Transcript: Regular Council Meeting - 2026/04/27

Speaker A · All right.

Speaker B · Good evening everyone and welcome. It's regular council for Monday April 27th and I called the meeting to order, looking for approval of the agenda as circulated, amended by adding a CRD presentation to item 5.

Speaker B · 1, adding a staff presentation to item 14. 2 and updating the appendix A and revising the report for item 14 3, adding a late report and appendices to item 14 4, revising appendix A and B.

Speaker B · Did I miss anything? Oh, it got cut off. Okay. 14 three and 14. Oh, 15 13. Yes, Councillor. At the Consent Agenda.

Speaker C · Yeah,

Speaker D · okay.

Speaker B · Yeah, staff are requesting. Okay, so that's that. Sorry, what was the other item? 1513 and then what is the nature of that? Oh yes, that's. That's the addition. Okay. Okay, so with those changes, is there a motion to that effect? Still moved.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker B · Is there a seconder? Thank you. Any discussion? Discussion? Seeing none. Any opposed?

Speaker E · None.

Speaker B · Motion carries. Motion to close the meeting under section 91 sub E92, sub B, please. Second moved and seconded. Thank you. Any discussion? Any opposed? None. Motion carries. Okay,

Speaker C · It.

Speaker B · Okay. Welcome everyone. We are returning to our regular open council meeting. Thank you. We are on item 5, consent agenda. As chair, it's become obvious that council wishes to not use the consent agenda. So I will be distributing the items. Item 5. 1 will become 12. 1. Item 5. 2 will become 1515. Item 5. 3 will become 1516. And we will not be using the consent agenda for the remainder of this term. Okay, we are to item six, adoption of the minutes April 13, April 16 and April 20. Special open council, please. Is there a seconder?

Speaker F · Second.

Speaker B · Any discussion? Any opposed? None. Motion carried. Item 7. Any business arising from the minutes? Seeing none, we have no arising report. There's an opportunity for public questions or feedback. 2 minutes per speaker, a maximum of 20 minutes please.

Speaker D · Good evening everyone. Peter Van Dyke Central, Saanich Road. I have a question and a follow up if I have time. My question is about the focus groups that were held recently about this site. And the question is why were the participants asked to sign a non declaration, non disclosure agreement?

Speaker B · I'm afraid I don't have any information on that in front of me at the moment, so I'm unable to answer.

Speaker D · Okay, so my follow up, one of the sessions, apparently there was discussion about accessibility. So my request is twofold that the Peninsula Accessibility Committee be consulted at all stages. And the other is that whoever ends up getting the contract be expected to employ an accessibility consultant as part of their team. I noted in the background paper there's Something about a proportion of units to be accessible. But accessibility is more than just some of the. Some of them being accessible. It has to do with the entire design of the whole site. So I really appreciate if you could put that in the contract

Speaker B · as feedback. Certainly, we'll take that for consideration. Thank you.

Speaker G · Good evening, Ms. T. Watson, Patterson Road. Just a question about the new recreation facilities. A question. The proposed budget for this facility, is it a part of the entire build, the budget for the entire construction, or is the budget for the new recreation facility a separate item altogether?

Speaker B · That item is the CRD portion of the proposed facility.

Speaker G · Okay, so it is separate from.

Speaker B · Yes.

Speaker G · Okay. And the funding will come through financing through the crd.

Speaker H · Correct?

Speaker G · Correct. And how is that process being, I guess adjudicated? Like the three. The districts all have to agree. Yes, correct.

Speaker B · The consent of the councils of each municipality would be required for that borrowing to proceed.

Speaker G · Yes. Okay. And just one additional question. The proposed budget for the facility, is that just the. The build out like the internal infrastructure for the. Because it's enclosed within the building? Yes. So that 14. 2 million is to put up walls and build the structure within the facility itself.

Speaker B · I'm afraid I don't have that level of granular detail in front of me presently.

Speaker G · Okay, all right. Yeah. I guess just trying to be clear. The building itself is under one budget and then that 14. 2 million is just to build out the space.

Speaker B · I would suspect that there are other costs associated with that space, but again, without the fulsome report in front of me, I can't.

Speaker G · We don't have that information yet.

Speaker B · Top of mind? No.

Speaker G · Okay, thank you.

Speaker I · Good evening. Cyril Hume, 1886 Kaltra Avenue. My couple of questions follow, I think on the previous ones. First of all, regarding the CRD budget cost loan request, is it 14. 1, 14. 2 or 14. 5 million?

Speaker I · All three versions have been published,

Speaker B · I'm afraid. Again, I don't have that information right at the tip of my fingertips. At the last PRC meeting, I recall 14. 2, but that would need to be.

Speaker I · The 14. 5 was in a communication prepared by the district that went out on the website. So it is a bit confusing.

Speaker B · We will make sure that we clarify so that there is consistency in the number so there is no room for confusion.

Speaker I · Thank you. And now related to the 10,000 square foot dry recreation facility, I understand that that means it won't be a skating rink or swimming pool, but it could be a pottery studio, a meeting room, a weight room.

Speaker I · But the description has only been qualified by could be. In other words its actual function and design is not yet known. Is that correct?

Speaker B · The final my understanding includes potentially all of those. So could be certainly is apportioned. It's more about apportionment potentially of I

Speaker I · think the public who are being asked to lend their support or not to the financing deserve to know better a little bit more granular detail what it is that they're voting on. I would also just raise the issue and the bell's about to go off. But I need to finish this point if I may.

Speaker B · Yes.

Speaker I · 14. Let's let's round it down to 14,010,000 square foot space incorporated within the walls and under the roof of the proposed new municipal hall. That comes to 1400 dollars per square foot according to BC construction costs current highest level ultra ultra luxury finishes. You're lucky if you hit 1100 square foot. So I think the public would also like to know what on earth kind of pottery studio, weight room or vague meeting room are they being asked to support. Thank you.

Speaker B · I guess my response question back to you would be have you looked at whether that includes recreation? Because those numbers don't often. Anyway. Just a thought Councillor Peltiel.

Speaker F · Yeah I think just a little bit clarity here on that is that the concept that was delivered and there is a staff report that we can include in our public communications and I believe has from the CRD shows the 10,000 square foot appropriated space that includes weight room dedicated pottery studio due to the one that is at Greenglade is over capacity as well a multi purpose facility that's used for indoor sports and recreation facilities as well as meeting space.

Speaker F · The cost has come down to an estimated class C budget of $1,000 per foot now and sorry it is still no, it's over 1,000 but that's with contingency and that doesn't just include the build costs. That includes all fixturing associated as well. So that's your supplies everything to basically lock up an opening. So it's beyond just a shell of a space. It includes the equipment and operating services like it and everything as well.

Speaker B · Thank you Councillor. As chair of the PRC I appreciate the additional context and certainly we will make sure that those reports are front and center for public examination so that any confusion can be overcome. Any other questions please.

Speaker D · Good evening mayor and council and some of you have spoken to so you'll know when I'm hereabout you're going to be looking at bylaw 2252 tonight and it's coming up for its third reading and because it's relevant to this piece of property that we're standing on. And you're also going to be discussing the RFP for this area. And I just want council to think back of the Sanderson plan that was put together in 2019, of the goals and the expectations and what the Sanichten Village expectation was of what we would see there. And it was a very positive document. And it has a lot of instructions on the things that are really pleasant and nice, but it also has the height of up to five stories. Four to five stories.

Speaker D · Nope, that's okay. Excuse

Speaker C · me.

Speaker J · But we should not be taking in new information with respect to the bylaw.

Speaker B · I take your point, counselor.

Speaker D · Yeah, I respect that. Thank you very much, actually, because you've had all your input regarding that. So I will say that. I will then just say it would be really good while we're going through this process of RFP for what we want to see here, and while we're going through that process, process of looking at how we send out the information for what we're going to get for an RSP is that we think of the Sandiston Village plan. You reread it, take a look at it, see what the expectation of the community that put it together was. Because a lot of money went into putting it together, a lot of good ideas came out of it, and I just don't want to see it moved away because this was not part of it.

Speaker D · This building was not part of that plan. It was still a concept for the village of Sanichton, of which I consider this kind of an ear.

Speaker B · I will.

Speaker D · Thank you very much.

Speaker B · The reverence that it's existing information that the district already has. So you're not introducing new information, but I appreciate Councillor Thompson's point on that. We don't want to cross that. Okay. Any others who wish to provide input?

Speaker J · I'd like to ask a question of a different matter. You guys are going to look at revising your land use policies. And I'd like to ask a direct question. I think I'd like to ask Zeb King.

Speaker B · If we don't allow questions to individual members of council or challenges to individual councillors in this.

Speaker D · It's.

Speaker B · It's to council as a whole. But you're not allowed to single members of council out and put them on the spot.

Speaker J · Okay, that's. I'm new at this. I'm new at this.

Speaker B · It could be positive, it could be negative. I'm just saying it's. It's part of the. No, that's fine.

Speaker J · Yeah, I would. I guess I'd like to know what the direction of the council is as a suite owner here in Central Saanich on short term rentals.

Speaker B · Yes, we've had this question come forward in terms of what we said earlier which was that we would review the short term rental policy in 2026. I had asked staff about this and I believe that it was answered that the review would happen in the second quarter which is upcoming and that it may well be that council considers a change to its preceding position. It has always been the case that short term was not allowable. The province then came along and said, you can do it in your domicile if the council allows for it. And so that was the basis of the review which was always slated for 2026 and it is coming in the very near term.

Speaker B · I cannot tell you the mind of this council yet because they haven't debated it and therefore decision has not been rendered. Okay, thank you, Councillor King.

Speaker E · I'm curious about the question so I would invite the speaker to phone me up or you know, get my attention after meeting and be happy.

Speaker B · No, that's entirely fair. I've said to the speakers that they're welcome to contact members of Council, any one of us or all of us. So by all means. Okay. Any others not seeing anyone coming forward. So we're going to proceed in our agenda to item 11. This is item 11. 11. It's an opportunity to be heard with respect to 1255 Marchant Road Development permit with variances and I'll look to our director of planning and Building services as well as the applicant.

Speaker K · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The district has received an application to construct four detached dwelling units at a property at 1255 Marshon Road. The 1,196 square meter parcel is located in Brentwood Bay and is owned residential neighborhood. The site is currently vacant. Finally, following the demolition of a previous single family dwelling in January 2024 under a demolition permit, the previous proposal to rezone the property from the former R1 zone to the RM6 zone to allow for the construction of five townhouses was was declined by council. Subsequently, in alignment with the province's Bill 44 requirements, the district completed a comprehend a community wide rezoning of residential properties to permit up to four dwelling units in residential neighborhoods as required.

Speaker K · As a result, 1255 Marshall Road now falls under the RN zone and does permit up to four dwelling units. Our zoning permits requires us to be in two detached buildings. A variance is requested through this proposal. To permit four detached dwellings in a single family home design on the property. The zoning bylaw Requires an additional 5 meter rear yard setback for the properties adjacent to the agricultural land reserve. In addition to the standard 7 meter setback, the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce this additional 5 meters requirement to 1 meter for a total RE yard setback of 8 meters, which is still greater than required traditional setback in our zoning bylaw.

Speaker K · The proposal meets all other zoning requirements including floor area ratio, lot coverage and landscaping requirements. The proposed locations of the dwellings align with adjacent dwellings. The proposal also provides adequate on site parking, includes garages equipped with EV chargers and one additional designated space parking space for each unit under the subdivision and development servicing. By law, residential properties are permitted up to two driveways from a public road with a maximum combined crossing of 7 meters. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow three driveways with a total combined crossing of 13. 5 meters. And this is due to the single family design that is incorporated on the site. The design includes individual driveways for the two front dwellings and a shared driveway to the rear of the property. Thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you. I assume the applicant is here for questions.

Speaker L · Certainly.

Speaker B · Okay. I have a statement with respect to the opportunity to be heard. This is an opportunity to be heard for a development permit with variances to increase the number of permitted residential buildings from 2 to 4, reduce the additional setback from ALR parcels from 5 meter to 1 meter and increase the permitted driveway width from 7 meters to 13. 5 meters and increase the number of permitted driveways from 2 to 3. If you are a property owner affected by the proposal, you are afforded the opportunity to speak regarding the variances for this application.

Speaker M · Thank you.

Speaker N · Mr.

Speaker E · Chair.

Speaker K · I am the.

Speaker O · There you go. Thank you. I am the applicant. For this reason or this variance request. Just want to add a few points in addition to what you've already heard with respect to the ALR in our proposal. It does include that we would be planting a six foot cedar hedge along the entire ALR property line as a buffer. And we've tried to keep the new design, the five townhouses, the. The zoning allows for three stories, but the neighborhood all along Marshand is all two story homes and single family. So we've changed it from five townhouses to four single families and kept them at two stories so we believe it fits into the neighborhood. I know there was concerns raised about the stormwater.

Speaker O · There will be an engineered stormwater management plan be provided that will be better than the drainage that is currently there now. And the. I Know, the setback we're asking on the ALR to be reduced. But you know, ironically, if we would have put the driveway up one side, it would have been a side yard setback and we could have actually had it much less and still met the zoning requirements. Nevertheless, I think the single most important fact is that there's a very, very strong need for homes for young families. And this is right in the heart of the schools. You can walk to the elementary school, there's a path right directly to it. It's not very far from the middle school. So this is an absolute perfect location for more homes for young families. Thank you very much.

Speaker O · And I'd be happy to entertain any questions from council.

Speaker B · Councilor Thompson.

Speaker J · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm curious, you know, there's been a development on my street in which we're seeing a duplex. In each half of the duplex, the offering price or requested price is $1. 2 million. What would you anticipate for these single family homes, what the asking price would be? I know, just a general sense because I am concerned about.

Speaker B · Just wondering, Counselor, how that pertains to the item that's being considered, which is really the changes to the permitted. I guess it's under the permitted residential dwellings from two to four. Is that the basis of your question?

Speaker J · Sure.

Speaker B · Okay, I'll allow it. In that case, yeah.

Speaker O · We don't actually have the costing on these projects, but we're happy to share our record. We did 27 or 26 homes at timber Ridge and those prices ranged as the. As low as 620,000. Up to, at the end, they got up to around a million. But a lot of them, the majority of them were around 800,000. So our target market is young families. And the average age of our buyers is under 40 years old. I think timber ridge was around 37. And we're very much aware of that. So we watched our costs and what we put in the houses. We try to make them very nice. But we also are very much aware that our market is for young families and first home buyers. So the cost is a very important factor for us.

Speaker B · Okay, any other questions? Councillor King? Okay, that's fine. Councillor Newton, did you have a question for the applicant? The applicant should return to the microphone. Okay, Councillor Newton, go ahead.

Speaker C · Yeah, thank you, Chair. Just with respect to the driveways and the landscape plan or the design plan that was proposed, site plan shows a crosswalk on Marchant. And so I'm just curious if that is true. I tried to look on Google Maps But I didn't see one. And how it was in relation to the crosswalk. And is there anything in our zoning around proximity to crosswalks for driveways? Not sure.

Speaker B · That's a question for the applicant necessarily. But you could. The first part is, are you aware of one of your driveways being near the crosswalk on Marchand?

Speaker O · Very much so. So then there's actually a speed hump. There's actually a speed hump in front of our property. And they. He actually called us and said they were putting that in and if it would. Just where they should put it if it had caused any conflicts and actually slows the traffic rate down. So the speed hump, actually we see it as an asset. And there's a. I believe the speed limit on Marshand is 30 km an hour, but the speed hump makes it much slower. So I think the driveways will not impact that. The traffic will be coming very slow as well as people coming in and out of the driveways.

Speaker B · Thank you. I'll just follow up with our director of engineering if you have any comment.

Speaker L · Thank you. That is true.

Speaker K · That is the raised crosswalk that was installed on Marchant. And we did do some initial consultation with Mr. Lund previous to sighting it.

Speaker E · There are engineering standards associated with a raised crosswalk by the by driveways.

Speaker K · And that was taken into account.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you. I see no other questions for the applicant. So I will invite the applicant to take his seat. And I will look again to the gallery if there are any other speakers who wish to address the matters are under the opportunity to be heard. Not seeing anyone coming forward. I will bring it back to the council table.

Speaker E · Councillor King, if I'm not mistaken, I think what the rationale for the request is that we're considering is what essentially would be. We want to fit four family homes on the site. And we think a cedar hedge can mitigate the reduced setback from adjacent ALR land. And the request, I believe, is from a setback of 5 meters to 1 meter. And this is a good example, I think, of the issues and values that we face between agriculture and agricultural principles and values and the growth in the community, more housing. So I guess my question is to staff in terms of a planning rationale for reducing the additional setback from 5 meters to 1 meter.

Speaker E · And especially given the APCs discussion and redevelopment, that redevelopment should be consistent with the minimum set setback for ALR land. Although they voted unanimously and I think endorsing there was that discussion. What would be the planning rationale for reducing from 5 to 1.

Speaker K · Thank you Mr. Mayor. Councillor King, I think there's a couple of potential mitigating factors with this. I think it's the lower type of density that is proposed here. Two single family dwellings fronting onto basically facing back into that ALR land. So it's not an apartment building, it's not a substantial amount of people that would be there. It's two single family homes they would be buying there with understanding that that is alr property right behind them. Second to that is some things that we do try to put in place is either a hard fence, so a cedar fence 6ft high or a hedge also can be that mitigating factor.

Speaker K · So those might be two of the solutions that we try to try to put in place on a project like this. I think you look at our urban containment boundary, everywhere on urban containment boundary abuts ALR land. And so as you pointed out, it's challenging to balance that infill and growth. This is the growth that aligns exactly with what the province has required the district to put in place. So it's trying to put to balance this with the type of housing that we need in terms of that balance between ALR land and our immediate urban boundary. And so 8 meter setback is more than what you would typically see on a residential setback. And I think the level of density is quite low enough and that can rationalize that variance request from staff's perspective.

Speaker B · For the speakers or questions at this point I don't yet have a motion on the floor. Sorry.

Speaker C · It's not really related to this particular development, it's just the concept in general. And Councillor King does raise a good point. We've frequently made this variance and I think that we should be revisiting this policy and how we treat these setbacks in general if we're going to continue to do that. And as I said, I think there's merits on both sides of that equation. But if a rule applies and then we're not enforcing it, we should probably look at revisiting that rule in its entirety.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you Councillor. I'll leave that as an open ended question to members of council if they wish to take that mantle up in the meantime, there is consideration to be given if someone wishes to do so. In the form of the recommendation that development Permit with variances PL001746 for 1255 Marshall Road be authorized for issuance.

Speaker F · Summit.

Speaker B · Thank you. Second thank you. Any discussion? Councillor Newton?

Speaker C · Thank you Mr. Mayor. For you to staff. When we were going through the I'm going to get the acronym not quite right. The smooth design for the small lot housing and every lot now permissible for up to four dwelling units. Have we seen any other request for variants to change the permitted residential buildings on a lot in the rn?

Speaker K · We do have one in stream that is proposing that. Councillor. Mr. Mayor, there hasn't been a significant uptake on the SMU housing to this point. So we haven't seen a lot of examples. But I can't think of another example like, like this where there were four dwellings proposed like this. This would be more of something we would have seen even prior to SMU where you would see the panhandle lot type development on a larger lot.

Speaker C · Right. And so these are still. Then it's still. It's not a subdivision. It's for four homes being built on one lot, correct?

Speaker K · That is correct. With a following the. You know, should council proceed with this, it would be a stratification of the. The buildings as well. So it would be individually owned, but a common property for the driveways and whatnot.

Speaker O · Right,

Speaker C · Yeah. I appreciate the design and the willingness to try and put smaller homes together. I just. I think we're still in the reasonable infancy of Bill 44 and how it's having an impact on our residential neighborhood areas.

Speaker C · I'm not sure where I'm going to sit with this, but I was surprised

Speaker J · that the

Speaker C · APC did vote unanimously on this and so I'm wrestling with that guidance from them as well to see.

Speaker B · But I.

Speaker C · The number of variances here. And again, I understand the need to put, you know, smaller homes on. On the lots, but I think we're still trying to expand, but what we're trying to accomplish within the smooth design. So I'm not supportive at this time.

Speaker K · Mr. Mayor, I clarify what it said. There was an example that was asked about four separate dwelling units. There was an example on. On Verdier that was. Is under construction right now that has four separate dwelling units fitting under the SMU regulations.

Speaker B · Thank you. Councillor Graham, do you have your hand up still? But perhaps that was legacy.

Speaker C · No, it wasn't. I just want to make the. I don't believe it's been moved unless I haven't been paying attention. I just moved the recommendation to focus discussion.

Speaker B · I think we have already had that. Yeah. Thank you though. Okay, good.

Speaker C · All right. Sorry about that.

Speaker B · No, no, no problem. Sometimes translating online can be a problem. I get it.

Speaker L · Councillor Riddle, thank you and I appreciate the comments that have been made and the conversation we're having regarding the setbacks on agricultural land. For me on this one I am in support and that there's a few reasons I think in this case along this particular piece of agricultural land there's quite a lot of homes just like these ones that are, are right up close. So I don't think in this case it's going to make, it's going to cause a new issue or conflict that wasn't already there. The second is that this did come how did come forward previously as town houses and I was supportive of that time because I do think this is an excellent place for family housing, affordable family housing, the type of housing that I hear all the time that we want to see in this community that entry level small single family home or townhouse that while while expensive and I take your point Councillor Thompson from earlier but is more attainable and so that's what this is offering.

Speaker L · And when the town houses came forward we actually did hear concerns from the neighbors about that and we haven't heard them about these four homes and I'm, I'm wondering if that's tied to the height so the effort made to reduce from three to two stories potentially factoring in here.

Speaker L · So I do think this offers a little bit more diversity diversity to our existing housing stock and I think they'll be a good market and it will bring some, some young, younger folks with kids to, to this neighbourhood. Thanks.

Speaker B · Seeing no other speakers I shall call the question looking for those in opposition. Councillor King, Councillor Thompson, Councillor Newton. The motion carries. Item 13:3 would be next up on our agenda. Council member oh no, pardon me.

Speaker B · 12:1 I jump back here. 12:1 is the correspondent CRD remunicible consent for bylaw 4761 and we have staff available for questions if there are any. Councilor Thompson, thank you Mr. Mayor.

Speaker J · I was happy to see this come forward. And off the consent agenda. I know for example we've seen a lot of questions tonight. This item was on the Sydney council agenda a week ago. They have set aside time on their next council meeting May 11 to hear from the public on this issue. North Saanich Council is dealing with this issue on its agenda tonight. I did a couple of things overall what I'd like to do is invite the CRD to make a presentation as it is doing both in North Saanich and Sydney. I think in part because of the questions that were raised during the question period tonight.

Speaker J · I did want to note that, that the increase to taxpayers in this region not on the municipal component but on the CRD component is about $61 a year, which represents an 18 point. Sorry, an 18. 4% lift in the 2026 CRD requisition. So I am going to make a motion that council invite the CRD to make a presentation on May 11, understanding that council would need to make a decision that evening in order to meet the May 15 deadline. So I'll make that a motion.

Speaker B · Okay. Is there a second? Thank you. Discussion. Anything further, Councillor Thomson?

Speaker J · No, I think that's you covered. Simple invitation.

Speaker I · Okay.

Speaker B · Councillor Paltia.

Speaker E · Yeah.

Speaker F · Just as putting the CRD side on, just from the perspective of Panorama here is that the. That is I believe the same evening that Sydney's reserved for making a final deliberation and decision on the same matter. So procedurally it'll make sense if the folks from the CRD are available to do it. I would just note that as sometimes things get bounced along following these meetings. I just think it's important to clarify that we would have to schedule and resolve to make a decision that evening as there wouldn't be time afforded in the CRD approval schedule to delay further.

Speaker B · I think Councillor Thompson has covered that. So I'm satisfied that there's a clear understanding of what is before us

Speaker G · as

Speaker B · part of the motion. So I will look if there are no further speakers to put the question. Are there any opposed? None are opposed. The motion carries. That would then see the recommendation moved to that meeting. So that's handled.

Speaker E · Item questions on this item on are we still 12. 1?

Speaker B · Well, we have deferred it pending a presentation.

Speaker E · Oh no, I understood we were sending an invitation but that we still had this item on the agenda. But was that.

Speaker B · I heard Councilor Thomson say consideration would be given at that meeting. I mean, I'll allow questions, but it's essentially been moved. I will allow some questions if you have some.

Speaker E · Okay. So before my question is through you, Mr. Chair to staff, before Central Signage gives consent, what expectations will be secured in the MoU on design, ownership, long term use, cost and local control. So in terms of losing local control, given that it's a partnership.

Speaker H · Through the mayor.

Speaker D · So

Speaker H · the district will be entering into a lease agreement with the. A long term lease agreement if this passes and if all of the other decisions are made about advancing the construction. And there are agreements. There's a construction agreement where the district of Central Saanich would be the lead. The Peninsula Recreation Commission staff have been participating as part of a working group and making decisions around or providing their advice around their port portion of the of the building. Also there is an operating agreement and then there would be a lease agreement as well. And so it would be shared cost proportional to the square footage of the property.

Speaker H · And that would be not only for the construction, but also for operating costs. And with a long term lease, unless future council makes it different decision, the building would be returned to the district after the long term lease is done. Thank you.

Speaker B · I think it needs qualification too that as the CRD director who has sat now for quite some time, Panorama for a long time sat on lands owned by the district of North Saanich in which we were a lessee. This circumstance would be very much analogous with the previous circumstance that the main recreation facility operated under for decades. So it's not certainly out of the ordinary.

Speaker E · I'm grateful to Councillor Thompson for pulling or suggesting we pull this out because it's not a minor item, it's not just a minor add on. And so I think it's questionable to be put in the consent agenda.

Speaker B · I've dealt with the consent consent agenda items as previously explained, Councillor, There are no consent agenda.

Speaker E · That's right. So residents were surveyed on the broad concepts in the Deloitte survey less than, I believe a year ago. But council is now being asked to approve borrowing tied to the more concrete costs and impact. And I don't think the public has clearly been asked about what the exact version of the project, this particular project aspect. So the primary reason raised a year ago were to do things like save lives of staff, to redevelop the sites in terms of earthquakes or the old chestnut, the affordable housing issue. But here we've got a recreation facility now and a cafe on site site. So I have some concerns about that.

Speaker B · Not now.

Speaker E · And then the last point is just. Although this was. Yeah, I think that I've covered off the thing that we already covered in terms of consent agenda. So I won't go back there.

Speaker B · I appreciate that. Thank you, Councillor, thank you. And I appreciate being able to provide some contextual latitude. I would look to the PRC representative to speak to perhaps the longstanding public outreach and the long term planning that has been done by PRC with respect to a facility in Central Saanich.

Speaker F · Yeah, yeah, I think. Well, I think on one hand, I think the way to set up the CRD and Panorama for success on. May 11, if they're able to present, would be to ask them to speak to the needs assessment, or I should say needs assessments that have gone into informing this over the years, both run by our municipality, Ms. Burnham, and our communication communications team in engaging the public as well as the one that was done broadly across the capital, our region that is serviced throughout the peninsula here. I think that they would do an excellent job speaking to that. And the probably six years of engagement that have done to help shape the direction for concepts for bricks and mortar.

Speaker F · They're more than concepts that they're this point. There's class C estimates, there's terms and plans that have been developed and they are clearly available in the publicly available staff reports that both the district of Central Sandich has promoted and the PRC has developed. So I can relay that back to the CRD staff to include in their presentation. But ultimately I think the exciting thing here is as has been present presented by our staff a number of times now is that the scope of the project doesn't change the cost to Central Saanich in isolation. Whether or not Panorama is included. If the addition is added, then yes, we will pay the share of the additional service. But the cost of the facility itself doesn't net change out. So we, you know, it.

Speaker F · It still does the base level things that we talked about. But this is an addition that we need to consider. Just like the other two municipalities in the peninsula and the shared service.

Speaker B · Thank you. I appreciate the questions from all sides and additional clarity. We will have of course the presentation on the 11th and I'm sure there will be more questions at that time. So I suggest we park that item for that meeting and move along in this evening's agenda. We are now on council member reports. Councelor, I did have a question.

Speaker C · Yeah, I did have a question. I'm sorry. Either through you or to staff or to you. The process for this requisition, the loan amount is required to be approved by all three municipalities, is that correct?

Speaker B · It's a consent of all three municipal councils. Yes.

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker B · Okay. Item 13. 3. I see no council member reports. Oh, Councillor Paltiel, really quick.

Speaker F · Just I think it's important to highlight actually back to the PRC and the Panorama recreation standpoint. We are now at a point with demand but both at the Peninsula, the Panorama Recreation Centre in North Saanich as well as the Green Glade School facility that's been operating in Sydney for 15 years now where we've actually had to add a second room for our Owls Nest preschool program.

Speaker F · We've doubled the amount of capacity. And then of course we'll be adding more capacity in the Brentwood facility that's being constructed. The other piece is we surpassed a number of milestones this year. This is for from our annual report And I just think these highlights are really important. We, for the first time ever, Panorama had over a thousand users come through as either drop in or passes within a single day. Which is massive and to our records we've never experienced before. Last week we had a demonstration with some Olympic medalists that came by on the figure skating side and there were bus loads, loads of kids coming through to meet them. Speed skating, pardon me, speed skating.

Speaker F · Skate with them and get autographs and everything. The other piece here is that in 2019 we had our high water mark set at 367,000 drop ins throughout the year or admissions throughout the year. That fell dramatically through Covid down to 300,000, 314,000 in 2020. This year for the first time, we've surpassed our Covid numbers at 381,000 scans in admission. And so really what that means is that the best practice for recreation in enrollment and registration success from commitment through to your actual activity is 85%. The Panorama Recreation facility is the highest in the region now at 89% program success across the board, which means that fulfillment in pool, in weight room, in multipurpose facilities, et cetera, everything is busting at the seams and the demand is consistent across the board.

Speaker F · It's been excellent from an operations standpoint and it's just been difficult for staff to hang on and continue delivering. But they've done an amazing job and they're certainly taking advantage of, of the slightly softer labor market right now to rise to the occasion where they can. And yeah, it's just been an extremely successful year. And yeah, lots of good news to come. And then the other piece on the accessibility side because we know we care very much about that even on projects we don't love. And when it comes to a new program that was adopted this year, we've had a massive success in enrollment with blind hockey which has come through the rec center this, this year.

Speaker F · And it hasn't just attracted folks on the Sandich Peninsula, but across the region as a new program that folks have been engaging with and having extremely positive experiences with. Thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you, Councelor Newton.

Speaker C · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Quickly attended the Sand Peninsula Literacy Task Force last week gearing up for some reading activities for the summer and some planning. The Sydney North Spanish Lumber Library is working on their summer reading activity programming and then there will be grant opportunities for literacy groups to come forward and apply for some grant opportunities within the Saanish Peninsula Literacy Task Force. And I'm hoping to see the startup again of the story walks that happened and this organization hosted previously. The Greater Victoria Public Library is receiving a 50 pound replica box of history that's shared from the National Museum of History and they will have that on display throughout one of their libraries.

Speaker C · I didn't have all the details on that but pretty exciting I think.

Speaker O · And

Speaker C · attended the inaugural GBPL budget meeting where future planning will come forward with that. Finally, the Saanich Peninsula Accessibility Advisory Committee met last week. Central Saanich did the presentation on the development permit areas that came forward that will be sort of reviewed by Spacious and provided comments back to it. And just touching on a comment from question in the gallery. I think absolutely SPAC would be involved in some capacity when or if a application would come forward through that process. So absolutely SPAC would be engaged and offered comment on it.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker C · Yeah.

Speaker B · Any other council member reports before we move on? No. Okay. Item 14. 1, notice on Title 3224 Livesay Road and our manager of building and bylaw services is available for questions. There is a recommendation that a notice pursuant to the Authority of Section 57 of the Community charter be filed in the land title office against the said title having a civic address of 3224 LIF Say Road.

Speaker B · Questions or direction? I don't think we require to do that anymore.

Speaker D · No.

Speaker E · I sometimes find it valuable to hear them give a rationale.

Speaker B · But I think we have moved away from this practice, have we not? Staff.

Speaker K · Typically staff are here for questions. But at council's direction.

Speaker B · Yeah. I seem to recall some years ago we moved away from the appeals process that we sort of had on a loose basis. However, Councillor, you are entitled to move a motion to hear from any speaker in the gallery for two minutes.

Speaker E · I have no indication that they're here. However I would ask through you to staff. I wasn't able to get the specific deficiencies that exist because it sounded like they were moving in some direction. There was some success and then at the last minute none. And so I wasn't sure I wanted to get more information about why.

Speaker B · Fair. Okay. Our manager, Building and Bylaw services, please.

Speaker M · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The owner did take relevant steps to take out necessary permits for the buildings that were constructed. While he was able to resolve and complete one of the projects, the Coverall Building he was not prepared to finalize through an engineer to complete the project as we requested. The owner was made aware that this might be the reaction of staff in order to close our file in that requesting council consider a notice on title and the owner was aware this was happening tonight with at least two weeks notification.

Speaker B · Thank you. Would somebody like to put the motion.

Speaker F · Move the staff recommendation.

Speaker B · Thank you. Seconder. Thank you. Moved and seconded. Any further discussion on the matter? Seeing none. Any opposed? None are opposed. The motion carries. Item 14. 2 is the climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction item and it's to be presented by our Emergency Program Manager and our senior Climate Action and Natural Environment coordinator.

Speaker N · Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Speaker H · All right, Ready?

Speaker N · Is that going to work? Oh, there we go.

Speaker D · There we go. Go.

Speaker N · Thank you.

Speaker H · There we go.

Speaker N · All right. I'd like to acknowledge that we're sitting here this evening on the traditional territory of the Sonic people, including Sartlip and S. E. first nations, where I'm grateful to live, work and play on these lands. And I recognize the deep rooted relationships with the land, the water and the forests that were especially relevant this evening with our discussion about climate.

Speaker G · Next slide.

Speaker N · This framework that we're introducing this evening takes a consistent, organized, wide approach to identify climate risks, examining impacts across people, infrastructure, services and the environment. It prioritizes risks based on likelihood, consequence and future predictions or projections. It aligns with provincial legislation and current climate science. It recognizes priority risks when they happen concurrently and realizing that this increases consequences. So this climate risk policy puts the framework into action by giving council clear direction on establishing accountability across the organization. It doesn't create new programs, instead it builds climate risk into a way we already do things through our integrated planning and reporting system. That means climate considerations are part of everyday's decisions like long term planning, annual budgets and departmental work plans. So we're consistently assessing the risk to infrastructure, services and the community.

Speaker N · So you may ask, what are the priority climate risks here in Central Saanich? And our first one that's up out of five is extreme heat. Increasing heat events are impacting public health, especially for a vulnerable population. And it's putting pressures on services. You can see from the graph that a number of consecutive heat days are increasing significantly. Our next one is wildfire and wildfire smoke. So wildfire risk and smoke are affecting air quality, community health and emergency response capacity. Halden park, which you'll notice it's hard to see on that screen, there is a small red dot. Is an extreme fire risk backing on to the well New John Dean Park. And this is one that we are definitely looking at through our fire smart principles. Next up is drought.

Speaker N · So longer periods are increasing challenges for water supply, agriculture and local ecosystems. You can see summer rain days are increasing and heat wave days are also increasing. Oh sorry. Summer rain days are decreasing and heat wave days are increasing. This makes it difficult on our agricultural community, forcing those to adapt how they would normally do their work with the possibility of not being able to produce like the way they used to. Then we're looking at severe weather.

Speaker N · So more intense storms are leading to many more power outages, causing possible infrastructure damage and service interruptions. And lastly, our last priority risk is flooding. So inland flooding risks through the fall, winter and even spring are increasing with the potential impacts to homes, infrastructure and critical services. And lastly, I want to recognize other hazards that did come up. Now, that being said, these hazards are showing less of an impact. These hazards are managed through existing policies and planning and regional efforts. They have a lower overall risk, but these are still important to include. Some of these may have localized impacts and will continue to be monitored. And then you might ask what's actually driving all of this? So we can see that the province is focusing on climate emergencies.

Speaker N · The big indicator was changing Emergency Management BC or EMBC to the Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness. There's that word climate updating. From the Emergency program act from 1993 that was about 18 pages long to the Emergency and Disaster Management act or EDMA and that was introduced in 2023 and that's 113 pages long. As per EDMA legislation. The study includes identifying vulnerable population vulnerable groups in central Saanich who are disproportionately impacted through climate hazard. Overall, EDMA shifts emergency management from a one size fits all model to to one that's proactive, equitable and people centered. Requiring local governments to take risk based inclusive approach to emergency management and considering the needs of vulnerable population across all phases. This framework guides decisions going forward. Next slide.

Speaker N · So then during this framework we also did a study around mental health and the challenges around climate with mental health. Within this framework, mental health is recognized alongside physical and community health as a key climate risk. And you'll notice in appendix C of the document where you can see a lot more detail on this focus. Climate risk does not just affect infrastructure, it also impacts mental health and overall well being. We are already seeing locally the people experiencing anxiety during smoke events and also during extreme heat and the concern of environmental change. While awareness is growing, we still have limited data and we're not fully understanding the impacts as of yet.

Speaker N · Our approach on on both risks and what helps protect people, things like social connection, access to supports and awareness along the community as well. By taking a strengths based approach, community approach, we can build resilience and overall well being.

Speaker H · Next slide.

Speaker N · First nations so climate change can disproportionate Climate change can have disproportionate impacts for First Nation communities due to factors such as infrastructure gaps, heightened exposures to hazards, indigenous knowledge, collaboration and shared learning.

Speaker N · It's also recognized that both SARTLIP and SEO each have their own risk assessments and affirms a continued commitment to support the collaboration across all hazards, not only those related to climate change. Overall, this approach strengthens relationships and promotes a more inclusive and informed understanding. This framework also shows accountability and provincial alignment. EDMA moving towards a risk based approach will additionally require local governments will also require sorry with additional requirements to local governments coming in the fall of 2026 with full implementation in 27. Climate risk framework also reflects and supports the readiness under edma. It is also woven through the Sendai Framework. This framework aligns with the UN Sunday framework, Disaster Risk Reduction which prioritizes understanding risk, strengthening governance, investing resilience, enhancing preparedness and ultimately building back better. And lastly it's giving the District a proactive readiness.

Speaker N · This framework and policy introduced provides the governance foundation and positions the district proactively meeting these expectations through EDMA and the Sendai Framework. It's strengthening readiness, improving consistency, supporting long term decision making and basically helping us meet these expectations in a coordinated and defensible way. So here we are this evening recommending that Council endorses the Climate Risk Framework as a corporate framework to inform climate change adaptation, mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery across the organization. We would also like Council to adopt the climate Risk Accountability Policy and direct staff to apply the identified priority climate risks in planning and reporting through the District's integrated planning and reporting framework.

Speaker N · Implementation will be practical phased using existing processes like service reviews, capital planning, project design without adding duplication or complexities. Council sets the direction through priorities, plans and budget decisions and staff apply the framework to day to day operations and bring forward recommendations. Overall, this approach strengthens resilience, supports better decision making and helps ensure the district prepare for the future. Thank you and staff are available for questions.

Speaker B · Thank you Councillor King.

Speaker E · Thank you to staff. This is a huge issue. This is as staff know, everyone knows and it's clearly I think I need to take more time personally to meet with staff to perhaps be walked through the implications in more detail because we're not going to get to that here. There's so much that's coming covered but it seems to be, at least in terms of what I've heard, the emphasis is on adaptation, less on mitigation. A key question I have which is I guess influenced by. I guess years on council. And that is some of this sounds similar to emergency management stuff, but just with a different flavor in terms of climate and urgency.

Speaker E · So I don't know if that's a correct interpretation or not because I'm trying to work out how this materially affects decisions at the council table. What will we expect to see and if it's too much to answer right now, I can have that conversation. But in terms of how will this affect decisions being made both on the adaptation and mitigation level? Because of course I tend to focus on mitigation. It's a little less obvious, it's more the adaptation which people feel in their bones when it's hot or some sort of event is happening. But the mitigation will. Whether or not there's room for a lens. I think I've talked about this before, climate lens that considers implications could be on both adaptation and mitigation issues.

Speaker E · A climate lens in staff reports where it makes sense, not in every instance, but where there's a staff memorandum that evaluates. Is that something that is being contemplated here?

Speaker H · The Mayor? Yes, thank you, Councelor King. That's exactly what's being comp. Contemplated. So as an example, if we were doing an upgrade to the integrated storm water management plan, the this framework would be provided to the consultants that we were working with that it has to. That we have to apply the framework based on the science behind what the expectations are with respect to the highest risks that are in our community and then the implications of that would be brought back to council so that you would have a clear understanding of that.

Speaker E · That's great that there's then an opening and a lens for consideration of climate factors. Would that go so far and maybe it's too premature at this stage, but to consider carbon consequences of major decisions or is that possible calculations?

Speaker H · Yeah, through the merit. I think that's a. That would be a different lens, but it is something that we are looking at and I believe that we've had direction from council to do that. So that is coming back to council. That would not be included in this framework. However, that is something that we're looking at and will be advanced and brought back to council.

Speaker B · Other speakers. Councillor Riddle,

Speaker L · thank you. I want to echo my colleague's comments about what a good job you did on this. It's incredibly thorough, well laid out, logical and practical in terms of how it's going to be can be applied. So I want to share that. It also got particularly around agriculture, all sorts of Things firing and connecting for me. So I do have another motion I'd like to make after. After we deal with the staff recommendations. And I'm happy to move that if.

Speaker H · Okay, yeah.

Speaker B · Is there a secondary for the recommendation

Speaker L · of the staff recommendations?

Speaker B · Okay, moved and seconded. Any further discussion, Councillor Newton?

Speaker C · Yeah, thank you. Through you two staff in the presentation, I appreciate it. And I was just attending Bayside's Earth Day celebration and talking to the kids there and seeing what they were doing around at the local level. And certainly there was an element of concern on the kids perspective and what they were talking about. So I can see how the mental health side of it gets incorporated into this. In the report. It talks about the current, you know, minimal or no financial implications. But as we see this unfolding and being adopted, do we see sort of a larger picture component about how

Speaker J · the

Speaker C · finance side of it would come forward

Speaker H · through the mayor? Yes. The financial implications would also be included based on the risk analysis of what maybe the changes would be. If we were looking at it from an infrastructure perspective as an example, if something was going to be done differently based on the risk than if we were just doing status quo, asking for that financial implication and being able to provide that to council. Thank you.

Speaker C · Thank you.

Speaker B · Okay, Anything further on the motion? Any opposed? None. Motion carries. Councillor Riddle.

Speaker L · Thank you. So when I was reading this, the agriculture piece really stood out to me around the risks they're experiencing. I appreciate the mental health components that were brought in and it was just connecting to some of the conversations that we had at the last Farmer's Coffee. And one of the big questions that was asked was about council. What is council doing to support agriculture in our community? And I do think we're doing a lot. We're doing what we can. We're trying to be supportive and resolve issues that are hitting our windshield. But I feel like they're sort of all in different places. We haven't brought them all together in a place. And I think you brought a lot of them together in this report.

Speaker L · So I wanted to make a recommendation that at the next while make a motion that at the next agricultural community, community engagement opportunity, if that's a farmer's coffee, whatever that next iteration looks like, which is something that council's asked our staff to do, that we bring this forward and we engage participants on the potential development of an agricultural strategy, or I understand we're going to update the.

Speaker L · Potentially it's in the work plan to update the 2011 Agricultural Plan and so engage the community on the potential of doing that work together and ensuring that it's grounded in our climate realities. But then also looking at the flip side because I could also see some opportunities for our region too. When we're looking at the risks we're facing, particularly relative to the rest of the province, there's some places for us to step in when it comes to agritourism, new crops, developing new markets. So I just make a motion that we bring forward that idea to the community. I got the impression last time that they wanted the district to take a bigger role in this space and so I think that would be kind of closing the feedback loop and starting the conversation.

Speaker B · Is there a seconder?

Speaker L · Fair enough. I have a lot of enthusiasm about this because. Because you just brought so many pieces together for me. So the motion that I have written out is at the next agricultural community engagement opportunity, staff engage participants on the potential development of an agricultural strategy grounded in our climate realities, but also expected opportunities, with an emphasis on how the district can support second, thank you.

Speaker B · Any further discussion on the matter? Seeing none. Any opposed? None. Motion carries. I will now move to item 14. 3. This is a 1903 Mount Newton Crossroad redevelopment procurement procedures and I will look to our Deputy Director, Finance, Strategic Capital Planning to present please.

Speaker H · Through the Mayor I'm going to introduce this item first and we're actually going to bring forward for council items 14. 3 and 14. 4 in a presentation. However, the resolutions are separate and and if council wants us to stop after 14. 3 presentation, we can do that as well. Through the Mayor. Before walking through the specifics of the procurement and also the amenity framework, I want to briefly situate tonight's discussion in the broader context of the work this council and previous councils have been advancing. So over the last 20 years the district has known that our core civic facilities would eventually require replacement and for much of that period decisions were deferred and until approximately 2019 when council has been actively planning for this transition.

Speaker H · With feasibility work and concept development for civic redevelopment consistently embedded in the district, strategic plans running in parallel. Council has also invested significantly in planning and engagement work, including long term financial plan updates, official community plan updates, the Sandichton village design plan, infill intensification policies, housing needs assessments and multiple rounds of community engagement focused on livability, affordability and community benefit.

Speaker H · Over the last three years in particular, this Council has made a deliberate shift from planning to implementation. Council has confirmed the long term civic facility strategy, advanced the Hovey Road Civic campus project, undertaken extensive financial planning and made a Clear decision around the strategic financial strategy for the redevelopment of the Municipal Hall. Tonight's agenda represents the point at which the planning work, financial strategy and implementation, the implementation discipline come together. The decision before you Decisions before you tonight are not about a single building or a single amenity. They are about putting clear defensible rules in place so redevelopment proceeds in a way that protects the public interest, delivers on council priorities and withstands legal, financial and market scrutiny.

Speaker H · This work has evolved and will continue to impact a broad group of partners, staff and community members, including collaboration with the prc, subregional or sub regional partners, first nations through the RFEOI process and volunteer fire members, district staff and it includes residents across Central Saanich with more than 2700 points of direct contact over multiple multiple phases of engagement, shaping priorities around housing amenities and community benefit.

Speaker H · So I'm going to just go to the next slide, please. So a key message tonight is that this project is being advanced. Sorry. This project is being advanced through three distinct but related processes, each with a different role.

Speaker H · First, the zoning is the primary policy decision establishing legally enforceable land use permissions. And it is through this statutory process that Council sets long term planning framework and creates the development potential for the site. Once zoning is in place, those permissions are not renegotiated through procurement or amenity discussions. Second, the RFP process is the District's competitive procurement and land disposition tool. Its role is not to revisit land use policy, but to select the best development partner to deliver within the permissions Council has already put in place. Through the rfp, Council sets clear transparent evaluation criteria in advance so proposals can be compared fairly and consistently, including the offer on land design, quality, partnerships with first nations and the ability to deliver the project.

Speaker H · The RFP translates council policy into contractual outcome while protecting the integrity of the competitive process. Once issued, those criteria and assumptions cannot be changed without under mining procurement fairness. And third, the amenity framework establishes a clear district wide approach to how community amenities associated with growth are funded and delivered, not reopening zoning decisions or changing procurement rules instead. Sorry, it introduces. I've lost my third page.

Speaker H · Rate based amenity cost charges that apply consistency consistently to residential development in our housing complement. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Pimentel.

Speaker A · Thank you. The intent of the RFP is to apply the same criteria and point weighing to every submission so proponents understand how proposals will be assessed and Council can see how the recommendation was reached. The overall weighing is a total of 100 points. Offer on land is 50 points. The financial value and proposed arrangement. Example of purchase or lease. The design and concept is 35 points. Quality of the concept and site plan, the fit within the surrounding area and overall design and construction quality. I'll look at this in greater detail in the next slides. First nations worth 10 points Amenities are features that provide meaningful benefit to first nations and again I'll look at that in the next slides.

Speaker A · Project delivery and scheduling of worth 5 points this is the implementation plan, work schedule, phasing and capacity to achieve key milestones. As an example, the District will focus on phasing and timelines. The offer on land and project delivery and scheduling are generally more straightforward to compare because they rely on financial terms and schedule feasibility. The design and concepts and first nations considerations require clear predefined requirements so the assessment is fair, defensible and aligned with Council direction. The report is asking Council to confirm the evaluation approach so staff can proceed with a clear Council approved framework for assessing submissions. The offer on land which I mentioned was worth 50 points so land disposition proceeds directly support the civic facilities redevelopment including the Municipal hall, fire, police and potential PRC Recreation center at Hovey Road.

Speaker A · Site proponents submit their financial offer based on site development potential under OCP zoning framework with highest financial return balanced against other evaluation criteria. The District seeks to make sure the design and concept criteria in the RFP gets proposals that are high quality and responsive to the surrounding neighborhood. First, the way to prioritize designs that reduce the impact to residents to the west and south through thoughtful masking and articulation and clear transition to adjacent neighborhoods along with practical traffic circulation and parking management. Because this is a multi building project, the proposal should demonstrate architectural unity across the site with up to six stories with active misuse on Wallace Drive and Mount Newton crossroad tapering to a four story maximum near established residential areas with added setbacks and enhanced screening on sustainability.

Speaker A · The latest BC cold should be treated at the minimum. The commercial component ensures ground floor spaces of at least 15,000 square feet and for housing, the District requires a unit mix aligned with the housing needs report. Finally, requiring an engagement plan that meaningfully invites input on project design. Engagement should focus on building and site designs such as overall character, landscaping, traffic impacts and parking layout. This slide focuses on the technical requirements 15,000 square feet of commercial 20% adaptable units, 2. 5 SFR site coverage set PACT and examples of community engagement. For First nations, the district recommends 10 points for the First Nation evaluation component for the StarFP.

Speaker A · It focuses on three things a credible partnership with starstep or SEO that's worth five points Specific procurement commitments delivered by first nations owners owned or First Nation authorized businesses at prevailing market rates that's worth three points and an economic development initiative that supports long term community revenue such as enabling land or property acquisition to lease, rent or develop with worth two points.

Speaker A · When evaluating project delivery and scheduling, it's essential to consider the proponent's development experience and proven track records for completing comparable project on time. The proposed schedule should align with the planned completion of the civic facilities in late 2028. By adopting a realistic approach to scheduling, we can keep the redevelopment process moving forward efficiently. This is an update on where we are in the schedule, what decisions are coming to Council and how the public will be engaged once the selected developer is identified. We received four requests for expression of interest submissions and the District shortlisted three developers to proceed to the RFP stage with Starsuf and Thao First Nation also pre qualified by July 3rd.

Speaker A · Developer proposals should be received according to the RFP terms by July 17. Proposals are evaluated and scored against the RFP criteria from July 20th to 24th. Selected developers provide presentations and participate in interviews with the selection committee. On July 27, staff will bring forward a provisional selection for Council approval pending successful contract negotiations. From August 10th to 21st, the selected developer hosts public information meetings to present their proposal, gather public comments and report back to council. By Aug. 26, district staff and the developer finalized the purchase sale agreement of course with conditions and a development agreement for Council's consideration and approval and I'll hand it over to Ms. Kong for the Amenity Framework.

Speaker H · Thank you through the Mayor. Excuse me. So with recent changes to the Local Government Act, ACCs have been created for a standardized mechanism that is rate based, transparent and applied consistently to a class of development. This improves predictability and defensibility. The key point for Council tonight is that ACC's let us set a clear pre established rules based approach to Amenity delivery that aligns with our planning framework while still being feasible in market terms.

Speaker H · This also aligns with the District's implementation sequencing. In 2026, Council approved a project which would introduce the ACCS as well as update the DCC and a DCC bylaw as well as the Asset Management plan and that is going to be undertaken in the beginning in the second quarter and so this is just in advance of the of the planned work that we would be doing.

Speaker H · This this slide summarizes how the district is implementing ACC's consistent with provincial best practice, starting with a lower range calibrated rate that refers to reflects local conditions and feasibility rather than an aggressive rate that could impair delivery.

Speaker H · So the proposed 175 per meter squared sits at the lower end of observed ranges with most ACC bylaws and there haven't been many being adopted on the mainland. And it's intentionally calibrated to Central Senate's redevelopment fee feasibility, meaning we're seeking predictability and fairness while still maintaining viable development economics. Implementation also includes a practical framework for valuation and crediting of in kind amenities so delivery can occur through cash direct provision or a blended approach while still meeting the standardized requirements of a rate based system. Finally, we're flagging the plan coordination with DCC updates as the next step. Step so the province has allowed for a transition because of the and Mr.

Speaker H · Matan may jump in here, but because the CAC after June 30 is no longer able to be. Would you like to explain it a little bit more Mr. Matan?

Speaker L · Sure, yeah.

Speaker K · Thank you. Ms. Call. The provinces introduced new tools for municipalities to try to achieve amenities and that is amenity cost charges, density bonusing, inclusionary zoning. So focusing on amenity cost charges by June 30, the province and all their guidelines documentation, it's not a legislative requirement but it is a guideline and it probably will fall to legislation soon. But following that 30 June 30 date, municipalities are asked to no longer use the common negotiation on a case by case basis for rezoning applications and instead adopt an amenity cost charges bylaw which the district is, as Ms. Gollum said earlier, are working towards in late 2026, 2027.

Speaker K · So this establishes the framework for the district to move forward and utilize that new legislation to to have an amending cost charges bylaw which we were planning to do anyways.

Speaker H · Thank you Mr. Matanowich. And so the province allows for the ACC bylaw while you're transitioning and so in advance of updating any additional plans that may support your amenity cost charge, like as an example an update to our active transportation plan with new costing.

Speaker H · We can use existing plans in order to develop the ACC bylaw as in a transitionary phase, which is what staff are recommending to do. And so we laid out in the framework what would be currently utilized. However, it would be broader and then we would be looking at what the share of those costs would be because again we want to create an environment that is still economically feasible for development in our area as well.

Speaker H · And so we would be coming back with the ACC DCC framework or broader framework to council when we do develop that. So right now what we did is we followed the best practice guide by the provincial government and also reviewed other ACC bylaws and proposed bylaws. And we are then going on the lower end of the proposed charges at this point. And that is only from a transitional perspective. And again we would be coming back to council with an updated bylaw

Speaker D · at

Speaker H · the end of the year. I was up here. Can you do that for me, Fernando?

Speaker D · Thanks.

Speaker H · Thank you. So this is where we were saying that we would like to have a predictable funding for framework. So again, the province through the legislation, as Mr. Matanowich has stated, rather than being able to have those conversations with the developer at the at zoning. And these changes were made of course, because with Bill 44, there's an obligation to do to update the zoning bylaw based on bill on the legislation. And so many municipalities had come forward with concerns around that. And so this was developed in response to that to make sure that just that local governments could have a tool that would be used. Mr.

Speaker H · Matanowich's group, we're looking at density bonusing, amenity cost charges and through an economic analysis, because of the height in the district, there isn't the density allowable for a density bonus or inclusionary zoning. And so the recommendation to the district was to move forward instead with an amenity cost charge bylaw. So at this time, based on our housing capacity analysis, we, which Mr. Matanowich had presented when we were moving forward with the proposed zoning updates to the zoning bylaw and the OCP amendments, that was the growth that was utilized. And so it's over approximately 4,000 units as per the framework. And so there's a potential to generate approximately $52. 5 million based on those numbers over, over that 20 year period or so for the development of those units.

Speaker H · And again, that's on limited and just transitionary review of the amenities. Sorry, of the, of our current assets. Okay. So we're looking at now what the preferred amenities, the prioritized amenities are. And so just a review. So as we were moving forward through this process from 2024 to 2026, we had 2700 and well, 2,709 contacts. So those are not necessarily unique contacts, but individual contacts will either attended an open house or participated in a survey. And again, it's not necessarily unique. Approximately 50% of those were Sandichten residents, of course. And we know that the impact for this site impacts Sanditon residents more. And so there was more engagement from them during the, throughout that process. If we could go to the next Slide.

Speaker H · And then more recently, council held an amenity workshop where council invited interest holders and experts who could maybe provide guidance on ways in which we could increase amenities as a part of this site. And this was the community partner engagement that was done on February 2, 2026. And there's been a lot of consistency across these engagements around what the desired amenities were. And then more recently, if we could go forward, there was the community focus group where there was also a prioritization that was done and where there was more definition put maybe to the priorities than we had in the past.

Speaker H · So one was really around housing and affordability, but with that it was around ensuring that we have truly affordable housing. And so there was a lot of conversation about what is affordability, what does that mean? And how do we achieve rates that are going to actually be meaningful to low income residents, to seniors, to young families, also around the size of units and so making sure that we're having two and three bedroom units and also around aging in place.

Speaker H · So there was a conversation around it's really being important, it's really important to have options for seniors if they want to move out of their houses, but they want to move into community. And again, recognizing levels of affordability.

Speaker H · Green space was also very important. So places for community to gather, but not just green, it was animated spaces. So plazas or parks, places where people can interact within that space, amenities and service. So there were mixed views came out of the focus groups on commercial childcare, medical uses and plazas, benefits versus fit or space constraints. And then design and impact, so minimizing neighbor impacts, height setbacks, landscaping, tree buffers, privacy, light, noise, preferring varied forms of housing. And I think that this is really consistent with what we have heard throughout the process over the two years. And just to mention that because of the timing of the focus groups, there was a level of frustration that there was a limitation on speaking about amenities. And so we just wanted to acknowledge that.

Speaker H · But because the public hearing had occurred, we had to limit the sharing of information and make sure that we were focusing specifically on amenities because we are under, you know, provincial regulations that we must follow. Okay, next.

Speaker H · So then this brings us to the decisions. And so we have a number of recommendations for council specifically around making a decision around the RFP evaluation criteria. And so these were of course just recommendations to council by staff. However, it is council's decision to provide us that with that, with the direction and then the amenity framework direction, so advancing a temporary ACC bylaw in order to provide. It's really around being able to provide the guidance and direction to the proponents who are applying for the RFP so that they have a good understanding of what the expectations. Expectation is going to be and what the cost is around the amenity charge. Bylaw. Cost charge bylaw. And then of course, we've already mentioned that we were going to move forward with the DCC bylaw and amp and yes.

Speaker H · And that is the end of our presentation and staff are available for questions.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you. So we have covered 14. 3 and 14. 4. I suspect questions may blend between them and that is. Okay. Councillor King and then Councillor Thompson, there

Speaker E · was a point in the presentation where staff were mentioning the need to have. I forget the right wording, having gone through public hearing, limiting the amount of information I guess that could be received or something. Does that apply if no members of council were present and staff are the

Speaker H · only ones present through the mayor, I'm assuming you're talking about the focus group. So staff were not present. So it was the consultants that were present. But it's about the sharing of the information in the reports and so we aren't able to share the information within the reports if there are any discussions. However, the direction and the invitation both spoke to the fact that the conversations and the focus groups were going to be focused on amenities. And that was the focus. Thank you.

Speaker E · Thank you for that. Yeah. I'm curious about what priorities must be locked in. This might have been said in terms of amenities before the RFP is issued rather than added later.

Speaker M · Thank you.

Speaker L · Yeah.

Speaker H · And so as I mentioned at the beginning. Sorry, through the mayor, as I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, these are three distinct processes, but they all work together. And so the amenity charged by cost, charged by law, would clarify the the expectation around value for what the expectations are for the district in collecting based on square footage of the proposed development. So that they would be aware in advance of the RFP what the cash expectation or the financial expectation is around contribution for amenities. That's important because if a developer were to decide either to provide the cost charge, amenity cost charge in either through cash, or they could provide it in kind, but there should be an awareness for them so that they know as part of their development what they're going to be doing and how they're going to be advancing that.

Speaker E · My next series of questions has to do with weighting and I can see the categories, but I'm not sure why or how we got to 50, 35, 10 and 5. So, for example, the offer on land is weighted at 50 points exceeding the weight of design, first nations delivery combined.

Speaker I · And.

Speaker E · And so what policy basis supports that?

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker H · Would you like to go? No, I'm going to ask Mr. Pimentel to answer.

Speaker A · Thank you. Through the Mayor. This is. It is subjective. It is the staff's recommendation. There is an option too that mayor and council can obviously change the weighing accordingly. But to your second point, the. I guess the one item that we have been communicating to the public and is that this is, you know, the value is for the financial feasibility of the Hoby site. And so that weighs more heavily. The second part is of course through site design and development and hearing from the neighbors engagement. So that scored second as an example. And so, you know, and that is rooted in policy when we look at the OCP and then of course the Sandersonville design plan and whatnot.

Speaker A · So a little bit of policy, a little bit of, of what the priority is for the RFP as well.

Speaker B · Thank you. And I want to acknowledge that you indicated that of course council can, through direction, amend those.

Speaker E · So did council ever explicitly give direction that land value should outweigh all other

Speaker H · priorities through the Mayor? This is a recommendation by staff and it's an interpretation because we haven't been given direction. But council asked us to come back with a recommendation. But at any time council can to make a different decision.

Speaker E · I understand that council in, at least in principle makes a final decision or wears it, but I'm just wondering what does staff work with then, given that something has been come up or they've come up with here. And I agree it's objective scoring.

Speaker H · Yeah. And I think that Mr. Pimentel responded to that with respect to the fact that we've always come forward to the public with the fact that this is part of a financial feasibility and it's important to the redevelopment of the Municipal hall. And that has always been a part of the project and an important part. And so that was where staff put that forward. Again, Mr. Pimentel said that the design of the. Is also guarded by. We have guardrails around our design guidelines, around our Sanichton Village design plan, around our ocp that creates more structure already. And so it's really. Around which parts of those does council want to focus on?

Speaker B · Thank you. I think we have clarity on that. Do you have further questions?

Speaker E · Yeah, that makes sense in terms of basically it's a bottom line thing and it's a cost thing and that relates to the Municipal hall site. And I mean, we've all had this conversation.

Speaker L · So.

Speaker E · Yeah, there was I think today there was a change to the agenda and I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly. 241 There was a last minute addition and I just wanted to make sure I understood what that was. Just because this is so consequential.

Speaker H · Mr. Mayor, we had made an error in one of the reports and we had included the word rezoning which was never the intention. And so we took it out. Thank you.

Speaker E · Appendix A I think. Oh, was revised.

Speaker H · No, no, Appendix A wasn't revised. The appendix A might have been revised in the another report, but this report, it was specifically about page six and we had removed the word because there was no intention of that being there. It was just a. An older version of a paragraph that it shouldn't have been included.

Speaker E · Right? Yeah. If there was an amendment in a elsewhere. If you could remind me what those were this time.

Speaker H · But afterwards when we go into closed meeting, I can remind you of it then. Thank you.

Speaker E · Thank you.

Speaker B · Okay. Are there other questions, Councillor Thompson?

Speaker J · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To look at the procurement component of this on page 270 of the Agenda with reflection on the engagement plan to outline an effect effective engagement plan that will seek input from the community.

Speaker J · I'm not sure what that means in reality given that this is not based on a rezoning. So my question through you to Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. What sort of decision making process formal would be open to council assuming that an RFP was accepted.

Speaker K · Thank you through Mr. Mayor. In terms of the design and that type of thing, it would be a development permit process. And if there were any variances there would be development variance permit process. If there are variants, that would include an opportunity to be heard as well. So council would be considering the proposal in light of the design guidelines in the ocp.

Speaker J · I appreciate that it's in there. I'm not sure how effective in fact. It's one thing to have a meeting, it's another for members of the public who offer their opinion feel that they're being listened to.

Speaker J · My other question in terms of the timing was the reference to the schedule. In terms of having public input period in August, I can't support that. I don't think summertime, particularly August, is vacation time that we should be looking for public input. So I think one would want that. That after the summer rather than during. How would the focus group. We have a focus group here report obviously from Delaney. How would that be incorporated into an rfp?

Speaker H · Through the Mayor, all of the engagement what we heard reports would be included as an appendix. Either Through a link.

Speaker J · My question really again relates to. Because it is fairly general, it's comprehensive, but it's general in terms of its nature and how a developer would interpret that would be certainly would be interesting. My question with reference to the focus groups, the question was asked, and I heard about this, that a non disclosure agreement was required from participants in the focus groups. I wanted to confirm if that was true.

Speaker H · Yeah, through the mayor.

Speaker L · I'm happy to answer that. We also have engaged Delaney joining us tonight. So since they've taken the time to join us, maybe I will ask them to answer that question.

Speaker J · So I'm curious as to why a non disclosure agreement was requested and what if a participant in that group offers to share their opinions

Speaker L · through you, Mr. Mayor, it was our understanding that there would be neighbors that were joining these focus groups and that previously that some of these conversations had been quite passionate or had some high levels of emotion. And so we thought ensuring that this was a space that was safe for people to speak freely and ensuring there was confidentiality in that space, we thought that that was a place that would create that safe space for people to be able to participate freely.

Speaker B · So what exactly did the non disclosure agreement or whatever the document was to attempting to achieve? Was it simply that one wouldn't talk about another or was it somehow that the district's material wouldn't be spoken about? Because I don't see the reason for the latter.

Speaker L · No, it was specifically on who was in the meeting and what people were saying in the meeting specifically.

Speaker B · So it's like Chatham House rules basically.

Speaker H · Yes.

Speaker B · Okay. You won't describe something to someone else in it. Okay.

Speaker J · I guess my question is at some point I know there was a story in the review that someone was expressing their frustration. Fair enough. But my question is what sort of legal authority, for lack of a better term, does that NDA actually mean for an individual who chooses to speak out after the report has been submitted?

Speaker B · Seems to me that one individual, if they didn't like what the other individual could sue for defamation, having both signed the document. But I don't see that as having arisen from this. So this may be a storm and a teacup as long as the intention wasn't as was surmised or was concerned about somehow the district was withholding information. If that was the. The characterization that should not have been the intent.

Speaker J · Well, and I. Sorry, I'm just, I'm raising the issue in part because the question was asked.

Speaker B · I have no concern with you raising the question.

Speaker J · The other question, whether I did get One comment. And I haven't looked at a lot, of course, any correspondence received since the public hearing. But my understanding from someone was that this report was to be forwarded to folks who participated in the focus groups. I don't know if that's an accurate statement, and if so, has that been completed?

Speaker B · Not sure who would be positioned.

Speaker L · Yes, through the mayor. That is accurate. And I'm not sure whether Delaney has or is waiting till tomorrow, but it

Speaker H · will be forwarded by tomorrow if it hasn't already.

Speaker I · Ben,

Speaker J · thank you.

Speaker B · Okay.

Speaker J · Oh, was there something else in here? Oh, yes. If council, independent of the public hearing and the rezoning, could counsel, in its rfp, make a suggestion that might suggest a lower building height?

Speaker B · I think that would be covered in design, potentially, Steph,

Speaker A · Through the mayor, if I hear you correctly. So I think we could ask for two options, I guess, is what you are referring to. We can definitely do that.

Speaker J · Thank you. I'll leave it at that for now.

Speaker B · Thank you. Any other councilor? Pto. Oh, Councillor Riddle, I think you had your hand up. Sorry, I may have missed you.

Speaker L · Yeah, thank you. Appreciate all of the reports tonight. My question relates to the. The first criteria offer on land for. Oh, shoot. A total of 50 points. So, I mean, all the way through this process, I think council has signaled an openness to both a sale and a lease option. And so I'm wondering how that is, I guess, recognized or how it would impact the assessment of that criteria

Speaker A · through the mayor. The intention right now is it would be more of a financial value. And so the relationship. So whether it was, you know, X amount for a lease or X amount for a sale, it'll just be the higher. Was the higher amount would score higher. That's how it's framed. Now, council does have, of course, discretion to provide guidance on the weight of a lease or sale as well, if they choose. But right now it's just monetary. So if one is valued higher, then they score higher.

Speaker L · Okay, thank you. So it would effectively put any lease proposals at a significant disadvantage, given that they're likely to be lower and it's such a significant weighting. So I guess my next question is, is there a way to build that in? Is there a way to acknowledge the value of holding that land for longer? I was trying to look up some approaches. It does seem like there are some options today, but I acknowledge that I'm not the expert on that, and so I wouldn't want to try and do that off the cuff. But I do. When we get to making motions around This, I think that's one I will test is just to see if council wishes to provide direction that we find a way to acknowledge the value of a lease and put proposals that are sort of that equal.

Speaker L · Equal weighting on the same footing. I mean, if someone's low balling a lease, then of course we don't want to bring them up artificially. But if there's a way to account for that value of having that land returned to the district, you know, many decades down the road, I think I would be interested in just seeing what that could look like. But I'll leave it there and let my colleagues jump in.

Speaker B · Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Paltil and then Councillor Newton,

Speaker F · thank you. One thing, when it comes to feedback received, there's discussion about degrees of affordability is demonstrating need within the community. And our kind of housing continuum was reiterated as something that was a priority. Given that.

Speaker F · And what work has staff done within the proposed AAC framework to try to ensure that the cost of the development is not negatively impacting the development? And like the example I raise is like CMHC came out with a report that showed for every 10% of municipal costs and charges added to a project, the cost downloaded to the purchaser was about 14% of that.

Speaker F · So I'm just curious how we offset the broader needs of this project with the need for affordability either at market

Speaker H · or below market rate through the, through the mayor. The amenity cost charge bylaw acknowledges both in kind as well as financial contribution to pay for the amenity cost charges. So the expectations 10% affordable housing is already a policy within the district. And so it's a cost that's anticipated by developers. It's consistent across many municipalities. And so with respect to the affordability piece and ensuring that affordability is affordability rates for at least those 10% of the units are achieved. Staff. Well, council recently updated the definitions around affordability and so for both nonprofit housing as well as for private rental, with more expectations being put on the affordability rates and for longer periods of time.

Speaker H · So that would be also built out in the acc. But it is a balance and I think that it has to be recognized that there's only so much value to a project and so in order to make it work and also to achieve the goals of the district that it is a balancing act and there is an expectation of profit that's going to be achieved on a project like this.

Speaker H · And that's the reality of how things work. However we. There is a desire and what we've heard from the Community as well as council to also achieve social benefit to this project, especially because it's the district's land.

Speaker F · Thank you. In reflecting on some of the feedback we've received on this item so far and also just in hearing from some of the thoughts and concerns raised from my colleagues, I'm curious if you can just help me understand or help speak to the it's been mentioned the Sanichin Village design plan talks about five stories.

Speaker F · The official community plan designates this property as being within a, you know, village center and the village center designation talks about five stories with a increase to six stories in the event that amenities are provided. The list of amenities I glean from this that are aligned in both the RFI process and what we're talking about here would be first nations involvement, public space, institutional facilities and potentially waiting heavier on climate change adaptation for this.

Speaker F · So my question is, is the RFI the best tool to and the AAC best tool to ascertain and ensure these amenities or is it not better just to basically tweak the zoning bylaw proposed to have a base zone of 5 stories and only allow 6 in the event that the project meets a particular threshold of satisfactory community amenities to kind of better align these two policies documents

Speaker H · through the mayor that would align and I will ask Mr. Matanowich from a planning perspective, but that does. You are correct the approach that you're proposing and I don't think it's an either or approach. I do think that there is

Speaker D · a

Speaker H · requirement of both because I think it's broader than just one story. Achieving all of what council has been asking and also replacing our CAC policy is just a matter of timing anyway and it made more sense to go this way than to do a site specific CAC that isn't enforceable. But Mr. Matano, do you have anything to add to that?

Speaker K · No, I don't actually. I think that was a good point. Could be both included ACC and that zoning increase through the process of this Councillor is going through in terms of negotiation.

Speaker F · Thank you

Speaker B · Councillor Newton. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Speaker C · Lots here before us in this report and I think we're finally you know,

Speaker B · working our way to the Sorry to interrupt you, Councillor. I need a motion to extend the meeting

Speaker C · so moved so I can keep talking.

Speaker B · Moved and seconded. Are there any opposed? None. Motion carries. Continue. Councilor Newton, the floor is yours.

Speaker C · Thank you, Chair. Yeah, we're. We're finally sort of getting down like I said to the brass tacks on what this project could look like. I. I have concerns as Councillor Thompson alluded to around the engagement side of things and the engagement plan, I think that that really needs to be weighted heavier and I guess on that specifically, you know, it outlines in the appendix A, the opportunity for the developer to host public information meetings outlining their proposals to the public and then report back to council.

Speaker C · Is there a method or an opportunity for all this? Like a. I mean, we've already had an open house on the zoning, but for the public to have an interaction with council like this. So I guess that's my first question

Speaker B · through you to staff, Cao Cullum.

Speaker H · Thank you. There are limitations. The district has done significant engagement and that all of that engagement is going to be provided to the developer once the zoning goes through. There's no. And I'm turning to Mr. Matanowich just I want to make sure. But there's no obligation through our process, although we always. We do include through our development permit process that a community engagement process is a positive step for developers to take. And so we have to be mindful of the. And that was in my opening statement. So we did intentionally put that it's a public meeting information session because there, as you said, and I think Councillor Thompson originally said, there are limitations on what can happen, especially in the middle of the planning process and decision making and what can be enforced by the municipality as well as with respect to the legalities around the RFP process.

Speaker H · That decision is around where council has to incorporate the feedback that they've received into the decision making around the rfp. And I think that we have to be really mindful of that. We. With respect to whether or not the public has an opportunity afterwards to speak to council, that would be through a normal planning process. And so the. If there are any variances that are required, then there would be an opportunity to be heard that would align with the development permit process. And of course that's a public process at that time. Thank you.

Speaker J · Okay.

Speaker C · And that same appendix, it makes reference to the selection committee to do, you know, have a presentation. What. Who is that? Select selection committee. What compasses that selection committee

Speaker A · to the mayor. That is through the project, the Hovey road project and 1903 redevelopment, we have a steering committee made up of leadership. And so that would be staff. And so they will do the evaluation. And that evaluation and recommendation will go to council through the mayor.

Speaker H · Council will receive the full package. And so again, we're providing council with a recommended. It's not that we are the selection committee, it's that we are just doing our due diligence with respect to a technical evaluation and then we would be providing counsel with a recommendation. However, council will be making the final decision.

Speaker E · Okay.

Speaker C · I think I understand that correctly. The. We talked on the acc. So my, my next question I'm going to bounce around a little bit here if that's permissible to be selected on the low range. Councillor Paltiel sort of alluded to the implications a little bit that and Ms. Cullum spoke to it. But given this is the district's land, what was like it made reference to $190 per square meter or $175 per square meter. So what was the rationale for the two different numbers?

Speaker H · That was actually. I'm sorry, that was a typo. The 190. It's 175. So the 190 came out in the presentation and I apologize for that. The 175, it equals approximately 12,000 a unit. It was based on calculations through our calculations that are advised through the best practices of the acc. And it was based on the low range, but percentage wise based on current best other benchmarks across the province. The reason for the lower was because most of the. Most of the acc. Well, there have been no adoptions of ACC bylaws on the island and so it was a market adjustment. However, we will be doing a full update. We just wanted to ensure that at this time we gave certainty to any of the proponents that would be coming forward.

Speaker H · So as per the province's recommendations to get us through the transition from CAC to the acc, a transitional bylaw is fine with past numbers. However, there is a recommendation that we would be updating it for future development through the ACC. DCC update. Thank you.

Speaker C · Thank you for that thorough answer,

Speaker J · the

Speaker C · consideration around building heights and density and, and all of that. This is where we can be a bit more prescriptive in what we are willing to see or would like to see. And again, so speaking around the design should include a mix of building heights and then it goes and lists a bunch. This is where we should be looking and saying okay, well we've heard from the community, we'd like lower density or lower building heights understanding what the, the financial implications could be as a result of that. But this is where we would be making those amendments.

Speaker N · Yes.

Speaker H · Council can be as prescriptive or they can be as they would like as part of the rfp. Yes, that is correct. Councillor Newton.

Speaker C · Thank you. Then I'm going to test a few motions here, if I may.

Speaker O · Chair.

Speaker B · Go ahead, Councillor.

Speaker H · Sure.

Speaker C · So we've heard around density We've heard around height. And so when we're talking about the overall scale of this proposal,

Speaker E · you know,

Speaker C · the number of units is going to be ultimately a driving factor, probably on what could be the financial component. But I'm going to make an amendment to this to be no more than.

Speaker B · Okay, so I'm going to stop you right there. We haven't had the recommendation yet. So what I'm going to propose is that all of your motions are preambled with as part of council's consideration of the staff recommendations. X. Okay, so that would be the basis of your motion and it would be change criteria, do whatever. Does that work for you?

Speaker C · I'm amenable to that.

Speaker B · Let's just. Let's just go with the approach that I've suggested. We'll test them individually and then they can be incorporated. Otherwise it's amendments upon amendments upon amendments.

Speaker E · But. But that's the cleanest way. Otherwise it's implied that these are. This is supportive of. Of a motion that hasn't been made.

Speaker I · Yeah.

Speaker B · That is why I preambled it with. As part of its consideration, Council would make the following changes as part of its consideration of the recommendation by staff.

Speaker E · Okay, but I think even though it seems cumbersome to make amendments, that's what they're for anyway.

Speaker B · I am not going to die on this hill, Councillor. If. If someone wants to move the recommendations and we want to test amendments, I'm certainly all ears. I was just pointing out that we had not made the recommendations and so the alternative approach was one that could be taken. Fine. What is the preference of the body? This is easily resolved by somebody making the recommendation and then amendments can be considered. Considered. I'm hearing crickets, so not quite. Councilor Newton, would you like to consider my approach? Okay, sure. Go ahead.

Speaker C · Given consideration of staff's recommendation, I'm going to make the following first Amendment. Is that the.

Speaker B · It's not an amendment. It's an item for a change for consideration in the recommendation.

Speaker C · Right?

Speaker B · Yeah, go ahead.

Speaker C · Consideration of the recommendation for the density to be no more than 350 units.

Speaker B · I don't think. I think you could. You could do it as a weighted score, but you can't do it as a hard cap because that's the zoning by law.

Speaker E · I just don't understand the motion. Consideration of the staff recommendation. That hasn't been made. So we're actually. Are we creating a new recommendation? I'm just not sure what the motion is. And motions are crucial we vote on them.

Speaker B · I won't quarrel with you at all. Councilor.

Speaker E · I'm really not wanting to quarrel. I'm just sort of saying, you know, the way it's unfolding error is not entirely clear.

Speaker J · Just a point of order or information that Councilor Graham has left us for the evening.

Speaker B · I'm thusly aware.

Speaker J · Yes, I know you're aware of it. But it gives us a council of six which may create some problems.

Speaker B · That's where tools like deferral and reconsideration come into play. However, I don't think we've quite reached that point yet. I'm going to reverse my earlier recommendation and I'm going to remove the caveat that I'm going to allow changes in advance of the recommendation because I'm eminently convinced by Councillor King. Simply make the recommendation and propose amendments.

Speaker H · Sure.

Speaker C · Then I will move stack recommendation. Staff, issue a request for proposals in Q2 for 20, 26 for the.

Speaker B · You're moving 1, 2 and 3 sufficient. Is there a seconder? Thank you. I will now consider your amendments. Go ahead.

Speaker C · Thank you. And I don't know then specifically about where it speaks to density, but a scale.

Speaker B · Why don't you ask the question of staff, if a cap on density would be considered within the weighting as part of the design. Hold on.

Speaker H · Oh, through the mirror.

Speaker B · I'll, I'll let the counselor determine how they want to ask the question.

Speaker D · Sure.

Speaker C · So I guess how would a density cap look and be considered as part of the outline here before for the rfp?

Speaker B · Thank you. Yes, Staff, thank you.

Speaker H · Through the Mayor. It would be through the section called the design and it would be up to council how they wanted to weight that.

Speaker B · So it wouldn't be a, a,

Speaker I · a

Speaker B · hard cap, but it would be a weight. So weight would be given to those who are at or below 350 units. Okay, now we have that clarity. So you would like to move an amendment to the design section to add weight to you to, to a proposal that is 350 units or below.

Speaker C · Yes.

Speaker B · Thank you. Is there a seconder for that amendment? Thank you. Do you wish to advocate for it?

Speaker C · I'll be as quick as I possibly can. I think we've heard from the community around the density. I, you know, still, while making the project viable, I think we need to consider what we've heard from the community as part of this process. And so having a reduction in that will potentially also get around some of the comments or concerns that residents had around the height and potential massing of what could transpire here.

Speaker B · Being mindful of the more you add the more there's a need to adjust the points structure. I've heard unofficially, the question murmured at least once or twice, how much weight should be given to this amendment because the whole section right now currently has 35 points. What would you like the proportionality roughly to be?

Speaker C · I don't know if I understand the question.

Speaker B · Well, if you look at the report, there are a number of sections, so housing provide type five points demonstrates sustainable design. Two points, sort of. Design should include a mix of building heights. Eight points. Perhaps you wish to take a certain point of total from the 8 and divide. Design should include a mix of building heights and divide four and four. I don't know.

Speaker O · Sure.

Speaker C · Yes. I'm not trying to overcomplicate things, I'm trying to bake in what we've heard from the community. So, sure. Design heights, mix of design heights throughout the development and then added into that

Speaker B · specifically to the category. Design should include a mix of building heights. Should now be divided, I'll just say equally. And the other half should go to the 350 so that we have clarity. There was going to be a lot of tinkering here, I suspect, so let's get clarity. So that's the amendment. It would put four points into that category for 350 units or less.

Speaker C · Yes.

Speaker B · Perfect. Do you have clarity?

Speaker J · I don't have. Oh, you're asking for clarity. I was commenting on the amendment, so.

Speaker B · Which I believe has been seconded. Go ahead. You may comment.

Speaker J · Thank you. I, you know, like, I don't like doing stuff like this on the fly. I understand the. The issues. And given that council ultimately can make the decision regardless, it really is providing guidance. If people want to amend this point system, I think councillors will have to bring forward some rationale and give other councillors the opportunity to consider what the impact of that is. Otherwise you could say five points, four points and three or four points plus one.

Speaker B · I was going to earlier jump in and in with my comments and suggest that the value of the land go from 50 down to 40, design go up to 40 and that we add criteria without points and ask for staff to come back with the reweighting so that we had a template to work with as opposed to the on the fly.

Speaker B · But we seem to have gone down this rabbit hole. My preference would have been 40, 40, then there would have been more to work with with. But sorry, Councillor King.

Speaker E · Yeah. In all fairness, I mean, it's nobody's fault that we have been put in a complex situation this evening and told when asked of staff that you know, Council could make changes, otherwise staff have done the arbitrary, somewhat not objective process and here we are trying to redo it.

Speaker E · You could go to a committee. I can think of many, many different things, but I also have a series of numbers. And so doing it at a Council meeting is where we're at. We've got a motion on the floor, it's been seconded. We're having discussion on the specific motion that's on the floor, I think, not on the process that we're in. I'm allowed. One idea might be to refer it to a committee meeting where there is a dedicated time spent on points, because that sounds like it could be its own meeting.

Speaker B · That is an approach. I still maintain that another approach would simply have been to rebalance the global global and ask staff to bring forward recommendations with extra criteria, rather than trying to weight the individual points and re divide them amongst ourselves. Because you're going to do the same thing in a committee meeting.

Speaker E · Oh, I understood your point. I also understand Councillor Thompson's point. I think we're far from completing this agenda and so at some point we're going to have to decide what we're going to do about that. In terms of extend the meeting or.

Speaker B · We've already extended the meeting.

Speaker E · Yeah. Again, have to extend or something. Because I think. Yeah, no, I'm just saying. Well, I. Probably what I should be saying is we've got a motion on the floor and we should be speaking to the motion and we're not. I'm not.

Speaker B · Well, you can speak to procedure while a motion is on the floor, I think. But I think the point has been adequately made. Councillor Riddle.

Speaker L · Thank you. I guess I have a question through you to Councillor Newton, which is. I mean, I'm supportive of the intent of this motion, which is to reduce the expected density. And I'm wondering if it's a cap that you're looking for. Because if it's a cap, I think potentially a reduction in height, combined with the unit mix that's outlined here, might be an alternative approach. I also think that doing it through the rfp, given the number of points that are allocated, like, that's. It's kind of a. It's a low number. So I'm not sure that that would have the impact you're intending. And I do share the concerns about trying to edit the number of points in different categories on the fly.

Speaker L · Like I said, I do have some changes I'd like to see as well, but I don't think that that's Council's Role to move a couple points here and there to different categories. I think we should be signaling an intent and an objective that we want to achieve, achieve a signal and laying out our priorities. And then I agree with the mayor that we should have staff come back if that's the tool that we want to use to achieve sort of the intent. That I understand from Councillor Newton. Though we also do have the zoning bylaw and other factors in there that would impact density and could achieve the same outcome.

Speaker J · Can we call the question and then move forward with some ideas?

Speaker B · Yes, by all means. On the amendment, what say you, counsel? Those opposed? The motion is defeated with Councillor Thompson, Councillor Riddle, Councillor Paltiel and myself in opposition. Not to short circuit counsel in. In any way.

Speaker B · We've had two very plausible potential alternatives posited. One is a committee of the whole in which we machinate over this, or the other is to set high level priorities and ask staff to return with some recommendations of things that we think are missing. Could well be both. Although. I'm okay if council has additional criteria here. If council is not prepared with additional criteria that it wishes to see after three years of thinking about various aspects of this, I think that could be a committee of the whole. So give me direction, Councillor Thompson.

Speaker J · My direction would be to request make. To request recommendations from staff on some adjustments to the points and to report back to council at a committee meeting, which could be within, of course, a council meeting, in other words.

Speaker B · So is that a motion?

Speaker J · It is a motion motion. I have not suggested specific point guidelines as you have done. I just want to move in a direction that allows for the concerns that have been raised.

Speaker B · There are two caveats that I would add to that, counselor. One is that the point, and I don't care what the number is, should be equitable between financial considerations and design. Because right now there is a disparity.

Speaker C · 40.

Speaker B · 40 was an example. Doesn't need to be a hail to die on. The other would be things that don't maximize density of whatever zoning bylaw council might adopt that points be given at extra weight. If it's at or below whatever zoning bylaw we might choose to adopt will get extra weight. Those would be the two overarching things that I might ask staff to opine on in a report back to us.

Speaker B · Do you have any objection or anything else you would like to add? I understand that. Okay. Just to put a parameter around, if we do go the staff report route, I will second your motion. I'm open to amendments and discussion and alternatives.

Speaker E · Councillor King, I I would find it valuable if it did go to committee even if it's the same meeting because we're if we're going to have this kind of discussion I think it's I

Speaker B · will accept that during that meeting Council strike a committee of the whole as an amendment. I will second. Any opposed? None.

Speaker E · And the other point I had was personally I feel that the I don't you know for all of these I don't know why they're arbitrarily at that number although I get that there's a in this first go the highest priority put on offer on land first nations is at 10 and I don't know

Speaker B · why so think of them as placeholders Councillor. So we get to set them. We've established that and so part of this process would give equal weighting to design and finance. We can adjust first nations as well.

Speaker E · Yes. I think that at least reflection and consideration an option of that should be included I guess in what staff come

Speaker B · forward with I mean I dare to say that does the point system of 100 was convenient but it could be changed to 200 to whatever, whatever staff, whatever.

Speaker O · Right.

Speaker B · Like you know what I'm saying.

Speaker E · Yeah, no I hear you but, but I just yeah. I didn't want to overlook and assume that the only focus is on the first two and so I've raised the First nations as well.

Speaker L · Mr.

Speaker H · The MER could we get clarification as to what you want to raise from a percentage wise first nations so as that we can come back with something that council is providing direction of?

Speaker B · Well the implications of this either are a percentage increase or it replaces something else.

Speaker C · Right?

Speaker H · Certainly. Except if we don't get clear direction I just want to make sure that we're not providing arbitrary recommendations.

Speaker B · I appreciate that and I'm doing my best to stick handle part of this conversation and I appreciate those who may not even favor this are still participating in that element of it. So thank you.

Speaker B · You've made the point around First Nations. Councilor. I don't want to get into percentage increases of that.

Speaker E · What I was going to propose proposed was 15 be 15 points removed from offer on land and that be redistributed to either first nations or project and delivery scheduling. So that would bring first nations to up 15 so 25 I believe so anyway.

Speaker B · I think the challenge with numbers is if there's a reduction without a spelled out number that equalizes design and finance, what number they ultimately come down to in order to harmonize could be then distributed to first nations without itemizing a number So I would prefer that your motion say as you reduce and equalize, reassigned to First Nations.

Speaker B · Yes. I just was trying to. Maybe you were using the numbers as an example so that staff have guidance that as they reduce those and equalize the other two. Okay, thank you. I think that clarity is meaningful, Councillor.

Speaker J · I think it is important that we have specific. If you're going to say equalization within that 100% or that 100 score, we can't. Because what can happen? His staff can go off and make some changes and comes back to council and says, no, this isn't what we meant or want.

Speaker B · No, but I think if the intent is equalize, you're going to have to lower because 50 is too high. So you are lowering the two in order to equalize. You're taking some and assigned First Nations. If the intent is captured when it comes back, I'm satisfied that based on those three criteria, council will have something to work with. I think those are the three big categories. So. Councillor Riddle, thank you.

Speaker L · Well, I would. I would also at this time, if we're raising considerations like to put on the table how we account for lease proposals. So if there could be that finance within finance. Yeah. But just how we can sort of recognize the value of the land coming back later in the assessment of the financial offer.

Speaker B · So the guidance to staff would be within whatever envelope finance exists. Some deduction will have to be made to include a lease component. Okay.

Speaker H · Through the mayor. I think that we could come up with that right now. From what you've just said, I don't think that's that complicated. If council were in agreement.

Speaker K · That.

Speaker B · There was an initial motion to bring back a report which would. A little bit challenging because there are several components to this, but I think we all understand them.

Speaker B · I'm just for the record trying to create clarity on what council's intent was because it's very lengthy in terms of its components. It's report back with the various criteria that would be adjustments, place plus a committee of the whole. So, yeah,

Speaker J · Clarity as to where we're at. I'm lost.

Speaker B · Fair. Councilor Newton, I'm. You had a similar concern

Speaker C · around where we're at. Well, I think not trying to usurp the chair at all, but right now we're at the. The recommendation is on the. That I moved is on the floor. It could be then deferred to a committee of the whole meeting.

Speaker B · Your amendment was defeated.

Speaker C · Only the amendment was defeated.

Speaker D · Correct.

Speaker C · The main motion is still on the floor live. Yeah.

Speaker B · But we're asking for A staff report. So that essentially defers it. Okay. Yeah. So it's a deferral in favor of a staff report probably in early May to equalize the weighting of finance and design, raise the weighting of first nations and incorporate into finance a lease component and bring that back in a report to council.

Speaker B · Yes, sure.

Speaker C · So if I may then, if there were other considerations that I wanted to have incorporated into that, would that be then at the committee of the whole meeting or should that be now? Okay.

Speaker B · No, because they're just going to be derivations of it. We've covered all the categories. There's no other categories. Yeah, derivations to the various categories should be handled in committee of the whole.

Speaker B · And council members should come, having given thought to the adjustments that they wish to make. I'm going to put the question and find if there are any opposed. Oh, sorry. Did you wish to speak, Councillor Peltier?

Speaker B · Go for it.

Speaker F · Is like, is it possible to schedule a meeting like this for like later in the week?

Speaker B · Why I'm available.

Speaker F · Like, I think that like, we have. We have a. This is a very significant item. We have a number of other. Both today, but also in the coming weeks and everything. Like this is like with budget deadlines and everything else, this is just a heavy time of year for the agenda. And doing this at 9:30 is, I don't think, giving it the due discussion that it deserves. And if there's a day or afternoon in the coming week that this could be done, not to put too much pressure on staff, my preference would be to isolate this item and resolve it in a clear and succinct meeting date that extenuates from our typical schedule.

Speaker B · Yep, I accept that. Give me a date or two.

Speaker F · Well, if it's possible, like, like Wednesday or Thursday, afternoon or evening this week.

Speaker B · Wednesday or Thursday this week.

Speaker E · Okay.

Speaker B · To be scheduled Wednesday, Thursday this week. Okay. Wednesday or Thursday of this week.

Speaker H · Through the mayor. There's no meeting scheduled on the 4th and staff are available Wednesday or Thursday as well. So is that the call of the chair?

Speaker B · I shall circulate amongst counsel and determine Wednesday, Thursday or Monday as being the best date at the call of the chair. Fine. Done. Okay. Is that so? That's a motion to, at the call of the chair, have the meeting on one of those days that covers the preceding motion.

Speaker F · If that direction is required, then yes.

Speaker B · Any opposed to that? None. And on the other motion that we will have the item come forward. Any opposed to that? This is the information we're asking for in the report.

Speaker C · Perfect.

Speaker B · Not opposed to that. So the item is then deferred pending the receipt of that additional information. If there is no further item through

Speaker H · the Mayor, may I through the chair ask if perhaps we could circulate something to council with respect to the these amenities that council could complete and then we could bring back the responses to maybe facilitate that conversation.

Speaker H · With time, if there's time within the choices of council just to support the facilitation of that and provide a worksheet that council may work through.

Speaker B · So I'm hearing that the worksheet is not necessarily. Necessarily an issue as long as it's not under the, you know, proverbial time clock from Councillor King. That's fair. Okay. Yes. And we will disclose that as part of the agenda. It'll all be.

Speaker H · Absolutely. The results would be as part of the agenda.

Speaker B · Thank you. So item 14. 4 is the amenity framework. Now, this is with respect to using the AAC principle of the eventually to be adopted AAC bylaw as the Amenity framework for the proposal. If it goes forward.

Speaker N · Correct.

Speaker H · It's requesting that council direct staff to advance an ACC bylaw that we would bring back a draft ACC bylaw and of course it's a temporary document until we move forward.

Speaker G · Word.

Speaker H · But it's just to replace the CAC based on the legislation. Thank you.

Speaker B · I see no particular reason council need to machinate over this one, but I am certainly open to hearing Councillor King.

Speaker E · So do I understand correctly? I'm trying, still trying to understand the changes that have occurred due to legislation we can. We have to set in place amenities we don't have the ability to negotiate. I'll use the word again or the

Speaker H · phrase on the fly through the mayor. It's not enforceable.

Speaker E · It's not enforceable to do that. So it all has to be established.

Speaker H · Yeah.

Speaker E · Ahead of time. The challenge there, of course, is to. What we miss out are the intricacies of certain sites, certain places in the past where a bench here or something here made sense. But now what we are forced to do is collect funds, I believe, and then.

Speaker B · Or in kind.

Speaker H · Or in kind. It can be in kind. Yeah.

Speaker B · But you have to stipulate being kind.

Speaker E · Yeah. I don't know. I mean, ultimately, if we're forced to do it this way, that's one thing. I just have some anxiety over the opportunities that are lost because I've seen positive things arise from discussion and negotiation on site to site basis.

Speaker B · This is a fair point, counselor. However, in order to facilitate this, I'm going to put the recommendation on the floor 1, 2 and 3. Is there a seconder?

Speaker F · Second.

Speaker B · Thank you. Appreciating the preceding discussion, is there any further discussion prepared to put the question? Any opposed? None are opposed. Motion carries. 14. 5 is the 2026 file financial plan adoption And I will look to council.

Speaker B · There is an opportunity for questions if there are any remaining or there is a recommendation. Councillor King, I regret that we are

Speaker E · at this late stage but I had. I think I got sick a few times, etc. But I was going to ask staff to cite something I think that they were prepared to do at previous meetings and that is with regards to the carbon reductions and actions that are in place to garner confidence in the budget in that.

Speaker E · With that lens in mind.

Speaker B · That's fair. Staff, do you have any response around the carbon carbon progress made by the district in the last fiscal year through

Speaker H · the mayor we are going to have the updated report in June.

Speaker L · So.

Speaker H · I apologize Councillor. We are at this time only doing it at the end of the year and then reporting out on it to council. Just there is a timing issue but we are trying to work with that in order to be able to have it in advance of the annual report and then be with the motion that you had put forward and that was resolved by council. We would be looking at doing it in advance as well. But we have to come back with a framework for you.

Speaker E · Okay.

Speaker H · So at this time we don't have the numbers that you're requesting.

Speaker E · Thank you.

Speaker B · Okay.

Speaker G · Any.

Speaker B · Any other questions otherwise? We do have the recommendation that the Central Saanich 2026-2030 financial plan as presented in the March 30 staff report and meetings on March 30th and 8th, 2026 be adopted I guess or what is the be accepted?

Speaker F · I'll remove recommendation one.

Speaker B · Yes, I think it got cut off on my page here. You're moving. Is there a seconder? Thank you. Any discussion? Any opposed?

Speaker J · Non.

Speaker B · Motion carried. Oh, Councilor Thompson. Councillor King. Opposed. Motion carried. The three year capital plan approval for core replacement program as identified in the March 30 staff report.

Speaker F · So moved. Recommendation, sir?

Speaker B · Seconder. Thank you. Discussion. And those opposed? Councilor King? Motion carries. Okay, so bylaws. We have five year financial plan bylaw 2265 for introduction and first reading.

Speaker F · Move first reading of bylaw number 2265.

Speaker B · Thank you. Is it seconded?

Speaker L · Second.

Speaker B · Thank you. Discussion. Any opposed? Councillor King? Motion carries. Five year financial plan bylaw 2265 be read a second time.

Speaker F · So moved.

Speaker B · Second discussion. And those opposed? Councillor? Councillor King. Motion carries.

Speaker F · And move. Third reading of bylaw number 2265.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker L · Second.

Speaker B · Thank you. And any discussion? Any opposed? Councillor King in opposition. The motion carries. Item 1512, tax rates bylaw number 2266. 2026. Move.

Speaker F · First reading.

Speaker B · Thank you. Second moved and seconded. Discussion. Any opposed? None carried.

Speaker A · Move.

Speaker F · Second reading of 222-2266.

Speaker B · Thank you. Second, any discussion? Any opposed? None. And move.

Speaker F · Third reading of bylaw number 2266.

Speaker B · Okay.

Speaker L · Second.

Speaker B · Thank you. Discussion. Any opposed? None carried. 2026, fees and charges, bylaw items 1513. These are the amendments and appendix A and B. And for first reading of 2, 2, 6, 7.

Speaker H · We're on a roll.

Speaker J · Move.

Speaker F · First reading of bylaw number 2, 26 7.

Speaker B · Thank you. Seconder.

Speaker L · Second.

Speaker B · Any discussion, just very briefly?

Speaker E · Yes, I think there was a change in this that maybe 215 or 245. There was. Was there a change?

Speaker M · Can.

Speaker E · Can that be clarified as to what. Was it a word or.

Speaker G · Yep. There was the. Just the precursor to the bylaw missing, and then there was two pages that were cut off.

Speaker E · Oh, okay.

Speaker O · Thank you.

Speaker G · But they were captured in the amendments.

Speaker E · Thank you.

Speaker G · Summary.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you for that call the question. Any opposed? None carried. Second and third reading of 2267.

Speaker F · So moved.

Speaker B · Thank you. Second moved and seconded. Any discussion? Any opposed? None carried. Bylaw enforcement. Bylaw notice. Enforcement, Bylaw. And this is number 2242 for first, second and third reading, please.

Speaker L · So moved.

Speaker B · Thank you. Any discussion? Councillor King?

Speaker E · So is this. This is creating a new enforcement mechanism. Is this. This is the one that is. Rather than going to court.

Speaker B · Am I. I'll look to staff.

Speaker O · Yeah.

Speaker M · Thank you. Through the mayor. Yes, that's exactly correct. This is a companion bylaw to our current MTI bylaw. And the bylaw notice allows us to issue tickets to offending bylaw based on bylaws that are being offended.

Speaker E · Do we already. Do we know? I didn't see if we've clarified which bylaws will actually be enforced through this.

Speaker M · Thank you. Through the mayor. There is the schedule at the end that lists the. The bylaws that are with sections recording the offense. There also is a clause in the bylaw that allows us to issue a $300 ticket for any violation, which allows us to continuously enforce our bylaws as they're being amended or adopted or changed. If the section numbers don't align, what

Speaker E · we have in terms of monitoring safeguards and that kind of thing in place. So somebody makes an appeal or that kind of thing.

Speaker M · Yes, this is a great process through the mayor where somebody can issue. Give us a dispute and we will review it with a screening officer that's been designated through the bylaw. And that screening officer can waive the fee through a compliance agreement or withhold the fee if it. If it is still a penalty. They could appeal it through the provincial board and allows us to avoid going to court. We would just go through an adjudicator.

Speaker E · Okay, thank you.

Speaker B · Okay, call the question. Any opposed? Councillor King in opposition. The motion carries. Council adopt policy number 05 plan providing framework for the bylaw notice to dispute process and screening officer expectations.

Speaker L · So moved.

Speaker B · Moved and seconded. Thank you. Any discussion? Any opposed? Counselor Newton, online. Sorry.

Speaker D · Yep.

Speaker O · Thank you.

Speaker C · Just with respect to this particular component of this, what are the financial consequences or repercussions from this? As in like staff time or component to it?

Speaker M · Thank you. Through the mayor, there will be a staff time to issue the tickets, but perhaps overall less staff time as we introduce this as a program through the district. Because at the present time, we don't have the ability to issue tickets through mail or on a vehicle for a parking violation. And we're seeing quite an increase to. To parking concerns. So we will be. There will be increased revenue from the tickets, but that will be offset by any fees we would have to pay to the provincial adjudicator.

Speaker O · Right.

Speaker C · And this would then allow for the parking enforcement component, correct?

Speaker M · Yes. Currently, MTI tickets have to be issued in person, which makes it difficult for enforcement. And with the new bylaw notice, we can post the ticket on the vehicle.

Speaker J · Thank you.

Speaker E · Okay.

Speaker B · I'll put the question. Any opposed? Councillor King in opposition. The motion carries. Item 1515, 20, 26, parcel tax roll. By law, we have our director of Financial services available for questions the bylaws before us for adoption. Questions.

Speaker B · Councillor King.

Speaker E · Thank you. I am not part of this committee. That's why I'm asking questions because I'm not part of it. So it also, as I understand, pertains to the heat pump situation. And so I have questions with regards to that. Have we. I could ask this about the heat pump program itself, but here we are. What happens if a property is sold and how do we recover the costs? It's part of the taxes. Somebody's buying it.

Speaker B · They.

Speaker E · They get it knowing that there's this.

Speaker K · That's. That's correct. It's. It's on their title. It carries with the property. So it carries with the. The property. In terms of. It's a. Let's say It'll be a 10 year payoff, but it is an agreement. The next property owner takes that on. So the district is guaranteed to get that money back either through a new property owner.

Speaker E · And if a person wants to pay it all out. Right. They can do that.

Speaker K · We did have that program at the beginning. However, just due to administration. We no longer. We don't offer that on a continuous basis. It was a few. If you wanted to pay it off in the first year, that was fine, but then if not, it's on your tax roll. It was just a bit administratively challenged to do that.

Speaker E · Interesting.

Speaker K · Like this whole program is very administratively challenging due to the lack of provincial legislation around this, as you were aware in previous discussions.

Speaker E · And is it truly cost neutral then in terms of the 12,000 that we're getting back or because of administrative costs that's not covered?

Speaker K · Certainly there was a significant amount of staff time put into this program over the number of years and we reported that when we submitted all the financial information to fcm.

Speaker E · Right. And has the district experienced any trouble recovering costs? I mean, it's applied as a tax. Right. So they can't really be in arrears, can they? On this one

Speaker K · so far, y', all, we haven't had any. Any issues.

Speaker O · Yeah. Okay.

Speaker E · Yeah, that covers some of the questions. Thank you.

Speaker B · Okay, I'll look for adoption of the bylaw 2264.

Speaker E · So moved.

Speaker B · Is there a seconder? Any opposed? None. Carried. Next item. Fire services operational bylaw number 21 2259. 2026. Fire Chief is available for questions. Otherwise there is a motion to.

Speaker E · Just very briefly, there's. I think there was an update in this one and there was a typographical error. But the replacement section appears to do more than just a typo. So I wasn't sure especially there's a cost recovery and fees are implicated.

Speaker K · Yeah.

Speaker C · Through the mayor. There's no substantive changes to the document.

Speaker J · There was.

Speaker C · Section 36, for example, was. The original one was set in accordance with appendix A. Appendix A was originally formed as part of the document, but now we've pushed that into the fees and charges. So that's. That part's been removed. In section 44 there was a. In accordance with the district. Central District of Central Saanich fees and services charges bylaw, which was again just a. Basically a typo. And then in section 53 and 54 there was just. That's just sort of a numbering thing. So essentially the provisions. Person who violates any provision in section 52 or 51 should actually say 52 and 54, I believe it's.

Speaker C · The change was to 52C as opposed to 51C. So it's just a point to the correct spot in the document.

Speaker E · Thank you. When I read it, I wasn't sure.

Speaker C · It looks like it's all brand new, but it's not.

Speaker E · Yeah. And you could interpret it as not being just a typo, but. Thank you.

Speaker J · Yeah, it's fine.

Speaker B · I'll look for 2259 for introduction and first reading.

Speaker L · So moved.

Speaker B · Is there a seconder? Thank you. Any discussion? Any opposed? None carried. Second and third reading, second moved and seconded. Any discussion? Any opposed? None carried. Item. 15, 21559 Sananus Drive.

Speaker B · And I'll look to our Director of Planning and Building services.

Speaker K · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is an application for a site specific zoning amendment for 559 Synanous Drive to increase the maximum permitted lot coverage from 5 to 15% within the rural state RE3 zone. The applicant is seeking this amendment to enable construction of a replacement single family dwelling that better meets their functional needs while generally maintaining the existing building footprint location and retaining several small accessory structures on the site. The property is small and narrow. The size is 0. 5 acres generally. Compared to other Re3 properties in immediate area, it is quite small and quite narrow. Under the current zoning of 5% lot coverage, the building footprint would be approximately 1100 square feet.

Speaker K · The proposal is to allow the increase increase of this on this waterfront property to 15%, which is 3,500 square feet approximately, which is more consistent with typical rural homes in the area. The property remains designated rural in the OCP and the proposal aligns with the rural residential use criteria in the zoning bylaw. No other variances are requested and the house is being constructed outside of the applicable environmental Development permit area along the shoreline. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you,

Speaker B · Councillor Thompson.

Speaker J · Thank you. I was going to suggest moving the recommendations given that we're not making a decision tonight and it's late. Given that these are basically referrals to the APC and first reading of the bylaw, I guess.

Speaker J · Really Pending receipt of the APC motion.

Speaker G · Okay.

Speaker B · Any discussion?

Speaker E · Councillor King, Would the APC be able to. Maybe. They're already going to have a discussion about the fact that the district is reviewing its rural lot committee coverage policy, I think. And this is proposing three times the size of the lot coverage. And so it seems if the intention is to not have such large buildings, then it's just simply slipping in before we make changes. So that was where I was going. Should we be careful about making sort of one off exceptions ahead of the review of rural lot coverage. So if the APC is able to weigh in on that and provide some recommendation, that might be useful.

Speaker B · Councillor Thompson, I was just going to

Speaker J · suggest of course that the chair of the APC is present in the meeting. Meeting, their ears wide open. I think that we could certainly pass that information onto the APC for consideration in its deliberations.

Speaker E · Okay, thank you.

Speaker B · Ready for the question. Any opposed? None. Carried. Okay. Item 1522. Sorry. 1503. Mount Newton Crossroad. OCP and zoning bylaw Amendment. Director of Planning and Building Services is available for questions. Members of council. Councillor Peltiel.

Speaker J · Yeah.

Speaker F · I'll move recommendations one through three just for. To get them on the table for discussion.

Speaker B · You must be looking at something different from me.

Speaker F · Am I looking at one?

Speaker B · Because it's 2252 for third reading.

Speaker K · Oh.

Speaker B · Oh, it is already one second. Oh, it was deferred. Yes. Sorry, I was having a. Yep.

Speaker F · Did I move the right thing or It's.

Speaker B · It is on the floor.

Speaker F · Oh, it's live.

Speaker B · Pardon me.

Speaker E · Yeah.

Speaker B · You don't have anything. Okay, go ahead.

Speaker F · Just to speak to this. I. I at one point envisioned taking a stab at some qualitative changes to this bylaw. But I think that the conversation prior with respect to the request for proposals is giving me comfort that I think that there's going to be some substantive changes that are going to shape the communicated and overall expectations for this. In which case I think that it's best to proceed with the line of kind of form and use that staff have recommended, being it is in keeping with what's been applied in the past within our villages and then refine it for the RFI process at that forthcoming meeting.

Speaker F · So I'd rather move forward this evening with reading so that we can have a more fulsome conversation going forward and how we shape it.

Speaker K · Okay.

Speaker B · Any other commentary? Councillor Thompson?

Speaker J · My question is a procedural question through to Mr. Matanowich, and that is of course we are not supposed to receive new information after a public hearing, certainly before third reading. How far does that go tomorrow time wise, for example, with reference to adoption. So in other words, does that input apply also after third reading, assuming that it's adopted through to the. Through to potential adoption ultimately. Thank you.

Speaker K · Through Ms. Merritt. It is through to adoption. That's what it is. Third reading and adoption.

Speaker J · I did have a concern and it's related to this in that we council is receiving correspondence, I think pertaining to this issue, even including tonight. And I know that I raised the issue after the public hearing with emails that are addressed to individual members of council with comments are in fact being seen by counsel, and they really shouldn't be. And I would expect us to look at a way of resolving that in the future so that we are not receiving new, potentially new input after the public hearing. Well, I mean, it's. The reality is that if we're talking and telling some citizens that I can't take input and we're receiving correspondence either through our counsel email or here, it doesn't seem to be consistent.

Speaker B · I am not dismissing your concern. In fact, I share it. I mean, it is a requirement that we are expected to follow as elected officials when there are parameters and confines in terms of how conduct is undertaken within legislative confines. Obviously, the responsibility also falls to ourselves to recognize something, as in an area that we're not supposed to engage in for the period of time and not to read it. So I have a high degree of confidence generally that members of council, I've known all of you for a fair amount of time, are respecting that. But that isn't to dismiss your concern. Anything that we can do to avoid those circumstances is worth exploring. Councillor Newton, Councillor Riddle.

Speaker L · Oh, he's back. I'll let him go.

Speaker B · I saw the camera go off. I assumed it was an errant hand, so I moved on.

Speaker K · Do.

Speaker B · Are you muted? I don't. I do not do lip. Reading through. Yeah, sorry.

Speaker C · I'm running through a second charge on my earbuds this evening. It's a sign of how long this evening's meeting has gone regarding this. Yeah, I, I still. Even to the deferral. And now we've deferred the RFP sort of shaping process on this. And I appreciated the intent originally for the deferral to this to third reading. So I guess procedurally a little bit on Councillor Thompson's point is, would this RFP process and the discussion that we're

Speaker B · going to have

Speaker C · have an issue with that sort of new information?

Speaker B · It's not new information. It's information that is shaped by the legislative confines. Okay. So I appreciate your concern. It's not one that is.

Speaker C · No, I think you've answered my question.

Speaker H · Yeah, I think that it depends on the conversation and whether or not the conversations that are being had around the public, around the RFP impact your decision around the public hearing. And so if you are having conversations in the rfp, as an example, you want something to happen through the RFP process, you don't get it there and that it impacts your voting or Your decision making around the public hearing that wouldn't be allowed. If that is. Is going. If it's going to be as an example requests around areas that are usually dealt with through the zoning. It may be better to deal with the zoning first prior to dealing with the rfp.

Speaker H · Thank you.

Speaker B · I'm confident that the discussions to date have referred to the potential maximum zoning and there's no requirement to go to the maximum zoning under any zoning bylaw anyway, so.

Speaker O · Right.

Speaker B · And so that's the.

Speaker C · Still the opportunity for council to reconsider that.

Speaker B · So that's fine. I understand. Thank you. Okay. Not reconsider the.

Speaker C · And the procedural sense. That's not what I was referring to.

Speaker B · I understand. Okay. Councilor Riddle.

Speaker L · Thank you. So I, I have a question through you to staff then to make sure I understand that point. Because I do see them as. I mean they're related and on some of the fronts you could either choose to do it through the zoning bylaw or through points, depending on how those land. So my preference is to see the full picture. But what I just heard from you is that that would be new information and so you wouldn't be able to consider it.

Speaker H · It's not necessary. Yes, I think that if it. I think that the cleanest approach at this point would be if councillor's going to be debating the RFP would be to look at the zoning first. Would you agree, Mr. Matanowich?

Speaker K · Yes, I would. If council is debating the zoning bylaw and the zoning bylaw stays as it is at the second reading stage

Speaker D · following

Speaker K · that, should council adopt the zoning bylaw? Council can still through that RFP adjust things that have been discussed like tonight the height and set that criteria.

Speaker B · There's also an important nuance. Council could adopt this land use bylaw. It controls the site once it's adopted. If it doesn't like the responses in the rfp, it can rescind the bylaw. Yes, that is legally allowable. So I think that we have to be considerate of the mechanisms that exist to us. And I appreciate the question from members of council, but you have to have a fulsome understanding of the entire process. Anyway, what is before us is third reading. We will have a discussion around the rfp. I think the danger that you speak of comes only after the RFP responses. If somebody then votes against the adoption.

Speaker B · But that's just my perspective. That's the greatest risk. But that would always be the greatest risk if some new condition changes. Why you voted on adoption. Okay, I shall put the question on third reading. If there are no further speakers. Councilor Newton. Thank you.

Speaker C · Well, I think you bring up a point though, that if we go through the RFP process and a member of council isn't happy with where that landed, then, you know, one might want to be in support or in opposition to that after the. After we've gone through that.

Speaker K · So.

Speaker C · Yeah, I guess your statement just confused me a little bit.

Speaker B · It's simply solved by voting against accepting the rfp.

Speaker C · Right. Okay.

Speaker B · Okay. All right. On third reading anything further, I shall put the question and look for those in opposition. The motion carries with Councillor King and Councillor Thompson in opposition. Okay. We move then to item 16. 1.

Speaker B · Did I miss something? Unfinished business. Notice. A motion submitted by Councillors Peltiel and Newton.

Speaker L · Did I miss something through the chair? Part of the notice motion requested that

Speaker N · the draft letter come back to council

Speaker L · for endorsement, so it is attached to the agenda for your approval.

Speaker B · Okay. So the draft letter be endorsed. And that as it's written here goes to the UBCM and other local government for potential. Okay. Anyone want to move this? Moved. Seconded. Thank you. Any opposed? None carried. Second notice of motion, Councelor King. I don't know.

Speaker E · I'm happy to move forward with it, but maybe late evening.

Speaker B · Fine. Anyone object to that? No.

Speaker H · Perfect.

Speaker B · Okay. We are. There was a new business item which we shall go over. Any correspondence anyone wishes to flag. I was going to flag. 18. 1. It was a request. Request for potentially the district sponsoring an event. I don't know how we go about considering that.

Speaker H · Through the mayor, council gave myself discretion and so I can follow up to responding to those mid year requests and follow up.

Speaker B · There's a financial limit on that though.

Speaker H · I will report back.

Speaker B · Okay, fair enough. Okay. Any other correspondence items people wish to flag? We did have one closed item which we were going to close the meeting for. Yes, counsel? No, counsel. Yes. Okay. So I will look for a motion to reinstate the closed meeting as previously cited at the beginning of the meeting. Moved. Seconded. Any opposed? None carried. We'll just take a moment.