Council approved a travel-accommodation project at 7054 Brentwood Drive, but two contentious planning decisions were left for later: the proposed Keating industrial rezoning was deferred for more information, and the Development Permit Area guideline update was sent to the next Council. A volunteer group’s water tests found repeated high bacteria readings at several Brentwood Bay creeks and storm drains; Council asked staff to return with options for action and information on sewer and storm-drain monitoring and costs. The Keating debate centred on whether to rezone a currently rural part of 1681 Keating Crossroad, and how to address nearby residents’ concerns about buffers, traffic and access from Verling Avenue.
Generated from the recording's captions and the official minutes.
What was discussed
AI summary · check against sources
3.1 Agenda of the August 10, 2026 Regular Council Meeting
Council approved the agenda with additions, including an updated presentation for the Brentwood Bay water-quality item and late correspondence for the Brentwood Drive permit and Keating rezoning.
Routine: approve the meeting agenda with the listed additions and attachment.
Official wording: That the agenda of the August 10, 2026 Regular Council meeting be approved as amended by.
• Adding an updated presentation to item #10.1;
• Adding late correspondence to item #14.5;
• Adding late correspondence to item #15.1.1;
• Adding a late report as item #16.3; and
• Attaching the letter to item #18.1.
Three speakers raised concerns about the Keating rezoning, particularly the proposed change to industrial zoning on the northern part of 1681 Keating Crossroad. They asked Council to retain a buffer near homes and farmland and pointed to traffic and the area’s agricultural potential. Another speaker asked what services the District received from a numbered company paid nearly a quarter-million dollars in the 2025 financial statements; the chair said staff would be asked about it. Council agreed that correspondence writers could speak for up to two minutes when the Keating item came up.
Agreement
Council allowed correspondence writers to speak briefly on the Keating item later in the meeting.
10.1 Water Quality - Testing for Contamination in Brentwood Bay
parks environment1 public speaker13:22 Watch · Read
A representative of the Saanich Inlet Protection Society described volunteer water testing at 15 sites around Brentwood Bay from January to June. The tests found repeated readings above the safe threshold at places including Sluggett Creek, Port Royal, Clark Road, Daphne Creek and the ferry-wharf storm drains. Testing of three mooring areas found no major contamination, though one site had traces. The presenter said the sources remain unknown, called for better sewer and storm-drain monitoring and maintenance, and urged timely public release of test results. Council requested two staff reports: one on possible actions, including how to press the authorities with jurisdiction to act, and another on sewer and storm-drain monitoring, maintenance and budget impacts. Staff said more detailed information could follow the sewer master plan work expected in the fall.
Agreement
Council members thanked the society’s volunteers and agreed the recurring contamination needs follow-up.
Staff will report on potential actions and on monitoring and maintenance options, including budget implications.
Ask staff to come back with possible next steps on the concerns raised in the presentation, including how to engage the governments or organizations responsible and which parts the District can address itself.
Official wording: That staff report back on the potential actions from the Saanich Inlet Protection Society's presentation, including how to get the attention of the organizations/levels of government that do have the authority for these issues and where there are issues in the District’s jurisdiction.
Ask staff to explain possible monitoring and maintenance of sewers and storm drains, and what those options might cost.
Official wording: That staff report back with information on potential sewer and storm drain monitoring and maintenance, including budget implications.
Staff reported that 48 of 54 projects were underway or complete. Six had not started and were scheduled for later or depended on other work. Completed projects, including the Occupational Health and Safety Program and climate-risk work, are moving into regular operations. A councillor questioned why the North Keating Land Use Options project had not begun, saying that broader planning should help guide decisions on industrial uses, rural lands and buffers before individual zoning changes.
Agreement
The update showed steady progress, with many active projects expected to advance in the second half of the year.
Disagreement
A councillor argued that proceeding with the Keating rezoning before the paused North Keating land-use work could put a specific zoning decision ahead of broader planning.
The Chief Financial Officer reported no unusual spending or revenue trends at the end of the second quarter. Expenses were being managed within the 2026 budget. Council asked no questions.
A councillor asked about follow-up to traffic-safety reports and plans for Wallace Drive at Sluggett Road. Staff said residents are contacted when concerns are passed to the responsible department. Flashing beacons are being pursued for the crosswalk, ideally before school starts; a future sidewalk extension could include a raised crosswalk or raised intersection, subject to budget. Staff also described planned speed-reduction work near Tanner Ridge and Stelly’s Crossroad.
Agreement
Council supported closing the loop with residents who raise traffic-safety concerns.
The Wallace Drive and Sluggett Road work is planned in stages, starting with flashing beacons.
14.4 Development Permit Areas Design Guidelines – Introduction to the OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 2281
Staff introduced proposed updates to the District’s Development Permit Area guidelines, including new hillside and wildfire-interface areas. The changes are intended to clarify requirements and identify site issues earlier; where several areas apply, staff would review them together under one application. Councillors asked how the guidelines could help create buffers between industrial, agricultural and residential uses, how wildfire requirements would affect small lots, and whether property owners know what the changes could mean. Staff said the guidelines can shape design, while zoning sets firm setbacks; a wildfire assessment might cost about $5,000 for a typical project. Council carried a motion asking staff for options to establish buffers, but then deferred consideration of the bylaw until the new Council is elected. Staff said there is no legislative deadline.
Agreement
The proposed guidelines are intended to improve clarity and identify development constraints earlier.
Staff confirmed that farming activities protected by provincial legislation would generally not trigger these development-permit requirements.
Disagreement
Councillors differed on whether to advance the bylaw now or leave it to the incoming Council; the chair and one councillor opposed the separate motion seeking buffer options, but it carried.
Ask staff to bring back different ways the District could create a buffer between farmland and nearby industrial or residential uses for Council to consider.
Official wording: That staff report back on a range of options for Council to consider establishing a type of buffer between agriculture and industrial and residential uses.
14.5 7054 Brentwood Drive – Development Permit (Fourth Report)
zoning development1 public speaker1:11:31 Watch · Read
Council approved a development permit for short-term visitor accommodation at 7054 Brentwood Drive, including variances. The applicant said the building was shifted about a metre to address one setback while preserving unit size. Councillors discussed the heat-pump noise limits, the effect of the revised location on neighbours, the scale of the variances and whether local residents could use the marina. Staff said allowing other marina users would bring a separate parking requirement into play. The approval requires a covenant limiting boat moorage to hotel guests and the property owner or caretaker; Council also authorized discharge of the covenant requiring six marina parking spaces and cancellation of the highway encroachment permit for the existing residence that will be removed.
Agreement
The project had been revised after earlier feedback, including changes to height, roof decks and setbacks.
Council approved the permit subject to the moorage covenant and the other listed conditions.
Disagreement
Some councillors considered the revised project reasonable; others continued to object to the setbacks and variances and raised concerns about the marina covenant.
Approve the development permit for 7054 Brentwood Drive with a condition limiting marina boat moorage to hotel guests and the property owner or caretaker; remove the existing covenant requiring six marina parking spaces; and cancel the highway permit for the residential structure that is to be removed.
Official wording: 1. That Development Permit Application PL001702 (7054 Brentwood Drive), which includes variances, be authorized for issuance, subject to:
i. a covenant being registered on title to restrict boat moorage at the marina to hotel guests and the property owner and/or caretaker.
2. That covenant CA7787953 requiring six parking spaces for a commercial marina be authorized for discharge.
3. That the Permit for the Construction and Maintenance of Encroaching Objects or Works on a Highway for the existing Residential Structure that is to be removed, be cancelled.
15.1.1 Keating Business District - Extraction Lands Rezoning
zoning development7 public speakers1:23:45 Watch · Read
The proposed rezoning would move former extraction lands in the Keating Business District toward light industrial use. Speakers supported reuse of the lands but raised concerns about losing a rural buffer beside homes and farms, truck access from Verling Avenue, traffic, drainage and effects on nearby agricultural land. The landowner’s representative supported first and second reading and described plans for landscaping, setbacks and design at the western edge. Councillors also debated whether to exclude the currently rural portion of 1681 Keating Crossroad from this bylaw or proceed with the wider rezoning. Council ultimately deferred the item to September 8 for staff information on traffic, property placement and setbacks, access from Verling Avenue, and engagement with the W̱SÁNEĆ Land Trust. Staff said rezoning could not happen before October at the earliest if Council gives readings after the report returns.
Agreement
There was support for converting exhausted extraction lands to productive new uses.
Council agreed that more information on nearby impacts was needed before deciding how to proceed.
Disagreement
Some councillors supported moving the rezoning forward in line with the Official Community Plan and the urban containment boundary; others wanted more information and further consideration of the currently rural portion, buffers and neighbourhood impacts.
Speakers differed on the proposed industrial change: some supported it with a strong transition to surrounding land, while others wanted the northern part of 1681 Keating Crossroad to remain a buffer.
Pause consideration of the rezoning motions until staff report back on traffic, where the properties are situated, setbacks, access from Verling Avenue, and engagement with First Nations.
Official wording: That consideration of the motions be deferred pending a report back from staff to provide information regarding traffic, placement of properties, setbacks, access from Verling Avenue, and engagement with the First Nations.
Council approved a review of District fees, engineering standards and related policies that may make agricultural projects harder to carry out. The review is to consider application fees, bonding, Project Labour Agreement requirements, frontage and servicing works, eligibility criteria and other administrative barriers. Staff are to consult local farmers and the Agricultural Advisory Commission and report back with options.
Agreement
Council supported reviewing municipal requirements that could hinder viable farming and agricultural development.
Have staff review municipal fees, engineering rules, bonding, labour-agreement requirements, and other processes that may make agricultural projects harder or more expensive. The review should look at possible fee reductions or waivers, proportionate bonding, changes to servicing and frontage requirements, clear eligibility criteria, and other ways to support viable farming. Staff should consult local farmers, the Agricultural Advisory Commission, and other stakeholders, then return with recommendations and possible bylaw changes.
Official wording: WHEREAS agriculture is a defining feature of the District of Central Saanich, contributing significantly to the local economy, food security, environmental stewardship, and the community’s rural character;
AND WHEREAS the District has consistently expressed its commitment to protecting and supporting agriculture through its Official Community Plan and related policies;
AND WHEREAS farmers and agricultural landowners have identified that municipal fees, servicing requirements, bonding obligations, Project Labour Agreement (PLA) requirements, and other engineering standards intended primarily for urban development can create unnecessary financial and administrative barriers for agricultural projects;
AND WHEREAS agricultural buildings and infrastructure such as barns, greenhouses, irrigation systems, farm access improvements, produce storage facilities, and value-added agricultural uses often provide direct public benefit by strengthening the long-term viability of farming operations without generating the same servicing impacts as conventional development;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council direct staff to undertake a review of the District’s Fees and Charges Bylaw, Engineering Standards Bylaw, and related municipal policies to identify opportunities to better support agricultural development and projects that advance the viability of farming within the District.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the review consider, at a minimum:
1. Opportunities to reduce, waive, or tailor municipal application fees for qualifying agricultural buildings and infrastructure.
2. A review of bonding requirements to ensure security deposits are proportionate to the actual municipal risk associated with agricultural projects.
3. The applicability of Project Labour Agreement (PLA) requirements to agricultural projects and whether exemptions or alternative approaches are appropriate.
4. Opportunities to reduce or modify frontage improvements, off-site servicing requirements, and other municipal works where they are not necessary to address the impacts of an agricultural project.
5. The development of clear criteria identifying eligible agricultural projects that further the right to farm and improve long-term agricultural viability.
6. A review of other municipal fees, requirements, or administrative processes that may unintentionally discourage investment in agricultural operations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff consult with the local farming community, the Agricultural Advisory Commission, and other relevant stakeholders as part of the review and report back to Council with recommendations, including any proposed bylaw amendments and implementation options.
Council supported the District’s application for a 2026 Union of British Columbia Municipalities FireSmart grant and agreed the District would manage the project. The proposed work covers public education, home assessments and mitigation at critical infrastructure and community assets.
Support the District's application for a 2026 FireSmart grant for education, home assessments, and mitigation work at critical infrastructure and community assets, and have the District manage the grant.
Official wording: 1. That Council support the District of Central Saanich's application to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) 2026 Community Resiliency Investment FireSmart Community Funding and Supports Program for the project "FireSmart Education, Home Assessments and Mitigation Projects for Critical Infrastructure and Community Assets; and
2. That the District of Central Saanich agree to provide overall grant management for the project.
Council approved the 2027 renewal process for the existing permissive tax exemptions, with no changes to the four exemption bylaws. A councillor asked whether new applications could create pressure before the next cycle; the response was that one application this year did not qualify and no additional applications were known.
Agreement
Council approved renewing the existing exemptions without changes.
Approve renewing the 2027 permissive tax exemptions without changing the existing tax exemption bylaws.
Official wording: That the 2027 permissive tax exemption renewal process with no change to Tax Exemption Bylaws No. 2157, 2158, 2203, and 2210 be approved.
The notice of motion, introduced for a future meeting, asks staff to report on the feasibility, features, costs and privacy or legal considerations of an online Council Transparency Dashboard. The proposed dashboard could show recorded votes, attendance, committee participation and links to Council records. The notice was not debated at this meeting.
Council voted to move into a closed meeting to discuss labour relations, possible land acquisition or disposition, litigation and confidential negotiations involving a First Nation. The public meeting transcript ends shortly after the result.
Close the meeting to the public for the listed confidential matters: employee relations, land matters where disclosure could harm the District, litigation or potential litigation, and confidential negotiations involving a First Nation or Indigenous entity.
Official wording: That Council convene a closed meeting pursuant to the following subsections of the Community Charter:
90(1) A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following:
• (c) labour relations or other employee relations (one item); and
• (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality(one item); and
• (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality (one item).
90(2) A part of a council meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following
• (b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations:
o (iii) between the municipality and a first nation or a prescribed Indigenous entity, or between a first nation or a prescribed Indigenous entity and a third party (one item).