speaker A · Okay. On the deferral motion then, calling the question. Any opposed?

Speaker B · None.

Speaker A · Carried. Okay, the next item in our agenda is item 11. 1. Response from. Well, UBCM, if there's anything. There's a staff recommendation. Councillor Riddle.

Speaker C · I'll move it. And then maybe move an amendment in addition.

Speaker A · Okay, you're moving it. And what would you like to add?

Speaker C · Just that we also request a meeting with the attorney general to discuss our motion that passed through AVICC around provincial standards funding and regional solutions for police detention services.

Speaker A · Okay. And moved as such. Seconded.

Speaker B · Sure.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker B · Additional.

Speaker A · Okay. Councillor.

Speaker B · Yeah, I'm just looking to make sure that. Or see if it's possible to include the. No, I see it's there. West Saanich Deli's crossroad intersection item. So that's fine. Thank you.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker E · All right.

Speaker A · Any discussion?

Speaker B · Any.

Speaker A · Oh, Councillor Peltiel.

Speaker H · Thank you. I'm just hoping when staff prepare the briefing and let me know if a motion is actually required from this under the third item. And I guess maybe number one as well in just for Ministry of Transportation. When we talk about integrated active transportation networks specifically for the ministry. I'm hoping that we can just again table the idea of some sort of active transportation overpass for somewhere between Tanner and Island View. And the kind of the scope of the Keating project.

Speaker A · You wish to add that as a fourth bullet then the pedestrian.

Speaker H · Yeah. Just in that briefing. I think it's something that we can continue to advocate for. And we have. There's a new Minister of Transportation since we last tabled it.

Speaker B · So I think it's.

Speaker A · Any objection by the mover and seconder to simply adding that bullet? No. Okay, we'll consider that added. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Any opposed to the motion? None carried. Item 11. 2.

Speaker A · Correspondence from CRD regarding the Saanich Peninsula Recreation Services loan authorization bylaw. And there is a recommendation that or council either consent or not consent to the borrowing. Updated borrowing bylaw. Someone want to move this? Is there a seconder?

Speaker A · Thank you. Further discussion.

Speaker B · Councillor King, if I'm not mistaken, the CRD doesn't require a response from Central Saanich till September. Sometime in September, is that right?

Speaker D · That is the date that's due to the Sydney and North Saanich only having one council meeting in each of July and August. But if that's the date in the letter, then that would be the date. I believe it was central. I believe it was central Saanich staff who were requesting an answer at the next council meeting. So that's why I've put it on here tonight. But the CRD might have a different deadline than our Stone staff do.

Speaker B · So am I. Am I on the right track in terms of. CRD wouldn't require a response until September?

Speaker D · If that's what they've indicated, then absolutely.

Speaker B · Okay. So if that's in fact the case, I'd move that we defer until for consideration. In December. In September. Sorry.

Speaker A · Is there a seconder for the deferral? Seeing no seconder, we'll look again to the motion to consent. Councillor Peltiel?

Speaker H · Yeah. I just think that obviously for history and light of the decision in Sydney to not move Forward with the $14 million request. This is a pared down or more fundamental scope of work for this facility. This has been in conjunction with some discussions with Sidney Nor Sanich as well. Further discussions with both Sehout Nation and Actually I came late because I was at a meeting with SARTLIP Chief and Council presenting on behalf of the PRC and discussing regional equity and their needs around better integrating and respecting services within the kind of catchment of our service delivery area.

Speaker H · And the social, transportation and representative equity challenges that PRC and nations like SARTLOP currently have was not lost on them. And I can certainly say that the dialogue to date has been really positive and we're making some really good incremental steps in better supporting the member nations such as SARTLOP and SEO.

Speaker A · Thank you. Any further speakers on the item? Councillor Thompson?

Speaker G · So I'm presuming that neither North Sammich or Sydney have consented considered this motion as of yet.

Speaker A · This particular amended bylaw? No. Or new bylaw for others.

Speaker G · Certainly I know we've got the new taxation data. Perhaps Councilor Paltiel or someone may recall. With the $14 million option, what is the difference to taxpayers in Central Saanich

Speaker A · with the reduction from 14 for this particular option? I think it was around $60 carrying costs for the full. So roughly 20% of that. So yeah. In 2029. Yeah. Shave off 10, 10, $15 ballpark.

Speaker G · Do we have a sense now that it's a reduced area? I'm just considered if there's been any discussion with how that additional space, because the building size isn't going to go down, how that additional space that's been freed up could be used by the community.

Speaker K · CAO Cullum, through the mayor staff are awaiting the decision from the other municipalities before we come back to council.

Speaker G · Sure.

Speaker K · Because of course the additional space, there's still a cost to it and if CRD are not absorbing that cost, we have to come back within implications as council knows, because we had brought it forward to council. We do have an application with UPCM for a grant as well, which may provide more flexibility around what council's decisions would be. And we will be reporting back, but we are awaiting the answer before we do for council to be able to make decisions about that.

Speaker G · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councillor King.

Speaker B · The assumption that I'm hearing is that the last go around was not supported because of the cost. Maybe 14 million was the reason. And then the argument is that at 9. 14 somehow that changes the equation for North Saanich and Sydney, if I'm understanding correctly, is that indeed what they had said when they were not supportive.

Speaker A · The comments from several members of council certainly indicated that the number before them was not acceptable, but that a lower number might be. That is yet to be tested at those Councils. So it's if we consent, they may not. I shall call the question and look for those opposed. Councillor King? Opposed. The motion carries. Item 12. 3 is Council Member reports, if there are any. Councillor Newton.

Speaker J · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Got a couple of reports. One is with respect to the gvpl, the Great Victoria Public Library and the board recently received notification that the funding was going to be be cut by the province by an additional $50,000. So that was quite a surprise to the board around the funding cut by the province. So we're going to continue to advocate through the normal policy procedures with respect to trying to eliminate this reduction, but also to continue to advocate for funding for libraries which hasn't increased in I think 14 years. Councillor King might be able to remind me of that or Councillor Thompson. But it's been a significant amount of time since there's been any change to the funding model for the public library system.

Speaker J · There was some discussion around unattended minors and a new policy with respect to that for staff and the public for children under 10 will now be required to have an accompaniment with a minor so that the direction so that staff also has an idea on how to interact with children and what that looks like going forward.

Speaker J · That's about all on the library. Although I think the going ahead with the new branch in Saanich for the Emily Carr replacement is underway and going well. And then I was able to attend the Pride event, the Victoria Pride Parade on the weekend yesterday. And I just want to recognize the work that was done by staff for that and specifically Sean Bell that really coordinated and led that and the work that they did putting everybody together. We had a couple great attendance by staff and it was just a reminder about how important everybody is in our community.

Speaker A · Thank you council. Seeing no other council member reports, we'll move on to item 13. 1. This is 7054 Brentwood Drive development permit. And I'll look to our acting manager, Development services.

Speaker L · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This application for five unit travel accommodation was introduced to council on May 11. It was referred to the Advisory Planning Commission and an opportunity to be heard was held on June 15. Based on council motions that were passed at that meeting, the applicant is now bringing forward a revised proposal. The rooftop gathering area has been reduced. The building height has also been reduced from 9. 4 meters to 8. 8 meters which would still require variance for the for the height, but it has been reduced. The side yard setback on the north side of the building has been increased from one and a half meters to Two and a half meters and the building has.

Speaker L · The total building has moved south by 1 meter to accommodate the largest setback on the. On the north. And Council now being asked to consider the revised proposal. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you. Are there any questions? Councillor King?

Speaker B · I have a motion to make. I move that the development permit application be referred back to staff and the applicant with direction to bring forward a revised design that one, removes the rooftop gathering area and associated rooftop access access. Two, reduces the building height to no more than the permitted 8 meters and 3, reduces the requested side yard variances with no side yard setback being less than 2 meters.

Speaker A · Is there a seconder for that motion? Okay. Other potential recommendations or questions, if there are any. Councillor Thompson.

Speaker G · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the 8. 8 meters just has to go. I mean, clearly one sits and listens to the neighborhood and the neighbors in through there. That's a major issue and it makes sense to me. I know there's a suggestion in the staff report for consideration of limiting it to 8 meters and increasing patio size. I found it really several weeks ago. I did a little diagram that outlined the building envelope which really helped me get a different perspective on this. In terms of the north side, I think that even at 2. 5 meters, I think that the setback request is excessive. I fully recognize what a challenge the property is. The design, the configuration of the building is a challenge.

Speaker G · Certainly the floor area ratio, lot coverage, for example, the building height was limited to 8, meets the needs of the that zone. One of the things I thought about, because the covenant would restrict use of the wharf to simply to people that are renting units during their stay. But it also seemed to restrict and will clarify with staff that that covenant would not allow for local residents of Central Savage to make use of that wharf. And my thought, or one of my thoughts was that reconfiguring the building, perhaps looking at four units instead of five to provide a lane on the north side, which would also provide a buffer for vehicles to access.

Speaker G · Maybe some limited parking down towards the wharf would be be preferable and perhaps would help facilitate concerns about parking on Brentwood Drive, which in my experience, I can go back, I hate to say it, nearly 20 years in terms of how long I can recall dealing with this as a problem with liveaboard parking.

Speaker G · So I find it very difficult to accept the what's being proposed. And that's my comment and that's my suggestion in terms of reconsideration of the design.

Speaker A · You did have a question in there about the covenant Yes, I did.

Speaker G · With the covenant. Sorry, the covenant through you to staff. The covenant would not allow for local residents to make use of that wharf

Speaker L · through the chair. Should the marina be, I guess, opened up as a marina, there would be additional parking requirements which under the current proposal, could not be met on site.

Speaker G · So the answer is yes. If it wasn't opened up for more parking spots, local residents would not have access or use. That's correct.

Speaker L · That's correct.

Speaker G · Thank you. Here's my question.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker D · Apologies, Chair. I don't believe that Councillor King's motion related to the changes had a seconder.

Speaker A · It did not.

Speaker D · Okay, thanks.

Speaker A · No. So I took Councillor Thompson's lengthy question with explanation. Looking for other questions or direction by the council. Councillor Newton.

Speaker J · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess through you to staff again. And when we're looking at specifically maybe option two, which is somewhat in line, I think, with potentially Councillor King's motion. But the question around the. The covenant and the parking, the marina and how that is tied together, that if. If this was to open up again to people that aren't renting the units and wanted to have it come back to an option for local residents, would. Would there be an avenue to do that or would the requirement to come back for variances on parking for a marina use then be necessary

Speaker L · through the chair? That. That would be. That would necessitate a parking variance.

Speaker J · Okay, thank you.

Speaker A · Okay. Still looking for either questions or a direction. Councillor Thompson.

Speaker G · I would make a motion that the application be referred back to staff and the applicant to come up with some ideas, if they so choose, to reduce the scope of the size of the building, allowing for perhaps a travel lane down toward.

Speaker G · I'm getting too complex on the motion. I know. Let me simplify it. I'd like to refer this back to the staff to ensure a smaller variance request on the north side and to consider access to vehicle access to the wharf with associated parking requirements.

Speaker A · Okay, thank you. We have a motion. Do you wish to speak further to it? You did speak sort of already, but.

Speaker G · Yeah, I know. I guess it's. To me, it's inherent in there that we would limit the height to 8 meters as per the bylaw.

Speaker A · Okay. Any other speakers? Councillor King?

Speaker B · There may be some. Some small differences in the motion that I propose, but I think this has many of the elements and added ones which I concur with, so I would be supportive.

Speaker A · Councillor Newton.

Speaker J · Thank you. I guess if it was to come back and spoken about this in the past. So with respect to eliminating the rooftop deck, would that be in line with then the motion, or would that still be a permitted use under what we're looking at if it was within the height requirement?

Speaker A · I did not hear the motion. Deal with the rooftop deck.

Speaker J · Right.

Speaker A · Use your mic.

Speaker G · It would be a word of advice to remove the rooftop spa or whatever they want to call it.

Speaker J · Sure. Then I may make an amendment after this.

Speaker H · Sir,

Speaker A · it occurred to me that council probably should just deny the application, but we seem to be going this way. Councillor Newton, did you have further. Councillor Peltiel, thank you.

Speaker H · Just my concern here with what we're considering right now is just that we're still contemplating the rooftop deck, which was one of the most significant pieces of feedback that we heard concerns with regarding this proposal from neighbors.

Speaker H · And then in addition to that, a number of the comments around both parking regulations, which this application is not varying as well the density which was mentioned, which this application is actually under allowable density with for within the use.

Speaker H · So while I understand that the motion is speaking to a couple of the variances specifically, I don't know if in my opinion this necessarily gets to the heart of the concerns that I've heard to date. And so I'm not supportive at this time.

Speaker A · Okay, ready for the motion.

Speaker G · Sorry, I mean, the motion is there. If people want this to go forward, that's fine. If members of council want to deny it, then defeat this motion, then we'll deal with that.

Speaker A · That was my thought, but I'll see what council wishes to do. In a moment, I shall call the question and I'm looking for those opposed to the motion on the floor. Floor. Councilor Paltiel and myself. So the motion carries. Okay.

Speaker J · Councillor Newton, is it now okay to make an amendment to that or that has already passed.

Speaker A · What is your amendment?

Speaker J · Well, that would be to the applicant to eliminate the rooftop deck to Councillor Paltiel's comment, and I think what we've heard from the public as well.

Speaker A · Staff don't see any concerns with this motion as it's come forward.

Speaker L · No, I will say that there is an alternative option in the report that does have that rooftop deck removed.

Speaker J · Yeah, I understand that, but we're taking still a number of variances that were still associated with that. And I think. I think the motion that was presented by Councillor Thompson addressed some of them.

Speaker A · So in any event, we're taking the long route. So the motion is on the floor. Those who wish to speak to the motion. Councillor Paltiel.

Speaker H · Yeah, Just to the motion in the previous one, I think that it's important just to look at the zoning bylaw here compared to the general residential zoning bylaw that every other neighbor has. And while this is a tailored zone to the boarding use, a much larger and imposing residence could be built if this was to be rezoned to residential. So I just think we're making a lot of configuration changes and I guess my caution here, which again is a zoning issue, but very likely if we make it so that the business proposed here is not feasible, that, you know, having a caretaker, etc, the challenge becomes that they may be forced to then come back to us with a residential zone which may be more imposing than what we're looking at today.

Speaker H · So I, I just think it's important to be be mindful of that for future dialogue.

Speaker A · Okay. I shall put the question and look for those in opposition.

Speaker E · Opposed?

Speaker A · Councilor Graham? Opposed myself. The motion carries. Okay. Seeing nothing else on this item, we're going to move to the next Item which is 13. 2. 7082 Brentwood Drive. Development permit for private dock and I'll look to staff.

Speaker K · Through the Mayor before Council this evening are two development permit applications for docs, this item as well as 13. 4 that normally would have been considered under the delegated authority pursuant to the District's delegation bylaw. Well, the Director of Building and Planning Department has the authority to issue certain permits that are consistent with applicable policies and guidelines. The delegation bylaw also provides discretion for the Director to refer an application to Council where there is a broader public interest, where the matter may be considered significant, or where Council consideration would provide greater transparency. In exercising this discretion, the Director considered the broader context surrounding shoreline and marine development applications.

Speaker K · Council has recently received correspondence during the development permit guidelines update process expressing community interest in how private dock and shoreline applications are reviewed and considered. The correspondence is attached in appendices F and G of this report. Given that broader community interest and to provide transparency in the consideration of this application, the Director determined it would be appropriate to provide bring the application forward for Council's review rather than exercise delegated authority if Council does choose to refer this item.

Speaker K · For to refer this item, Council's decision upon receiving that feedback must be based solely on the applicable development permit area guidelines and any requirements authorized under the Local Government act and cannot be used to reconsider land use, density or other matters already determined through the zoning.

Speaker K · With that introduction, I will ask the Acting Manager to present the details of the application and staff's analysis for Council's consideration.

Speaker E · Thank you.

Speaker L · The application before you is a development permit for the construction of a new private dock at 7082 Brentwood Drive. The property is owned residential neighbourhood and contains an existing single family dwelling that was constructed in 1983. The owner is seeking to install a private dock to provide water access. Several neighbouring shoreline properties already have private docks and the applicant has submitted letters of support from adjacent residents. The proposed dock would be located in the area of existing derelict stairs, able to require only limited vegetation removal. Staff have reviewed the proposal against the applicable zoning regulations. Devised dock design complies with the W1 Water Area Zone requirements, including the maximum permitted length and width for private docks. The proposal also meets the provincial criteria for general permission authorization, meaning a water lease is not required.

Speaker L · The application has been assessed against the OCP and the Marine Shoreline Development Permit Area guidelines. While the OCP encourages shared docks and community access where possible, it also recognizes the need to protect sensitive marine ecosystems. Staff are satisfied that the proposed design maintains public shoreline access and is consistent with the intent of these policies. The dock is designed as a floating structure which helps minimize environmental impacts and maintain shoreline connectivity. A marine habitat assessment was completed and forms part of the application. The assessment found that the project site has a relatively low ecological rating and confirmed that no eel grass exists within the footprint of the proposed dock.

Speaker L · The report concludes that provided construction follows recommended mitigation measures and best management practices, the dock will have minimal impact on the marine environment while the current application is considered low impact. Based on the information provided, Council may wish to consider referring this item to Sartre First Nation for information and directing staff to incorporate a formal First Nation referral process for future dock applications through the updated development permit guidelines. In conclusion, staff find that the proposed dock complies with the zoning regulations, is consistent with the OCP Marine Shoreline Development Permit guidelines and is supported by marine habitat assessment indicating minimal environmental impact impact. For those reasons, staff are in support of the application. The owner is available for question. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councillor king.

Speaker B · Thank you, Mr. Chair. It was only days ago that we participated and signed on with the Memorandum of Understanding with SARTLOP and SEYOT First Nation and I note that SEYOT opposes new docks and expansion of marine infrastructure behind because of cumulative impacts as a result.

Speaker A · Just for clarity, the MOU is SICOM and sartlop.

Speaker B · That's right.

Speaker A · We don't yet have saud. But your point anyway, that's valid.

Speaker B · And so my thinking though is in reference to protection of those of the shoreline and the waters and what we've been hearing and so I do acknowledge that that the staff have suggested recommended approval and then Referral to Sartlip Nation.

Speaker B · I think given the signing, it would be my preference to refer prior to the permit.

Speaker A · For clarity. I didn't hear that. What I heard from staff was that council may wish to refer, so. So certainly a referral.

Speaker B · That's right.

Speaker A · We don't need to approve this evening, so.

Speaker B · So I would move that consideration of the permit be deferred and that the application be referred to both Sarla Pense and maybe Sicam as well. I'll second for comment.

Speaker A · Yep, I'll second the motion. So you've spoken to it already. I think you've made your point clear. Councillor Peltiel, just for clarity on my end, does.

Speaker H · Does this get. Does the ministry do any referral to the nations affected as well? Like are we. Are we adding redundancy in our process or is like. I just don't want to over.

Speaker K · Thank you. Through the mayor. No, this did not have to go to the province. So it is within our. The district's authority. And so no consultation process. And we did review that prior to bringing that report forward.

Speaker H · In that case, I'm supportive of the motion.

Speaker J · Thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker A · Seeing no other speakers, I'll call the question. Any opposed? None carried item. Oh, Councilor Riddle, thank you.

Speaker C · So just a question three to staff about other jurisdictions on the peninsula. I know the San Peninsula Environmental Coalition has raised that they would like us to be a little bit more coordinated when it comes to approaching things like our shared shoreline. And so I know the doc moratorium was just lifted. Have there been any conversations with the other municipalities on what these processes should look like and are we aware of how they're approaching it now?

Speaker K · Steph, through the mayor, I. Mr. Matanowich, our director of planning and Building services is not here. And so I would like the opportunity to speak with him and Ms. Bowl who were working on the development permit guidelines to see, you know, what comparative analysis they were doing or how they were working with the other municipalities before answering that question. So I will reach out to them and I can report back to council.

Speaker A · Thank you. Moving to Item 133 is 7476 East Sanich Road Development permit amendment. And I'll look to our acting manager of development services, please.

Speaker L · Thank you. The application before you is an application to amend development permit with variances for the property at 7471 VS Road, formerly a part of 7476 East Savage Road. The vacant corner lot was created through zoning and subdivision application that was completed in 2025. Council previously approved A development permit with variances for the site in 2024 to allow construction of a single family dwelling with secondary suite. The applicant is now proposing to amend that approval and instead construct a three story triplex consisting of one dwelling unit on each level. The previously approved rear yard setback variance would remain in effect as part of this amendment.

Speaker L · The original variance reduced the rear setback from 7. 5 meters to 6. 05 meters. While the current RN zoning now requires a 7 meter rear yard setback. The proposal otherwise complies with all applicable zoning regulations. From a policy perspective, the proposal aligns with the OCP support for infill residential development and increased housing diversity within established neighbourhoods. Staff also reviewed the proposal against the district's infill housing design guidelines. The development incorporates several of the guideline objectives, including providing additional housing choice through three dwelling units, creating individual unit entrances with a clear street presence, providing private outdoor amenity space for each unit, incorporating landscaping, fencing and screening to support privacy, and designing windows and building features to reduce impacts neighboring properties.

Speaker L · In summary, the proposed development amendment replaces a previously approved single family dwelling and secondary suite with a triplex. Development staff find that the proposal complies with the current zoning requirements, is consistent with the neighborhood residential designation of the OCP and generally aligns with the district's housing guidelines. Therefore, staff are in support of the application. The applicant is available for questions.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker A · I'll emphasize questions because we've wandered a bit this evening. Are there any questions? Councillor Newton?

Speaker J · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess. Does this change the change the density from two units to three units? So now would we, the DCCs or ACCs, the fees, would they be required to still be paid with this change?

Speaker L · That's a good question. The DCCS would have been charged at the subdivision stage. So there would have been one DCC charge for the new lot with I guess multifamily units. There is the option of charging DCCs at the building permit stage, which in this case would then take into consideration the the DCC is already paid. So likely it would just be one DCC charge that would apply in this case for the third unit that would

Speaker J · be directional council or that would happen at the building permit stage.

Speaker L · That would have. At the building permit stage, yeah.

Speaker J · And I guess we're sort of in a weird space with this particular development application with respect to how that province sort of stepped into this. So does the lot size restrict this from going to 4 units or 3 units? With respect to a townhouse

Speaker L · through the chair, there's no lot size restrictions. Other than implemented by the zoning bylaw. Because this is an existing lot that was approved, it could have up to four units built under the current zoning regulations. Although it would be challenging on a site this small. But this would be in line with the new RN zoning regulations.

Speaker J · And this is zoned rn, not rc, Correct?

Speaker L · It's zoned rn, Correct.

Speaker A · Any other questions? Motions? Councillor Riddle.

Speaker C · I'll move the staff recommendation.

Speaker A · Thank you. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Any opposed? None. Carried. Item 13. 4. 8100 McPhail wrote Development Permit for a private dock. And again I'll look to Cao Cullum through the Mayor.

Speaker K · The same introduction that I said for 13. 2 would be with respect to this. The Director of Planning Building Services has delegated authority to make this decision, but thought due to the public interest that it should come before Council. I will turn it over to the Acting Manager of Development Services. Thank you.

Speaker L · Thank you. This is an application for the replacement and relocation of an existing dock at 8100 MacPhail Road. The existing dock is in state of disrepair with a new walkway gangway and floating dock proposed in a new location along the shoreline. The Property currently contains two detached garages, although all habitable structures were removed in 2019. The applicant has indicated that future residential development is planned for the site. Overall. Staff find that the application is in line with the official community plan guidelines for marine shoreline development permit areas as well as the zoning regulations of the W1 water area zone. A marine habitat assessment was completed for the site and found the ecological value of the immediate project area to be relatively low. Any mitigation measures that were recommended would be secured to the development permit.

Speaker L · Prior to the issuance of a building permit. The marine habitat assessment will be submitted to Fisheries and Oceans Canada for review and any works will need to be undertaken within the approved fishery timing windows to minimize impacts on fish and fish habitats. While the current application is considered low impact based on the information provided same as with the previous application, staff are suggesting that Council may want to take. Consider referring this item to first nations overall. Staff find the proposed doc Compliance with the zoning regulations is consistent with the OCP development permit guidelines and is supported by marine habitat assessment indicating minimal environmental impact. The applicant has prepared a presentation and is also available for questions.

Speaker E · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councillor King.

Speaker B · I'd be prepared to make the same motion. I believe, though it should have included Pocketchin as well so that no First Nation is excluded.

Speaker A · Sorry, I understood the previous one. Dealt with the relationship through the MoU, but if it was broader than that

Speaker B · it did mention sayout as well. And that's in reference to their concern. But I did not say say Pakuchin. And they are on the same side. I believe so.

Speaker G · Yeah.

Speaker A · Certainly. Main community of Pakuchin is on the west side of the peninsula. Yep. So. Okay. You want to make the same motion which is a referral to with Sainage nations, all four of them. Is there a seconder for that motion? Thank you. Any further discussion? So again the intent is the same. That the item would come back after refer. Referral to the nation. Councilor Riddle.

Speaker G · Yeah.

Speaker C · Thank you. I just had a question. Three to staff. Is there any risk associated with the existing dock? Like is the existing dock causing any sort of harm or posing a significant risk that we should just be aware of?

Speaker L · To. To my knowledge there's no risk with the current document. The. The float has already been removed some. Some time ago and the walkway seems to be just kind of dropped onto shore. So I don't believe there's any risks in the environment in its current state.

Speaker A · Okay. Seeing no further hands, I'll put the question and look for those opposed if any. None. Motion carries. Item 13. 5 is the update on the child care temporary use permit at the Saanich fairgrounds.

Speaker G · I am going to recuse myself as my wife is on the board.

Speaker A · Understood. Thank you Councilor Thompson. And I'll look to our director of corporate services.

Speaker D · Thank you, Chair. I'll be brief. The report provides an update on the proposed child care facility at the Sanich fairgrounds. This was previously given council support and had an opportunity to be heard. And the ALC approved of an up to six year temporary use permit for this operation within an existing building. However, recently the north and South Sanich Agricultural Society board has elected not to proceed with the project. And this update is being provided to hear council to ask whether it wishes to continue advocacy on this matter. Happy to take any Questions from council, Mr. Mayor.

Speaker A · Councillor King.

Speaker B · I do have a motion for this. That council invite representatives of the north and South Saanich Agriculture Society to an upcoming council meeting to explain one, the Society's operational concerns about the proposed child care use. Two reasons for its decision not to proceed and three, whether and how a child care facility at the fairgrounds would support the society's agricultural mandate.

Speaker A · Slightly different than the recommendation, but very similar.

Speaker B · That's right.

Speaker A · Okay, I'll take the motion if there's a seconder second. Thank you. Any further discussion on the matter. Call the question. Those opposed.

Speaker B · None.

Speaker A · Motion carries. Councilor Riddle.

Speaker C · I just wonder if it would also be in order to move the staff recommendation. Because I appreciate the process here in the council chambers and having that formal opportunity to discuss in an open forum. But I do think there is also value to having open dialogue at the staff level to maybe dive a little bit deeper, get a bit more understanding about what happened. I know a lot of people spent a lot of time and put a huge amount of effort into this proposal

Speaker A · on both sides to answer the question. I don't think that it is contradictory to also have it at the staff level.

Speaker C · Okay, well then maybe I'll move that and then I'll continue.

Speaker A · At worst there'd be some redundancies, but I'm sure they'd get sorted out, moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Any opposed? None carried. Councilor Thompson can come back wherever he wandered off to. Okay, give him a knock.

Speaker A · 1411 Heat Pump Financing Program, bylaw 2273 for adoption. Please. Is there a seconder second? Thank you. Any discussion? Any opposed? None carried. We're on to item 15. 1, Councillor King, your notice of motion, I'll read it out.

Speaker B · That therefore, be it resolved that mayor and council write to the Minister of Transportation and Transit to request a timeline for intersection improvements at West Santa Trouble and Steli's crossroad to address pedestrian and vehicle safety, and to request a meeting between ministry representatives and the district representatives to discuss potential improvements and next steps.

Speaker B · And be it further resolved that a copy of the correspondence be provided to Charlotte First Nation. Thank you.

Speaker A · Is there a seconder? Any discussion?

Speaker B · It's pretty self explanatory in terms of the whereases and I have had conversation and grateful to staff for guidance in this and yeah, I think we all probably experience the intersection and know what the issue is.

Speaker K · Great.

Speaker A · Any opposed?

Speaker B · None.

Speaker A · Motion carries. No items of new business. A couple of items of correspondence if anyone wants to raise them. No. Closed meeting. Close the meeting. Subject to section 90, sub 1, sub K, please. Is there a motion?

Speaker A · Moved and seconded. Thank you. Any opposed? None carried.