Transcript: Special (Open) Council - 2026/04/20

Speaker A · All right. Good evening everyone. Welcome. It's the special open council for Monday April 20, 2026. I'm going to call the meeting to order and begin by respectfully acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional territory of the Hussainage which includes the lands of the Sartlep and SEOT First Nations. If I could have a motion to approve this evening's agenda as circulated. Is that a hand up to do so, Councillor? Yes. Excellent. Approved. And you are seconding?

Speaker B · Sure.

Speaker A · Okay. It is thusly put and I shall call the question if there is no discussion. Any opposed? Very good. None are opposed. Motion carries. Motion to convene a committee of the whole. Our acting mayor is absent, so presumably that will leave me. Sorry, Nile. Yeah. So a motion to convene a. Or. Sorry, the council meeting be recessed and a committee of the whole meeting be convened. Please. A mover and a seconder moved. Second. Any opposed? None carried. Thank you. We are now into committee of the whole introduction of the draft zoning bylaw and we'll look to our planner, Julie Bol is.

Speaker B · Yeah,

Speaker A · no, I didn't actually introduce the councillor online. So. Yes, we have one councillor online.

Speaker C · Okay.

Speaker D · Hello everyone.

Speaker C · Thank you for being here to review the discussion draft of the zoning bylaw. Today I'll be presenting an overview of the bylaw including the background and process to date, key updates across the different zones and the proposed next steps. A comprehensive zoning bylaw update is being undertaken to modernize existing regulations, improve usability and better align with the official community plan and current best practices. This draft reflects the an iterative process including multiple council check ins through 2025 and phase one public engagement in October. Feedback from the community property owners and council has directly informed the structure, content and overall direction of the bylaw you see today. I'll now go over the proposed changes.

Speaker C · To view the draft zoning bylaw, please refer to appendix A for a side by side comparison of the existing and proposed regulations along with explanatory comments, please see appendix B. A key focus of this draft bylaw is modernization. This includes updating language definitions and general regulations to improve clarity and consistency across the document. We've also consolidated zones and uses and introduced clear formatting with improved tables and graphics. Zones have been renamed using letters tied to their primary function, making them more intuitive. Definitions have also been refined. Several updates were proposed to the general regulations to address emerging issues and improve consistency. New floodplain regulations require that development within 100 metres of the marine shoreline be supported by a qualified professional report confirming the site is outside the floodplain to align with municipal best practices and provincial regulations.

Speaker C · Retaining wall regulations have been updated so that larger multi tiered walls require additional approvals ensuring safety and oversight. We've also introduced regulations for shipping containers to ensure appropriate placement and use. Finally, home occupation rules have been updated to provide more flexibility depending on the dwelling type while still maintaining neighborhood character. The agricultural zones have been refined to simplify and strengthen their function. This includes integrating specialized zones like Veterinary and Aerodrome into the main agriculture zone. We are also introducing clear setback requirements from a range of farm uses scaled based on their intensity and including setbacks for for watercourses. Additionally, increased setbacks are proposed where industrial or commercial zones border farmland to reduce potential impacts such as shading or operational conflicts.

Speaker C · In commercial areas, the focus has been on refining permitted uses and improving clarity rather than increasing building height which reflects the feedback received during public engagement. We're maintaining and strengthening requirements for active ground floor commercial uses and mixed use areas to support walkability and vibrant streetscapes. A new intensive commercial zone is proposed for the Keating Business District to better reflect its role as a mixed employment hub. Marine commercial zones have also been refined to better align with waterfront related uses. Updates to the industrial zones are relatively minor and focused on better reflecting existing uses and adding flexibility where appropriate. For example, Gateway park is proposed to be included in the light industrial zone with childcare added as a permitted use to support the local workforce. Commercial composting is also proposed to be limited to existing operations.

Speaker C · In the institutional zones. Small density increases are proposed to accommodate Fire Hall Number one in the general institutional zone along with the introduction of subdivision regulations to ensure consistency with other zones. In response to the provincial legislation introduced through Bill 44, the district previously updated its many residential zones. Since then, there has been a strong interest in smaller lot configurations that still support ground oriented housing. To respond to this, a new small lot residential zone is being considered allowing single detached homes or duplexes with options for suites and secondary dwelling units supporting up to four units where feasible. We are also proposing modest increases to lot coverage in the existing residential neighborhood zone to ensure housing forms are practical and achievable.

Speaker C · The existing multifamily zones are being organized into three simplified zones to better support a range of housing types. This includes a lower density townhouse zone, a mixed townhouse and apartment zone, and a higher density apartment zone permitting up to four stories. Setbacks have been aligned with existing design guidelines and modest density increases are being considered to support improved building forms and housing diversity. Here's a summary of Our different residential housing forms. The rural estate zones are being consolidated and aligned more closely with the official community plan designations, resulting in three new zones. Rural agriculture, rural forest and rural shoreline. A key consideration has been balancing agricultural use with environmental protection.

Speaker C · In the forest and shoreline zones, agriculture is proposed to be limited to 25% of lot coverage to help preserve sensitive ecosystems. This percentage still allows property owners to achieve farm status if they wish to do so. In addition, properties with recognized farm status can still utilize 100% of their lot coverage for agriculture through site provisions. Given the wide range of rural lot sizes, a proportional approach to lot coverage is being proposed. This creates more equitable relationship between lot size and allowable development based on an incremental scale. The approach is generally consistent with existing zoning but allows for slight increases on smaller lots in rural areas.

Speaker C · Additionally, a maximum house size of 500 square meters is being considered in certain rural zones. Based on prior council direction, water zones have been updated to improve clarity and consistency. This includes consolidating permitted uses and introducing new ones to reflect evolving needs. New setback requirements are also proposed to reduce the conflicts between neighboring properties and prevent encroachment. The draft zoning map reflects all proposed changes and is aligned with the updated zone structure. In areas where zoning changes are being considered, such as Dignan Road, targeted engagement will be undertaken with property owners. We just have Dignan here on the map to demonstrate that it aligns with the district's ocp. Following this presentation and council direction, the next step will be public engagement running from April to June.

Speaker C · This will include open houses, an online feedback form and targeted outreach with key property owners. All feedback will be compiled and brought back to council for consideration before the bylaw proceeds to public hearing. That concludes my presentation and happy to answer any questions, Councillor King.

Speaker E · Thank you. Thanks to staff. One question is are there often. I'm quite interested in trails and such things. Those wouldn't necessarily be considered at this point stage, would they?

Speaker C · Through the mayor? Not at this stage, no.

Speaker E · I didn't expect so. But I did want to raise them. I have, you know, interest in seeing connection between Stell's and West Saanich with regards to the Dignan area. But on a different note, residents have expressed interest in.

Speaker E · I'm calling it by the acronym STRS in the past in terms of short term rentals. Am I correct that there's no alleviation or resolution in this for those concerns that have been expressed to date? Or is there?

Speaker F · Thank you, ether. Mr. Mayor. Councillor King, thank you for the question. Staff are bringing a report back in queue Q2, which are very near specifically focusing on short term rentals. So you'll see something in the. In the coming months on that. Specifically this bylaw, it has defined them, but in terms of allowing them in residential neighborhoods, that's not part of this scope.

Speaker E · Okay, fair. And regarding buffering and agricultural use and then industrial use. I understand. Is that. Is that buffering proposed because of specific provincial requirements or is that a district policy choice to better protect farm.

Speaker C · I wasn't sure through the mayor. It's a combination of both. With the increased building heights and Keating that council adopted last year, we did have some concerns from the agricultural community about higher buildings near farmland. So we base the regulations off of provincial best practices provided by the Ministry of Agriculture.

Speaker E · Great. And then lastly I've got a notice of motion that's sort of on its way in terms of what's been introduced last meeting and then will be addressed at an upcoming one with regards to the potential for food hubs as a use in the Keating area.

Speaker E · In particular the. Anyway, in the Keating area which has been made public, the notice of motion. So is there. I just wanted to sort of see where that potentially could fit with what is proposed here. So just to make sure that there's nothing superseding or precluding the other. Yeah.

Speaker C · We currently allow both food processing and restaurants within the Keating business district. So I could see where that would fit in really nicely.

Speaker E · Okay, thank you,

Speaker A · Councillor Thompson.

Speaker B · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had a couple of comments. One was with reference to the zoning map, even I find it difficult to clearly see the zones. For example, in Sanichton or other areas where there are overlapping labels are overlapping with the zones. Is there a way of creating this zoning map? Perhaps by including specific sorting by category so that the map shows simply residential areas, the other areas being white or some other way that we can make it very clear as to what the zones are.

Speaker B · I refer to Fair Meadow Place in particular that area in Sandichton. It's very difficult to read.

Speaker A · It seems to me that simply putting each. There's what about 20, 25 ish each one on its own page with the color pronounced so that each area is hived off might be an approach. We don't print things anymore generally so

Speaker C · we can save the paper through the mayor. We didn't have it available last week, but we just got our interactive GIS back on the let's Talk Central Sanich website. So if anyone can go on there and scroll in and get a much better view of the properties, it is quite challenging to demonstrate the properties in PDF.

Speaker A · Yeah. In a single page PDF especially so 25 page PDF or the layered based GIS. Which is fantastic. Glad to hear that. Okay. Anything further, Councillor Thompson? Nope.

Speaker B · Yes, in terms of public process and engagement, I like the opportunity to hear directly from the public, for example, at a committee meeting, as opposed to a variety of other options. And I would like to suggest that prior to consideration of the readings of the bylaw, that we have a special committee meeting to hear from the public directly on their opinions on the changes to the zoning bylaw. And I'm happy to make that a motion.

Speaker A · You do not. Just for clarity then you envision at an upcoming council meeting, council convening committee of the hall with the opportunity for that to provide the.

Speaker B · Or it might be a unique meeting, as we have done in the past. I mean, it really depends on what the reaction is. I have to admit there might be 10 people or there might be significantly more. But I would like to see that opportunity, whether it's in the context of a council meeting or unique standalone committee meeting.

Speaker A · I'll accept the motion. With that level of flexibility looking to staff potentially when such a meeting might reasonably be expected to occur.

Speaker F · Thank you. Through Mr. Mayor, the intention is to do community engagement in end of May. So I. I think perhaps very close after that. And we could even report back on what we heard at that time and, and then invite the public to a committee. The whole meeting.

Speaker A · So early June perhaps?

Speaker F · I would think early June.

Speaker A · Noting that the. The mayor at least will be at FCM and then at a BC transit conference for about 10 days. So you don't need me necessarily. But I will be absent for about 10 days, so just mindful of that. Yeah.

Speaker B · By the way, I too am traveling in late May, early June, so sometime, I guess the first meeting in June scheduled is June 15th.

Speaker A · Yeah, I'll be back for that.

Speaker B · So maybe around that time or that week.

Speaker A · Stephen.

Speaker B · Useful.

Speaker A · I'm getting nods. I think something is achievable. Okay. We shall then move on to any other comments or questions you have, if there are any. I don't think I've gotten there yet. I don't think anyone's moved the motion even yet. Oh, yes, sorry. The motion about the committee of the hall. But I'm looking for other speakers. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Okay. Nobody's speaking to that. Okay. Then I shall put the question. Any opposed? None carried. Any other matters then, Councilor? I don't see Councillor Thompson, Councillor King. Go ahead.

Speaker E · No, I, I. Well, I could have Spoken to in support of Councillor Thompson's motion. Just because I think these types of things can be sneaky, where we think everybody's happy and then we find out that somebody isn't. So I do think that having the opportunity for the public to come and speak would be smart. So.

Speaker D · Yeah.

Speaker A · Anyway, I think counsel is of the same mind, certainly on hearing from the public if there's any thoughts both positive and. Or neutral or negative. Councillor Thomas, I will move the motion.

Speaker B · Sorry, the recommendations.

Speaker A · I had one or two questions first, but I. And I may have other speakers who want to. Sorry, Councillor Riddle, I think you put your hands up at the same time. I don't think it matters. Whoever wants to go first?

Speaker E · Sure.

Speaker G · Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Couple of questions, one we'll probably Discuss later in 4. 4 about this, but

Speaker E · I

Speaker G · will echo Councillor Thompson's comment around just the actual visual component of the map. I find the color coding, especially between the RC and the other RN component, to be very, very difficult to discern. And so I think trying to create a bit more of a contrast for that would be helpful.

Speaker A · Perhaps in future meetings, staff will just pull up the GIS and put that on the screen.

Speaker B · Sure.

Speaker G · But this is often referred to by the public as well on our website

Speaker A · and printed the GIS map as indicated by staff is on the let's Talk Central Saanich website. So users of that service would see the different layers and could isolate them. I'm suggesting for this environment we could do likewise. So it's publicly available already?

Speaker B · Yeah.

Speaker G · Just coming back to the proposed tweaking with respect to the Keating Industrial area. And I know this had been discussed, but we're still looking at prohibiting residential use within that area at this time as part of this zoning amendment. Is that correct?

Speaker C · Through the mayor? Yes, that is correct.

Speaker G · Right. Specific to then the proposed changes with respect to Dignan. And I'm happy that we're reaching out to those property owners in and around that area. Would townhouses still be permitted in that area or would the multifamily be the preferred type of density that we're looking. Looking for in there?

Speaker C · Through the mayor? I believe when we came back to council in December, the direction was to go out on apartments. So that's what we'll be engaging on is whether the folks on Dignon Road support apartments unless council provides other direction.

Speaker B · Right.

Speaker G · Okay, thank you. When we're looking at this zoning and we often, I believe, tie somewhat in know parking, especially in once we're getting out beyond single family dwellings. And so would there be a parking component to this proposed zoning bylaw change.

Speaker F · Thank you. Through Mr. Mayor that so you'll see a report on the agenda. We're introducing what we're. Our sort of next step is on the zoning bylaw. So at this time the parking wouldn't be adjusted. But Starting in about Q3, 2026 and into 2027, we will be looking at those parking standards and bringing that back for council consideration.

Speaker G · And then that would be a like an amendment or a revision of this or an edit. I just, I'm a bit wanting to find out what the process is in order to sort of bring it all back together.

Speaker F · It'd be a zoning bylaw amendment so there would be a public hearing involved. It basically our parking is one section of our zoning bylaw near the end. So just be focusing on those 20 pages or so of the zoning including bicycle parking, visitor parking and all sorts of parking for the various uses we permit.

Speaker G · Yeah, I know that item is for later, but I do believe it's tied together and I was kind of found it interesting to see where the different current levels of parking are within the community. And it was great to see that data being able to be extrapolated on a pretty fine tuned basis discerning between Brentwood Bay versus Sanichton. I think that we should be looking and we know and often hear around development the concerns around parking and densification and how that gets, you know, potentially pushed out into the residential areas. I would be curious to see what like to have the current minimums of what we're seeing or the averages out there to be that, to be part of the bylaw when we're looking at that.

Speaker G · But I guess that will be a conversation down the road as that comes forward. But it was just a flag for observation that I think it may go a long way to looking at how we're going out with density into the community. Keating Colors. I think that was all I had at the moment. So thank you.

Speaker E · Okay.

Speaker A · Councillor Riddle,

Speaker D · so thank you very much and thank you for all the work. You covered a huge amount of ground here. It was, I don't want to say overwhelming, but it was a lot. It was a lot to cover. So thank you for those efforts and I think it's a lot easier to understand now too. I definitely noticed some positive changes there. So thank you again. I have a few questions. The first is around mobile homes. I feel like a. I don't know how I've emerged as this mobile home champion, but I'm just, I'm wondering where it came from to discourage them or not allow them going forward because I know this was something we'd previously considered and the council had decided not to move forward with that direction.

Speaker D · So just want to understand why it's back here and then. And then what the rationale is.

Speaker F · So in terms of mobile homes, RV type, that type of home or tiny homes. You said mobile homes.

Speaker D · Well, I did have questions. I thought it said mobile homes. No mobile homes in here.

Speaker F · Yeah, I think that's. That's an existing regulation or currently does not allow mobile homes or RVs for habitable space. So that's. That would just.

Speaker D · That's not new.

Speaker F · That's not new. No. So no change to that at this time. So that's okay. That's remaining.

Speaker D · I'm having this memory of this whole conversation we had at council around this like two years ago. But it could have been something.

Speaker F · There was a site specific one that was recently. Well, the last two years considered for RVs on agricultural property that was going through for a temporary use permit.

Speaker A · It still.

Speaker F · Is it still with the agricultural land reserve. That might be the one.

Speaker D · Okay. No, it was something else. This is going to drive me bananas now.

Speaker A · This is early in the opportunity, so if it comes to you, there'll be another opportunity, obviously.

Speaker D · Thank you. Okay. I'll have to dig back and remember that because I remember having this whole conversation about the mobile homes on my street anyways. Okay, that's fine. So a couple other questions about rural lots with the lot coverage for agriculture and just wondering, we'd had a conversation about other tools and what other jurisdictions were doing post, I guess McCaddy case around protecting trees and this is one of the pieces.

Speaker D · Did you find any others? Is there anything that other jurisdictions are doing to continue protecting trees in the new context?

Speaker C · This through the Mayor, this issue seems to be. We kind of seem to be at the forefront of this issue. So a lot of other municipalities haven't changed their zoning bylaws yet. We did work with a lawyer to just kind of understand the reasons behind the legal case. And this was the best we could come up with based on that legal opinion. Lot coverage really seemed to be the deciding factor in that court case.

Speaker B · Okay.

Speaker D · And just one more around the sliding scale percentage of lot coverage in on the rural lots. Just want to understand a little bit more about how you landed there

Speaker C · through the mayor. It is based on the current RE4 zoning that any rural property could apply for. We found given the range of lot sizes, we have some properties in the district that Are that are massive and some that are very, very small. And it does pose a lot of challenges for homeowners. So to simplify it and just make sure it was more fair and equitable, that's the approach we landed on. And to simplify the six RE zones into three rural estate zones. It worked the best.

Speaker A · Okay, I just had a few things that caught my eye. The number of shipping containers on some properties as say, storage might be a little bit arbitrarily low. On agricultural properties, especially sometimes shipping containers can be used for more secure storage of various grain products, for example, to keep rats away from them. I think the agricultural limit is 1, so I might flag that as maybe something that needs to be looked a little bit more diligently at. Perhaps it could be a little bit more nuanced with larger parcels potentially having more flexibility on that one. Some of the larger farms might have too much material for just one.

Speaker A · With respect to I guess suites within homes, it's my understanding the provincial government changed and eliminated the rule for the 90 square meters of a suite within a home. If I'm remembering correctly, and we have, I think across all zones also changed that already. So there's nothing in here that, that I could see that changes course on that. It says 500 meters on agricultural land is consistent with the agricultural land reserve. If a carriage home is allowed, is that 90 square meters additional? So would it be 590 or does it eat into the. Because I understood it's kind of additive.

Speaker C · Right through the mayor. It is additive if it's a carriage house. And it won't count towards the lot coverage either.

Speaker A · Got it.

Speaker C · On real estate properties, yeah.

Speaker A · But on agricultural land it would.

Speaker C · It's slightly more complicated. The ALC's regulations are 500 square meters for all residential or non farm uses. So it really depends really. That's the, that's the way the, the bylaws read, so.

Speaker A · Their bylaws, yes.

Speaker H · Yeah.

Speaker A · I have to take a closer look. I had understood that it was potentially Greater, but it's 500 writ large, so we can't exceed that. Okay, interesting. We don't have a lot of pools in the district and probably shouldn't spend a lot of time on them. But I did note that there were some rules around setbacks, presumably because there aren't that many, but they may occasionally go on lots where you don't have. I can't remember if it's like three meters or something. Is there a different way to approach this such that you need proper geotech and that if, regardless of where it's being placed, so that an impact on a neighboring property would be absolved by that.

Speaker F · Our challenge with that is that through Mr. Mayor, there is no building permit required. So there's nothing that triggers a district review of a pool that's installed. Then we can explore an opportunity, an option around that. But there's. There's nothing. The building code doesn't apply to pools. So our building official team wouldn't be issuing any permits, plumbing permits maybe, or if they needed an excavation.

Speaker A · But I was going to say fill.

Speaker F · Yeah, that might be. The other one is fill, but it wouldn't be. Look, it would be looked at through Geotech. So we can look into that and

Speaker A · see if there's any further onto the fill removal.

Speaker F · That might be the, that might be the way it's a. The amount of fill is what's the trigger as well for us. But we could explore that. See.

Speaker A · Okay. Yeah, it's just, it was a curiosity again. It's not a common thing, so I don't think it's necessarily requiring a lot of effort. The other question I had was with respect to retaining walls. I heard you mention the retaining walls in the marine area, is that correct? But presumably there are rules. I think it's on page. I'm trying to scan through the report now. It's. Goodness, where am I? Anyway, the section on retaining walls I think is more general across the district, is it not? I think it's page 44 of 114 on the PDF. Talks about retaining walls in a section within required setback on private property and then sets the height and the maximum, I guess, pitch of it. That's across the whole district, presumably.

Speaker A · Again, I'm wondering if this is best solved by Geotech rather than. Because there are, you know, there's often areas in the district that are quite flat. And then there are some areas I can think Thompson Place, for example, where you have quite a bit of grade increase and terracing requirements. So I'm a little worried that this might be too restrictive and that the approach might be taken to have proper geotech and engineering done on construction of appropriate retaining walls in those, those types of environments.

Speaker F · I could try maybe hand it over to Julie's, the antenna of this. So right now, under our current zoning bylaw, the maximum height of a retaining wall is four feet, is that correct? No, it's not correct.

Speaker G · Okay.

Speaker F · You need a structural engineer if it's above that high. So what we're proposing to do is to have a step back of, I think it's four feet. So four feet up, four feet up, four feet back and then four feet up again. That avoids the geotech requirement. Is that correct, Julie? And it just allows for more efficient, more better design. Better design of a retaining wall instead of having one steam large wallet allows that stepping back for about two years.

Speaker A · Okay. So for clarity, if you're within these constraints, you don't necessarily have to produce the report, but it's not an outright prohibition if you're needing to because of property topography. To go above this, you would just trigger back to the. Okay, as long as that's clearly articulated and remains clearly articulated because again, I've seen properties in this district that are like that. So yeah, I think for me that was all there was at the moment. I think Councillor Thompson was eager to move the recommendation. So I'll go back to you, Councillor Thompson.

Speaker B · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will move the recommendation.

Speaker A · Thank you. Is there any further discussion, Councillor King,

Speaker E · in terms of the process, the next steps, if the motion passes, this would go to the PAC and APC and then council would hear back from them before voting on readings. Right. So we could incorporate any of their

Speaker A · input in addition to the now planned committee of the whole that we've already presented, right?

Speaker F · That's right, that's correct. I think.

Speaker E · Oh, the proposal proposed timeline for that is like September or am I reading that correct?

Speaker F · So as we've laid it in the presentation to council, we, council's direction would go for two open houses and some engagement between now and the end of May. Open houses at the end of May, have a committee, the whole meeting on June 15th. In between that we would also go to PAC, APC and, and you'll hear in the design guideline presentation, SPAC. And then we can report all of that back to council on the 15th. If I, I think we can get on all of those agendas between now and then to have that information. So council can have that when they hear from the public with the draft bylaws and any changes.

Speaker E · Therefore, I think I'm looking at the presentation. Oh no, no, that's previous. So. Okay, so then those first reading, second reading, etc would be at what point,

Speaker F · as you know, as soon as council's prepared to move that Forward after the 15th, June 15th meeting. And if there's any further direction from council at that time, and if not, the staff could be directed by council to bring ratings.

Speaker A · Okay. See. Nothing further. I'll put the question. Thank you. Any opposed? None that carries. Item 4. 3 is Introduction of the draft official Community Plan Development Permit Areas Design Guidelines and I'll look to our planner

Speaker H · through the Chair. Thank you. We are here tonight to introduce the draft OCP Development Permit Areas DPA Design Guidelines Update. Here is an overview of tonight's presentation. We'll provide a brief project background and timeline, introduce the draft DPA framework, highlight key updates to the Environmental Protection and form and character DPAs, outline what we heard in the initial engagement phase and what would be the next steps.

Speaker H · Just a bit of context to this project. Back in March 2025, staff introduced the initiation of DPA update to APC. In September 2025, staff presented the DPA Update approach to the Committee of the Whole and received direction to proceed with engagement. Since then, staff have held two public open houses in September and October 2025 and focus group sessions with first nations and Environmental Group in March 2026. We also received technical input from architectural and landscape professionals to inform the form and character guidelines. We are now at the point of bringing the Draft Department DPA Design Guideline forward and moving into the next engagement phase on these drafts.

Speaker H · From here I will be presenting a snapshot of the proposed DPA structure and then walk through the key items for each dpa. We'll be starting with the Environmental Protection. Then we will go through the form and character and design guidelines. As noted, our proposed approach recognizes DPAs into two main categories environmental Protection and Form and Character. On the environmental side, the draft DPAs include marine, upland and seaward DPA, riparian and aquatic ecosystems, sensitive terrestrial ecosystems and two new DPA as hillside and Wildfire interface. The protection of farming DPA has recently been adopted and continue with minor refinement for clarity. On the farming character side, the draft DPAs include intensive residential, multi unit family residential, commercial, mixed use, destination commercial and service commercial Light Industrial dpa, however, is considered to be removed following Council's Notice of Motion direction.

Speaker H · The existing marina DPA is also removed and integrated to the marine, upland and seaward and commercial mixed use DPAs. The overall rationale of the update is to improve clarity and consistency in how DPAs are applied and we are trying to strengthen an avoidance first approach in sensitive environment and support decision making that is informed and defensible.

Speaker H · The structure is also more consistent across DPAs. Each DPA includes the designation objectives where it applies, exemptions, guidelines and mapping so it will be easier for applicants, public and staff to use. Now we present the environmental protection DPAs and just touch on the key changes for each DPA. The marine, upland and Seaward DPA focuses on protecting the marine environment, shoreline and air adjacent upland areas. A key change is consolidating the existing marina and marine shoreline DPAs to address the current framework data gaps and strengthen shoreline protection. Another key driver is alignment with other government regulation, particularly around docks and private mortgage and resolving inconsistency between in the existing buffer across mapping guidelines and zoning.

Speaker H · As a part of this update, staff reviewed and considered how neighboring municipalities adjacent to Saanich Inlet regular marine shoreline development. The proposed changes include extended seaward buffer from 30 meters to 300 meters and maintaining 15 inland buffer and the guidelines covered docks and private marinas, public access shoreline development and shoreline environmental protection along with farm and character where shoreline infrastructure is involved.

Speaker H · The next one is Riparian and Aquatic Ecosystem dpa. This DPA is about protecting, protecting freshwater ecosystems and fish habitat and the key update is aligning with the provincial regulations including the riparian area protection regulation and clarifying when and where professional reporting is required.

Speaker H · Another important piece of this DPA is updating and correcting the map using the most recent available information. The Sensitive Terrestrial Ecosystem focuses on protecting sensitive terrestrial ecosystem by minimizing disturbance and preventing habitat loss and fragmentation.

Speaker H · The proposed draft strengthen the guideline language and support more consistent application. Staff are also exploring the extension of a sensitive tertiary ecosystem stem map polygons as informed by the District ongoing Natural Assets Inventory and tree canopy study as shown on the map. On the slide Hillside is a newly proposed EPA with the goal of protecting people, property and the natural environment by preserving significant landscape features and mitigating risks associated with hazardous natural conditions. The draft include the requirement for qualified geotechnical professional reporting for proposed development or land alteration in hillside areas. Wildfire Interface is another new DPA with the intent of minimizing wildfire risk to people, property and forests in extreme wildfire conditions while also being careful that wildfire measures don't intentionally undermine environmental protection.

Speaker H · The draft includes direction for new developments only around site planning, building design, landscaping and the use of fire resistant materials, along with defensible space, concept of up to 10 meters and using professional assessment for development in these areas.

Speaker H · The Protection of Farming DPA was adopted in early 2025. The new draft carries it forward with minor refinement, focusing on mitigating impact on farmland over time and aligning with Agricultural Land Commission most recent regulations.

Speaker H · The overall intent remain protecting the agricultural land base and and supporting farming. Next we'll shift to the farm and character DPAs which guide building form, site planning and how development contribute to the streetscape and neighborhood character while recognizing that the B. C. building Code take precedence over these guidelines.

Speaker H · The intensive Residential DPA guidelines guides smaller scale housing forms including development of up to eight units with an emphasize on high quality design that enhances streetscapes and respect neighborhood character. The existing infill housing design guidelines were reviewed and updated to integrate provincial bill 44 small scale multi housing typologies to draft this DPA and the DPA mapping has been revised accordingly. Staff have reviewed, separated and refined the guidelines from the existing residential, multifamily and commercial mixed use DPA and draft this guideline. The Multi unit Family Residential DPA applies significantly to multi unit residential only developments with more than eight units. The guidelines emphasize overall site design, building form, landscaping, privacy and livability to ensure multi unit development integrates well with adjacent neighborhood and the public realm.

Speaker H · The commercial Mixed use dpa, however, is about shaping commercial and mixed use development in village centers and it will strengthen streetscapes and the public realm, support workability and remain compatible with adjacent residential areas.

Speaker H · The focus of these guidelines is on high quality design guidance that is practical to apply in development review Destination commercial supports tourism related development while respecting local character and protecting surrounding natural agriculture and marine environment.

Speaker H · The draft guidelines emphasize context sensitive design and a welcoming visitor experience service. Commercial Currently arterial commercial guides development in designated areas along higher traffic streets of Keating street and Patricia Bay Highway. The focus of the draft guidelines is on better site design and building or building orientation, improved streetscape and safer multimodal access while maintaining compatibility with surrounding land uses. The Light Industrial DPA focuses on mitigating impacts such as noise, dust, odor and other emissions on adjacent agricultural lands, residential properties and public access sorry public spaces while encouraging energy efficient and environmentally sustainable site building and landscaping design.

Speaker H · Following canceled notice of motion, the Light Industrial DPA design guidelines are being considered for remote for removal from this update. As noted earlier, staff hosted two public open houses and conducted focus group engagement with first nations and environmental groups. These sessions showed strong overall support for the direction of the update and identified key themes to carry forward into the next phase. The main themes heard to date include marine shoreline development and cumulative impact ensuring wildlife interface guidelines align with environmental protection, riparian protection on agricultural land There was some questions around the scope of the Light Industrial DPA strengthening recognition of indigenous cultural places and values as well as practical considerations such as clarity and usability, education and support material and support addressing land alteration earlier in the development process.

Speaker H · Looking forward the next engagement phase is anticipated between April and June 2026 along with zoning bylaw update and includes presenting the draft to apc, PAC and SPAC public open houses and continued targeted outreach with key stakeholders including First Nation and Environmental group.

Speaker H · During this phase we will collect, analyze, feedback and prepare what we heard report for council. After that, staff would bring forward a draft bylaw for council consideration of first and second reading and direction to proceed with referrals in accordance with section 475 of Local Government Act. In closing we presented the draft design guideline DPAs for information and we are seeking council direction to proceed with the next phase of engagement and refinement of the draft. We're happy to take any question that you have.

Speaker A · Thank you committee. Any questions?

Speaker B · Where did I go chat?

Speaker A · Councelor Thompson, Are you indicating you wish to speak? Maybe not. Councilor King,

Speaker E · thank you. It's my understanding that we removed the industrial area from consideration here. Is there. So the development permit guidelines cover things like landscaping, stormwater interface issues, screening, etc.

Speaker E · So are there gaps as a result of not covering the industrial area and how else are those things being covered?

Speaker F · Thank you Councillor King. There would be things that council can regulate now through a DP that the council won't be able to or the district of the future. Landscaping being one of them. Any building design essentially being a.

Speaker B · Another

Speaker F · parking, service parking. You know, there's certain things we could add to the zoning bylaw that's prescriptive like thou shalt not cover more than 30% of your site in parking is one example. But there's nothing zoning can do about building design, lighting and really landscape design that's out of the purview of zoning. That would be something a DP would capture.

Speaker E · So to my mind there is a glaring gap in a large part of our community given the decision of council was to remove this area from consideration. Doesn't sound like it is addressed with it being removed. I think that's something for council to reflect on, not simply wanting to leave big gaps. I think, I think there are some parts in it that I think could be strengthened. If I'm not mistaken, there's some language issues around should versus must kind of things in terms of environment, environmental protections and stuff should consider, you know, the following versus must consider. And I guess you can look at it in numerous ways. You can say well you know, encourage and people will comply kind of thing.

Speaker E · But I think that that opens, that leaves the door open a little bit for instances where it isn't clear and the person that the individuals don't have stronger sort of action. So does that at this stage would we be looking for examples of where we might want to make Changes or is this sort of like receive feedback and then how would we incorporate more stronger language or even ask the advisory bodies to reflect on the two options and give us advice through the chair?

Speaker H · We already hired a consultant to review the design guidelines specifically for forming care character. And that was one of the comment that we also received that we need to revise the language to make sure that they are clear. That was one of the comment that we are gonna be refining throughout the guidelines through next round of review. But the other one is that these are design guidelines. Some of them they are encouraged, some of them they are regulation. So they have to meet those requirements, but not necessarily are enforceable. If there is something that needs to be met necessarily, I am assuming it should be in the zoning bylaw rather than design guidelines.

Speaker E · So, for example, would we be able to say applicants must provide a sustainability and climate response statement, or would we have to say should or depends?

Speaker A · As we heard, if it lives in the zoning bylaw, it's enforceable. If it's in the guidelines, which are not backed up by a bylaw, it is not enforceable. So you can use the word must, but it's not enforceable.

Speaker H · And the other thing is that if it said like, if it's another level of government regulation, that we can enforce it or not. So it comes down to being enforceable or not.

Speaker A · Yeah, depends where it lives. So your amendments as ideas may want to be referenced if they're meeting that test, to the land use bylaw to amend the zoning as a requirement or perhaps there's other mechanisms, other bylaws that it could live in. But.

Speaker F · Yeah, thank you. Something like that may sound like a policy almost and something that we have as a policy that shall, with a reason, zoning application or DP application have a sustainability statement.

Speaker A · So it's bridged to the actual legislative tool. Yeah. Okay.

Speaker E · So then there are ways the development permit guidelines are. Well, I guess the G part, the guidelines, is that how we can look at them. It's just a guideline and therefore it doesn't really have those teeth.

Speaker F · It does in a way that council can decline a project that doesn't, in council's opinion, meet the guidelines. So it's.

Speaker A · And in fact, we've seen those where we're. All we're considering is whether or not we feel that the DP application conforms to the guidelines. If we feel it doesn't, we can decline it based on that. But it's a, it's a, an umbrella approach as opposed to. Now you could also make a Recommendation. Hey, you need to adjust this in order for council to consider granting the dp.

Speaker E · So in other words, it could have the must, even though it's not enforceable.

Speaker A · Yeah, it's a signal to council in the council can enforce it by not granting the dp. Right. That's what I hear from staff. But it's not a thing that staff can by themselves enforce without the teeth of the Land Use Bylaw. So there's a mechanism and there's policy connectivity. So the language certainly is appropriate. Must is certainly, if council feels necessary, can be applied.

Speaker E · I think it's 4. 34. Yeah. That's mentioning that it's requested that we can. That the proponent consider how it demonstrates a commitment to sustainability ability. Right. So if that were to say, if that were to have stronger language, like.

Speaker A · Yeah, it could be anything from should to strongly encourage to must. Does council grant the dp if there isn't still the rest with council, what

Speaker E · would be most helpful for staff in terms of like, there's already advice from a consultant to strengthen that language and so that's sufficient. In this case, for example,

Speaker H · one of them will be. The consultant comments on that, but we are going to review the comment the guidelines based on the way that we can actually enforce them. So we are going to have that review coming up.

Speaker A · Might I make a recommendation that if there are high level material sections, drainage for example, where committee might say, look, we feel the language in that section is a higher priority than what's articulated, then staff can go and make changes and bring that back. So we're not. I don't want to necessarily wordsmith every single line of this thing, but if you have areas, I use drainage as one example where it needs to be stronger. Councillor, that might be a way to approach this, but in the meantime, you did create a good idea, which is as a reference to the apc, get them to reflect on these things.

Speaker E · I think so, yeah. I think in terms of. I was thinking in terms of stormwater and in terms of climate commitment. So, yeah, I think that could be valuable to get their feedback in terms of the language and strengthening it and

Speaker A · then, yeah, committee might see this as a higher priority. Do you agree what language might. Might be, you know, what level of language is necessary in each section sort of thing.

Speaker E · Yeah. And theoretically, if it's got strong language, it might take some of the work off of council to. If it's indicated to the proponent and they already say, oh, yeah, yeah, sure, okay, I read that that was a guideline. So. And then, yeah, Just aside from that, what does staff see as the biggest differences made as a result of these changes in terms of future development? We'll see what's going to result from

Speaker H · this through the chair. So if you look at the environmental protection, we are trying to have more strength in language of avoidance approach in the environmental areas and not have encroachment in in these areas. The existing guidelines, they were not clear about that and there were some conflicting guidelines or exemptions that we try to resolve that. So that's one of the curious. We try to focus on the environmental protection for being avoidance first approach. And if there is no other way that they cannot build outside the environmental protection area, then there will be some mitigating factor to make sure that the building that is built there it meets some of the requirement in terms of the formal character.

Speaker H · It's for the urban design perspective because BC building code, it's the code and the applicant still needs to meet the requirement from the code. But we want to make sure that we have the continuity and consistency throughout the corridors and the urban design that we have in the district.

Speaker E · Okay, so does the staff feel that sufficient in terms of getting or having the discussion with the APC and the advisory bodies in terms of stronger language, particularly around those sections of climate.

Speaker A · Stormwater.

Speaker E · Stormwater, yeah.

Speaker A · Yeah.

Speaker E · Very good. Thank you.

Speaker A · The next speaker I see is Councillor Thompson online.

Speaker B · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had a sort of simple question really at this stage with reference to the interface zone and the potential for wildfire protection. I note that I walked down Centennial park along Sigmar Place en route.

Speaker B · I note that the west side of Sigmar and the south side of Pastel, those residential properties are backing onto significant forest area. As the staff looked at the potential where residential zones in our village centers back onto significant forested areas in terms of wildfire protection. That's the end of my question.

Speaker H · I'm sorry, I'm just didn't understand the question at the end. Can you please.

Speaker A · I think it was in relation to. Councilor, jump in if I have this incorrect, but where you have an interface between say urban suburban style homes and then immediately behind them there are forest. The consideration for I guess forest fire. And then of course our fire smart program, there was a slide. So somewhere in there speaking to that perhaps there's more that could be unpacked there.

Speaker B · What I saw was what I would expect with reference to in that category was reference to rural areas. I am curious about more urban areas where residential properties back directly onto forested areas.

Speaker A · Has that been in and around Centennial park would be an example. I think there's.

Speaker B · Pascal and Sigmar are back onto that area.

Speaker C · Yeah.

Speaker H · Through the chair. So we identified the both circle area that we show on the map. And the reason is because we define some criteria like the response time from the fire hall and rural properties and like some other layers that it was involved in determining the area. We are still exploring in urban areas of the district. But the challenge is that if there is any extreme wildfire, it will include the whole district. And it doesn't seem to be something that we can apply throughout the district. One more component that we are reviewing right now, the district has, if I'm not wrong about the name, it's Wildfire Resiliency Plan.

Speaker H · That it has identified some of the public areas of the district as extreme, moderate and low at risk of the wildfire. And we are looking at the areas that they are more like on the extreme side of the scaling.

Speaker A · Scale perhaps. At this point, what we would do is take Pastel and Sigmar in and around Centennial park as examples of urban housing adjacent to significant forests as something for the relevant departments, planning for fire, et cetera, to explore and examine, as you indicated was happening.

Speaker A · So it's flagged, but there's not maybe an answer just yet.

Speaker F · And another project, Mr. Mayor, that is ongoing related to this is we're doing a climate risk assessment related to emergency management as well that will show the areas that are of most risk for wildfire. And that'll be presented to council at our next council meeting. So it really does integrate well with this information.

Speaker B · Perfect.

Speaker A · Anything further, Counselor Thompson?

Speaker B · Yeah, I just wanted to comment. I wasn't thinking about the whole district. It was simply those properties.

Speaker A · Yeah.

Speaker B · Close to forested areas. And you know, I recall in past years when we've had significant drought, we. I think we did banned smoking, for example, in Centennial park because of concerns over wildfire.

Speaker A · So, yeah, it does flag something that we may designate within the urban areas, those streets which may be few, as a flag to those particular homeowners that in the event of a forest fire, they might be the earlier to evacuate sort of thing.

Speaker E · Right.

Speaker A · Okay. Councillor King, sorry to come back at

Speaker E · this so soon, but I'm wondering about whether or not one, I could move a motion to reinsert the light industrial into the development permit guidelines and what that would mean in terms of the recommendation. In terms of would we. Would it be premature then to move forward with 1 and 2 of the recommendation? Would more work need to be done first and come back to council, or would that be possible and Then receive. Well, you wouldn't be receiving for information the part hasn't been inserted in, but you would potentially be able to refer to the Advisory Planning Commission and the other advisory bodies.

Speaker H · We currently have these drafts attached to the other draft. So it's already in one of the appendices. If you want to, you know, get referral from the APC or other committees, we are more than happy to take it to them and seek their recommendation. We got the notice of motion to consider removal, but staff still review that the existing guidelines and draft a few pages based on the key areas of the consideration. But depending on the direction of council, we will move forward with that.

Speaker E · So I guess my motion then would be to reinsert and refer. So to obviously, with the information that's provided, proceed with public engagement. So I'll make the additional consideration being reinserting the light industrial into the process.

Speaker A · In Appendix B, it says draft L, light industrial. I assume that's the relevant section. Yeah. Great. About five pages, six pages, something. Oh, no, it's more than that. It's about 10 pages. Something of that nature. But Sorry, I'm getting confused with all the. It's jumping around. It's five pages. Okay, so that's the motion on the floor. Anyone else wish to speak to it? No, You wish to speak to it? Oh, okay. Go ahead.

Speaker A · Counselor.

Speaker G · Yeah. When was this considered with respect to the item that we're discussing around the late industrial area?

Speaker A · The previous decision to remove the DP guidelines?

Speaker B · Yeah.

Speaker F · It was correct. If I'm wrong. If you say it was when staff brought this to council for just getting direction on the draft, early draft. And as we were moving forward, it was. It was brought forward. I mean, it may have just been a motion that was introduced at the table instead of notice of motion, but it was a motion of council to remove the industrial guidelines. Yeah.

Speaker G · And it wasn't removed because the existing new proposed DPs would already cover what was being previously considered or have these areas fallen under. Correct.

Speaker F · That's correct. Yeah. It wasn't removed. There's nothing else. It would cover an overlap with this DP area.

Speaker G · Thank you,

Speaker A · Councilor Riddle.

Speaker D · Thank you. Yeah. My memory of this, which I'm questioning my memory tonight for sure, but is that this came up and it was a motion arising. And I remember being a little bit caught. Caught off guard. And I think I would like to see this come back and go out for consultation because I do hear quite often from folks about the desire to see Keating sort of the gateway to the district in Many cases the gateway to people from around the world because they're going to Butchart Gardens to kind of make that a little more welcoming.

Speaker D · And I don't want to say beautify, but, you know, to. To showcase our lovely community. So I'm. I'd like to see this back and go out to community for input. Thanks.

Speaker A · Just to be clear, I think some elements of the DP were discussed in terms of potential streetscape guidelines, building design guidelines, without sort of rehashing every single element of the report. There are certain things that apply anyway.

Speaker A · Stormwater runoff, for example, is something we're already managed. So this is not going to have a dramatic impact on that. Or am I misunderstanding that,

Speaker H · if I'm getting your question correctly through the chair, the. There will be some consideration for the design guideline related to that, but also later on in the like this is a part of development application, but later on in the application, as it moves forward, will be a part of engineering and building review that they will consider.

Speaker A · Yeah, so referring to the light industrial, the headline sections are site design and layout, which potentially could have site servicing, access and parking. I guess there's some potential in there, scale and massing, building articulation features and materials.

Speaker A · Probably not screening and landscaping, probably not lighting, signage, etc. This is presumably on property and nothing to do with the road or streetscape, sidewalks, public lands, et cetera. Okay, so there's no material impact on that. Okay, that's helpful because staff developed this and it's in the attachment. I understand the intent of the motion is to reinserted to essentially reverse the previous Council motion to consider exclusion. Regardless, at this point, having developed it, it's to my mind fair to have the APC considered. And that's what staff were positing with presenting it in this fashion. Okay. I think this is committee of the whole, so I'm not going to overthink it. I'm not terribly in support of at this stage of oscillating back and forth. We have some information.

Speaker A · My preference would just be to see committee's feeling or the planning commission's feeling on this and leave it at that. But I'm not going to strenuously object to the motion at this stage. I may later, depending on a number of factors, but I think I'm satisfied at this point that no harm is done.

Speaker F · Not really knowing the full intent behind the motion that was put forward by council if it was around processing time and efficiency. There is a motion from council for staff to bring back some delegation, and perhaps this is One that could be delegated if that's something council's interested in in the future when we report back on that.

Speaker A · Yeah, I don't think this is the time and the place, but it's an interesting flag to go back and forth. Regardless it's information and I don't have an issue with the planning commission looking at it. So I won't strenuously project on. I'm happy to put the question. Any opposed?

Speaker F · None.

Speaker A · Motion carries, Councillor Newton. And then I'm not sure if you had anything, Councillor Riddle. Okay, go ahead Councilor Newton.

Speaker G · Yeah, my first question may have been resolved with what we just discussed and that had to do with I guess the distinction around the service commercial corridor and then the Keating industrial corridor and to Councillor Riddle's point, just about the gateway component to Central Saanich and that. So would that have been dealt with with the previous discussion around reinserting the the light industrial side of it?

Speaker H · Service commercial is a different DPA and it was not considered to be removed and it applies to designated service commercial only areas. But we can definitely look at it to make sure that they're actually consistent with each other.

Speaker G · Okay, yeah, that would be part of it. The other. And we had talked about this previously around how the maybe the B. C. building code dictates some of the. Well not some, all of the building components but then the desire to step back when we're looking at multi stories and the impact that that has around affordability and cost of construction. So I guess through you to staff how you know when we talk about that should or must and how that would impact things like affordability or density while different. I think the form and character will try to get to some of that. And so I guess a comment around the ability to impose must when we're talking primarily when I'm looking at is multi story buildings and stepping back to limit the overshadowing and all of that.

Speaker G · Hopefully I made my question clear. With respect to the design guidelines and what we're considering for certain areas that would have multi story building and we heard about when we're talking about the B. C. building code to adjust how buildings are built when we're trying to get the step back and the costs associated with that. How does that do we have still the authority to try to control the step back of the buildings with these characters?

Speaker H · That is correct. We can do it through transition of the design of the building. It will be definitely reviewed by our building officials because it, it still has to meet the building code requirement. But that was one of the areas that we were exploring through the consultation with architectural professional to make sure that these are the practical guidelines that we can get that transition through them. But the existing draft that we provided to Council already have has some of the guidelines related to that.

Speaker A · Okay, great.

Speaker G · And when we're talking about these guidelines, these are things that would still come back to Council for consideration and approval on.

Speaker A · Correct?

Speaker H · Correct. We are going to take these to public to all the committees. We are going to do more engagement with First Nation Environmental Group as well as the professionals and we are going to. We already received some comments. We are going to go through the guidelines. We will come back on June 15th, I think. How was the date? We will come back with what we heard report and following Council direction, we will come back with the draft by law.

Speaker G · Understood, thank you.

Speaker F · Maybe just to add that quickly, this is going to be an OCP amendment. These are going to be integrated into the OCP as a section at the back of the ocp. So you'll see an OCP amendment, bylaw and public hearing as part of it.

Speaker A · Councillor, you'd indicated you may have some desire to discuss some element of this which would be covered under the community charter. Is that still the case?

Speaker G · It is.

Speaker A · Okay. Prior to consideration of the recommendations then I would suggest that we cite section 91. A part of a council meeting may be clean close to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following sub 1 the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and 90 sub 2B 3 sub B the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations.

Speaker G · So I remove that recommendation or I'll search it?

Speaker A · I don't know. Councilor Thompson, we're just entertaining the idea of closing the meeting to discuss it

Speaker B · was it was in my hand. It's up with reference to the main motion. So.

Speaker A · Okay. That hasn't been moved yet. No, I know. So let's go in camera if council's agreeable and then come back out and go to the main motion. Any opposed to closing the meeting for this portion? None that carries.

Speaker A · I will ask us to pause the live stream. Who shall come into the chamber? Right. Councillor Thompson, the floor is yours. In respect of the recommendation if you either have further or wanted to move it.

Speaker B · I wanted to move the recommendations with one minor change with reference to the public engagement and that is to also include a committee meeting where folks can speak to it similar to the zoning bylaw captured.

Speaker A · I accept the motion. No second are required Any discussion? Any opposed? None carried. Parking standards Preliminary report Director of planning.

Speaker F · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is primarily for information for council. As you've had the zoning bylaw in front of you. We also wanted to inform you that we will be doing a parking standards review following the zoning bylaw update to bring our parking standards up to date. Parking standards haven't been looked at in over a decade at least. Except for our accessible parking standards. We did update those. So we have had a couple of preliminary studies done. You'll see them attached to the report. Urban Systems did a study of multi unit housing in, in our district and looked at what some potential parking numbers could be based on demand. And they're certainly lower than what our existing zoning bylaw is.

Speaker F · But we're, we're going to be doing a review of those going forward as well as we did a Keating parking study and so just, just wanted to share that information with council. We, we've got a start on these over the last couple of years and we'll be bringing it back together and it'll, we'll be introducing it to council probably in the fall and then I would anticipate it would go into the new year before we, we have something.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councilor King.

Speaker E · Will it be considering private parking and public like on public land?

Speaker F · Thank you. That's a really good question. So the zoning bylaw, part of it is private land only, but our engineering department is undertaking a engineering standards review of our right of ways with which will include on street parking, bike lanes, boulevard trees, all of the above. So our cross sections of our streets. So that is something that will be considered by engineering and it's really timely to do those both together.

Speaker A · Anything further, Councillor Newton?

Speaker B · Yep.

Speaker G · Thank you. So then just for clarity, and this has come up at other committee meetings that I'm involved in around how to enforce some of the parking challenges on public lands that is accessible by the public. And so would that be part of this consideration

Speaker F · on the public lands? It certainly could be if the district was interested in having more enforcement or different types of parking standards like two hour parking or residential parking only. That would be part of our streets and traffic bylaw. But we would also have to look at our bylaw enforcement resources because that would absolutely increase the demand on bylaw enforcement.

Speaker G · All right, thank you. And quickly you made reference to the sort of the parking ratios that was done by the study. How would they, how were they different from our existing bylaw at a super high level? Like I'm not wanting 20 minutes.

Speaker F · Yeah. What the study looked at and it was done in 2024. So things could have changed or are changing. They looked at the ownership of vehicles at properties, specific properties in central Sanich and determine the number of vehicles that are owned and parked there by ownership. So it might not be perfect but. And just looked at the demand for parking and it did turn out that it was slightly. The demand was lower than what our parking standards are. Our parking standards are generally higher than what other municipalities in urban areas would typically be. But we are hearing concerns from neighbors. So I think we need to balance all of those together going forward.

Speaker E · All right.

Speaker G · Thank you.

Speaker A · Seeing no further questions. The item is for information. I'll look to adjourn the committee of the hall, please. Any opposed? None. Motion carried. Are we happy to ratify all the recommendations of the committee of the whole moved.

Speaker A · Seconded discussion. Councilor.

Speaker G · Quickly, with respect to 4. 2 and the zoning. I think I heard staff, although it wasn't referenced in the original report. But to refer to SPAC for comment. Is there a merit to that for them from an accessibility standpoint?

Speaker F · Thank you. That's a good question. That's why you'll see there isn't SPAC recommended in the recommendation like there is the design guidelines because the accessibility component ties mostly to the busy building code. And when we do our accessible parking standards in our parking. That's absolutely. Absolutely. We would want to speak with packeting and building design.

Speaker A · As opposed to land use.

Speaker F · Yeah. In terms of land use. So that's why you don't see that recommendation to SPAC and there isn't a lot of accessibility in the zoning bylaw to really go over with them.

Speaker G · Thank you.

Speaker A · Seeing no further hands, I shall put the question. Any opposed? None carried. I'll look to adjourn. So moved. Second. Any opposed? None carried. Thank you.