Council approved the 2026–2030 financial plan and advanced its tax, fee and enforcement bylaws, while approving four homes at 1255 Marchant Road despite disagreement over reduced agricultural setbacks and multiple driveway variances. The most contested discussion was the proposed redevelopment of 1903 Mount Newton Cross Road: councillors questioned how much weight land value should receive compared with design, First Nations participation and community priorities, and sent the procurement scoring back for staff recommendations. Council also agreed to invite the Capital Regional District (CRD) to explain its proposed recreation-facility borrowing on May 11, before Central Saanich decides whether to consent. A new climate-risk framework was approved, with staff asked to explore an agricultural strategy grounded in climate realities.
Generated from the recording's captions and the official minutes.
What was discussed
AI summary · check against sources
3.1 Agenda of the April 27, 2026 Regular Council Meeting
Council approved the agenda with amendments, including added presentations and revised or late materials for several reports. The meeting later did not use the consent agenda; the items were brought forward separately.
Routine: approve the meeting agenda with the listed additions and revisions.
Official wording: That the agenda of the April 27, 2026 Regular Council meeting be approved as amended by:
adding the CRD presentation to item #5.1;
adding a staff presentation to item #14.2;
updating the appendix A and revising the report for item #14.3;
adding a late report and appendices to item #14.4; and
revising Appendix A and B for item #15.1.3.
Close the meeting to the public to discuss land matters and confidential negotiations with 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:
(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.
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
(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.
community services4 public speakers1:00:02 Watch · Read
Public questions covered the proposed recreation space, accessibility at the municipal-site redevelopment, the 1903 Mount Newton Cross Road plan and short-term rentals. Speakers asked why focus-group participants signed confidentiality forms and urged the District to involve the Peninsula Accessibility Committee and require an accessibility consultant in redevelopment proposals. Questions about the recreation proposal exposed inconsistent published loan figures—$14.1 million, $14.2 million and $14.5 million—and uncertainty about what the proposed 10,000-square-foot space would contain. A councillor supplied more detail: the concept includes a weight room, pottery studio and multipurpose space, with a class C estimate above $1,000 per square foot including equipment and other costs. The chair said the loan figure would be clarified and reports made easier for the public to find. A resident also urged council to follow the Sanichton Village plan in shaping the municipal-site redevelopment; another asked when short-term-rental rules would be reviewed, and the chair said a review was expected in the second quarter of 2026.
Agreement
The chair said the CRD loan amount should be made consistent in District communications.
The chair said the recreation reports should be made more accessible for public review.
A councillor said the Peninsula Accessibility Committee would be involved in relevant development-permit work.
Disagreement
A resident questioned whether the public had enough detail about the recreation facility and its cost before councils were asked to consent to borrowing; a councillor responded with more detail about the proposed rooms and the cost estimate.
A resident urged council to keep the redevelopment aligned with the village plan; a councillor objected to introducing new information about the separate 1903 bylaw discussion during the public question period.
11.1.1 1255 Marchant Rd. – Development Permit with Variances
Council approved a development permit for four detached homes on a vacant 1,196-square-metre Brentwood Bay lot. The variances allow four residential buildings where two are permitted, reduce the extra setback beside Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) land from 5 metres to 1 metre, and allow three driveways with a combined width of 13.5 metres instead of two driveways and 7 metres. The applicant said the two-storey homes would fit the street, a six-foot cedar hedge would buffer the ALR boundary, and an engineered stormwater plan would improve drainage. Staff said the total rear setback would still be 8 metres, greater than the usual residential setback, and that the raised crosswalk and driveway layout had been reviewed against engineering standards. Council members differed over the setback and the number of variances: some supported family housing and felt the lower height and nearby homes reduced the risk of conflict; others were uneasy about the variances and wanted more experience with the new small-scale multi-unit housing rules.
Agreement
The site is eligible for up to four homes under the District's residential zoning changes made to meet provincial requirements.
Staff said the raised crosswalk and driveway layout had been considered in the engineering review.
Some councillors supported the proposal as an opportunity for smaller family homes.
Disagreement
A councillor questioned reducing the ALR setback from 5 metres to 1 metre, particularly given earlier Advisory Planning Commission discussion about maintaining the minimum setback.
A councillor said the number of variances and the early stage of the new housing rules made them uncomfortable supporting the application; other councillors supported it, citing the two-storey form, existing nearby homes and demand for family housing.
Rather than decide immediately whether to consent to CRD borrowing for the Saanich Peninsula recreation facility, council voted to invite the CRD to present on May 11. A councillor said the added CRD cost was about $61 per year for local taxpayers and represented an 18.4% increase in the 2026 CRD requisition. The councils of all three municipalities must consent, and Central Saanich will need to decide at the May 11 meeting to meet the May 15 deadline. A councillor raised concerns about the facility's cost, what the 10,000-square-foot recreation area would include, local control and whether the public had been asked about the specific proposal. Staff described the proposed lease, construction and operating agreements, including cost-sharing by floor area and the District receiving the building back when the long-term lease ends.
Agreement
All three municipal councils must consent for the borrowing to proceed.
Council agreed the CRD should have an opportunity to explain the proposal before Central Saanich makes its decision.
Council understood that a decision would be needed on May 11 to meet the May 15 deadline.
Disagreement
A councillor questioned whether the recreation facility and other project features had been clearly presented to the public before a borrowing decision; another councillor pointed to years of regional and local engagement and existing public reports.
A councillor raised concerns about the cost, facility details and local control; the chair and a councillor described the proposed lease structure and compared it with the long-running Panorama arrangement.
Council directed staff to file a notice on the property's title under section 57 of the Community Charter. Staff said the owner had obtained permits and resolved one building matter but had not supplied the engineering needed to close the file on a coverall building. Staff said the owner had been warned that a notice on title might be sought and had received at least two weeks' notice of the meeting.
Agreement
Staff said the unresolved building work could not be closed without the requested engineering.
Disagreement
A councillor asked for more detail about the outstanding deficiencies before supporting the notice; staff explained why the file remained open.
File a formal notice on the land title for 3224 Livesay Road under the Community Charter.
Official wording: That a Notice pursuant to the authority of Section 57 of the Community Charter be filed in the Land Titles Office against the Title of PARCEL A LOT 13 SECTION 16 RANGE 6E SOUTH SAANICH DISTRICT PLAN VIP1242 EXCEPTPLAN 13208 (DD 140947I) & LOT 17; PID 007-646-399; having a civic address of 3224 LIVESAY RD.
Council endorsed a corporate climate-risk framework and adopted an accountability policy that will put climate risks into existing planning, budgeting and reporting rather than create a separate program. Staff identified extreme heat, wildfire and smoke, drought, severe weather and flooding as the District's five priority risks. The presentation also treated mental health as a climate concern and noted risks to agriculture and vulnerable residents. A councillor asked how the framework would change decisions and whether staff would assess both adaptation and emissions reduction. Staff said relevant reports, such as a future stormwater-plan update, would apply the risk framework and set out implications; a separate carbon-accounting approach is being developed. Council also directed staff to discuss a possible agricultural strategy at the next agricultural community engagement, grounding it in climate conditions and expected opportunities.
Agreement
Council supported integrating climate risk into regular District planning, capital decisions and work plans.
Staff said financial implications of different responses would be brought forward where relevant.
Council supported involving the agricultural community in discussing a climate-grounded agricultural strategy.
Disagreement
A councillor questioned whether the framework placed too much emphasis on adaptation and how mitigation would affect council decisions; staff said emissions accounting would be handled separately and brought back.
Use the Climate Risk Framework to guide the District’s work on climate impacts, from preparation and response to recovery, and require staff to incorporate identified priority climate risks into organizational planning and reporting.
Official wording: 1. Endorse the Climate Risk Framework as a corporate framework to inform climate change adaptation, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery across the organization, as attached as Appendix A; and
2. Adopt the Climate Risk Accountability Policy, directing staff to apply the identified priority climate risks in planning and reporting through the District’s Integrated Planning and Reporting (IP&R) framework, as attached as Appendix B.
At the next opportunity to meet with the agricultural community, ask participants about developing an agricultural strategy that addresses climate challenges and opportunities, including ways the District could help.
Official wording: At the next agricultural community engagement opportunity, staff engage participants on the potential development of an agricultural strategy that is grounded in our climate realities, but also expected opportunities, with an emphasis on how the District can support.
Council debated the scoring rules for a request for proposals (RFP) to dispose of or lease the District-owned 1903 Mount Newton Cross Road site. Staff proposed 50 points for the land offer, 35 for design and concept, 10 for First Nations participation and 5 for delivery and scheduling. The design brief allowed buildings up to six storeys on parts of the site, tapering to four storeys near homes, and required at least 15,000 square feet of commercial space. Councillors questioned whether land value should outweigh design and community priorities, how lease proposals would be assessed against a sale, whether height or density should be constrained, and how summer public information meetings would work. An amendment to give extra scoring weight to proposals of 350 units or fewer was defeated. Council then deferred the procurement decision so staff can recommend revised scoring that better balances financial value and design, increases consideration of First Nations participation and recognizes the value of a lease. A Committee of the Whole meeting was directed for April 29, April 30 or May 4, at the chair's call; staff were also asked to provide a worksheet to help councillors consider the criteria.
Agreement
Council agreed that the scoring criteria can be changed before the RFP is issued.
Council agreed that staff should return with revised scoring recommendations before the District proceeds.
Council agreed to hold a Committee of the Whole meeting to consider the revised criteria.
Disagreement
A councillor proposed extra scoring weight for proposals of 350 units or fewer; the amendment was defeated, with Councillors Thompson, Riddell and Paltiel and the chair opposed.
Councillors differed over the proposed 50-point weight for land value, whether design should receive equal weight, how much weight First Nations participation should carry, and whether leases should receive credit for the land returning to the District.
A councillor objected to holding public information meetings in August, citing the difficulty of gathering public input during the summer.
Change the proposed evaluation scoring for the Mount Newton Cross Road sale so that proposals of 350 units or fewer receive points, with separate scores for design, commercial and housing, unit count, and engagement.
Official wording: That section b be amended so that a proposal of density no more than 350 units be assigned a weight, with 12 points for ‘building design component’, 12 points for ‘commercial and housing component’, 4 points for ‘350 units or less component’, and 5 points for ‘engagement plan component’.
Add direction that staff bring revised scoring recommendations for the Mount Newton Cross Road proposal process to a Committee of the Whole meeting, balancing finance and design, increasing the First Nations score, and including a lease element in finance.
Official wording: That the motion be amended as follows:
That consideration of the motion be deferred and that staff be requested to make recommendations on some adjustments to the points for the evaluation criteria of the RFP for disposition of 1903 Mount Newton Cross Road and report back to Council at a Committee of the Whole meeting, to equalize the weighting of finance and design, raise the weight of First Nations, and incorporate into finance a lease component.
Pause the proposed sale-process scoring decision and have staff return to a Committee of the Whole meeting with recommendations to rebalance finance and design scores, give more weight to First Nations, and include a lease component in the finance scoring.
Official wording: That consideration of the motion be deferred and that staff be requested to make recommendations on some adjustments to the points for the evaluation criteria of the RFP for disposition of 1903 Mount Newton Cross Road and report back to Council at a Committee of the Whole meeting, to equalize the weighting of finance and design, raise the weight of First Nations, and incorporate into finance a lease component.
Council directed staff to develop an Amenity Cost Charge (ACC) framework for village-centre and mixed-use areas, align amenity delivery with District planning and financial strategies, and consult the Peninsula Recreation Commission and other stakeholders. Staff described a temporary rate of $175 per square metre, about $12,000 per unit, to give proponents a predictable contribution while the District develops a fuller ACC bylaw. Based on roughly 4,000 potential units, the transitional framework could generate about $52.5 million over around 20 years. Staff said contributions could be paid in cash or provided in kind, and that future work would update the charges alongside development cost charges. Council discussed the limits of replacing site-by-site negotiations with a standard charge but approved the framework direction.
Agreement
Council supported preparing an ACC framework and bringing a draft bylaw back for consideration.
Staff explained that the transitional rate was set at the lower end to give certainty while accounting for local development feasibility.
Disagreement
A councillor worried that standard charges could lose useful site-specific amenities that had previously emerged through negotiation; the chair noted that contributions could also be provided in kind, subject to clear rules.
Proceed with developing a system of amenity charges for village-centre and mixed-use areas, coordinate amenity delivery with District planning and finances—including the Hovey Road and Mount Newton Cross Road sites—and consult the Peninsula Recreation Commission and other key stakeholders as the system is implemented.
Official wording: 1. Receive this report for information and direct staff to proceed with the establishment of an Amenity Cost Charge (ACC) framework for the District’s village centre and mixed-use areas.
2. Endorse the approach to align amenity delivery with the District’s planning and financial strategies, including the redevelopment of the Hovey Road site and the disposition of the Mount Newton Cross Road site.
3. Authorize staff to engage with the Peninsula Recreation Commission and other key stakeholders as part of the implementation process.
Council adopted the 2026–2030 financial plan and approved a three-year capital plan for core replacement programs. A councillor asked for progress on the District's carbon-reduction actions; staff said an updated report was expected in June and that a reporting framework was still being developed. Councillor King opposed the financial plan and the capital-plan motion; both carried.
Agreement
Council approved the five-year financial plan and the three-year core-replacement capital plan.
Disagreement
Councillor King opposed both approvals and asked for clearer reporting on carbon reductions and related actions.
Adopt the District’s 2026–2030 financial plan as presented in the staff report and the March 30 and April 8 meetings.
Official wording: That the Central Saanich 2026-2030 Financial Plan as presented in the March 30th staff report and meetings March 30th and April 8th 2026 be adopted.
Council gave first, second and third readings to the bylaw implementing the 2026–2030 financial plan. Councillor King opposed all three readings; they carried.
Council gave first, second and third readings to Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 2267. Staff clarified that late changes corrected missing preliminary bylaw pages; the changes were reflected in the amendment summary.
Agreement
Council proceeded after staff explained the document corrections.
Council gave three readings to Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 2242 and adopted a policy for disputes and screening officers. Staff said the new system lets the District issue notices, including for parking violations, without requiring an in-person ticket; recipients can dispute a notice with a screening officer and appeal through a provincial adjudicator instead of going to court. Councillor King opposed both motions.
Agreement
Staff said the bylaw creates a dispute process and gives the District a way to issue certain notices, including parking tickets, by placing them on a vehicle.
Disagreement
Councillor King opposed the bylaw and the related screening-policy adoption.
Council adopted Bylaw No. 2264. In questions about the heat-pump financing program, staff said the charge stays with the property if it is sold and is paid over ten years. Staff reported no recovery problems to date, while acknowledging that the program has taken significant staff time.
Agreement
Council adopted the bylaw without opposition.
Disagreement
A councillor questioned whether the heat-pump program was truly cost-neutral after administration costs; staff said no repayment problems had occurred.
Council gave first, second and third readings to the Fire Services Operational Bylaw amendment. A councillor asked whether revised wording changed cost-recovery rules; staff said the edits corrected references and numbering and made no substantive change.
Agreement
Council proceeded after staff clarified that the amendments were technical corrections.
Council referred a proposed zoning change to the Advisory Planning Commission. The application would raise the maximum lot coverage on a small, narrow, half-acre rural waterfront property from 5% to 15%, allowing a replacement home with a footprint of about 3,500 square feet rather than roughly 1,100 square feet. A councillor raised concern that the District is reviewing rural lot-coverage policy and that approving a one-off increase before that review could pre-empt the wider discussion. Council referred the proposal for the Commission's advice before staff bring it forward for first reading.
Agreement
Council agreed the Advisory Planning Commission should review the proposal.
Disagreement
A councillor questioned whether a threefold increase in lot coverage should be considered before the District completes its broader rural lot-coverage review.
Send the proposed zoning text change for 559 Senanus Drive to the Advisory Planning Commission, then have staff notify Council so it can consider the bylaw’s first reading after the commission’s review.
Official wording: 1. That Zoning Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 2262 (559 Senanus Drive) be introduced and referred to the Advisory Planning Commission; and
2. That following the Advisory Planning Commission staff provide notification for first reading of Zoning Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 2262 (559 Senanus Drive).
Council gave third reading to the Official Community Plan and zoning amendment for 1903 Mount Newton Cross Road. Councillors discussed whether decisions on the separate RFP could affect their earlier public-hearing decision and whether further correspondence should be reaching councillors after the hearing. Staff said the limits on new information continue through adoption and advised that the cleanest sequence was to settle the zoning before debating RFP criteria. The chair noted that council could still reject an RFP or rescind the bylaw if later decisions required it. Councillors King and Thompson opposed third reading.
Agreement
Council recognized that statutory limits on receiving new information apply through adoption.
The chair said the later RFP decision and the zoning decision are separate processes, and council retains options if it rejects the RFP outcome.
Disagreement
Councillors raised different concerns about whether RFP discussions or correspondence received after the public hearing could improperly affect their zoning decision.
Council endorsed a draft letter asking the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs for additional funding, and agreed to share it with the Union of BC Municipalities and other local governments for possible coordinated advocacy.
Agreement
Council endorsed the letter and its wider distribution.
Approve the draft letter and share it with UBCM and other local governments so they can consider coordinating advocacy at the regional or provincial level.
Official wording: That the draft letter be endorsed, and that the letter be shared with the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) and other local governments for potential regional or provincial advocacy coordination.
Close the meeting to the public to discuss land acquisition, disposition, or expropriation where disclosure could harm the municipality’s interests.
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:
(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.