Transcript: Regular Council Meeting - 2026/05/25

Speaker A · Okay. Are we actually webcast for like.

Speaker B · Oh, now we are.

Speaker A · See, There you go. 30 seconds.

Speaker C · Yes.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker D · All right.

Speaker A · Good evening, council. I will call the meeting to order. And in the room we have Councillor Graham, Councillor Riddle and Councillor Newton. Do we have members of council online? I don't see any. Okay, so at the moment we are expecting Councillor King to be absent. Councillor Pal Teel and Thompson will join later. Okay. If I could have a motion to approve the agenda amended by adding May 11, 2026 regular council minutes under item 6. 3, adding late attachments to item10. 1, and adding late correspondence for information as items 18.

Speaker A · 7 and 18. 8, please. Moved and seconded. Thank you. Any discussion? Any opposed? None. Motion carries. Motion to close under section 90 sub 1, aegk90 sub 2, sub 3 of the community charter, please. Moved and seconded. Thank you.

Speaker A · Any discussion? Any opposed? None. The motion carries.

Speaker E · Seven o'.

Speaker A · Clock. Okay. Good evening, everyone.

Speaker D · Welcome.

Speaker A · If I could have everyone's attention and ask for quiet, please. Hi there.

Speaker C · Hello.

Speaker A · Good evening, everyone. It is Monday, May 25, and we're returning to our council meeting. We previously approved the agenda. There were some amended items which. I'll just recap. The regular council meeting minutes of May 11th as well are under item 6. 3, late items attached to item10. 1, and late correspondence for information as items 18, 7 and 18 8. And with that I'm going to go to adoption of the sets of minutes. So that would be May 11 Special Open Council. May 11 Special Open Council and minutes from the May 11 Regular Council meeting, please. If I could have a mover. Yes. Seconder. Thank you. Any errors, omissions or changes? Seeing none. Any opposed? Seeing none. The motion carries. Any business arising from the minutes? None. Okay. We have no rise in report.

Speaker A · We have an opportunity for public questions and feedback. Up to 20 minutes, 2 minutes per speaker. Please come up to the lectern and make sure the microphone is on.

Speaker B · Good evening. I have more feedback for my first thing. I believe it's 14. 2 about the parking that is going to be reallocated to a potential pharmacy or medical office. It seems to me that it would be short sighted to allocate all the visitor parking away from the residential users. They may, for example, need groceries delivered. They may have a home care person who comes to help them out. They may have out of town family who stay for the long weekend and they won't be able to use those visitor parking spots during the day. So that would be some feedback. And Then for item 14. 1, I believe this is Mayor Windsor's father's property, is that correct?

Speaker A · I will address the matter of 14. 1 when we get there. And indeed it does involve a family member. And as such, when a situation like this arises, it's appropriate for the member of council to recuse themselves. And I intend to, as I always have done. When it comes to matters of conflict of interest, I view my record on that as quite above board.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you. All right, any other questions or feedback?

Speaker F · I just wrote this out. I didn't know that it would be so formal. Will council allow.

Speaker A · Sorry, can we just start with your name?

Speaker F · My name is Sandy Zeman Twiss. I live in Central Zanich.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker F · Will council allow responsible short term rentals in the district of Central Saanich, recognizing that many families like mine need short term income to remain financially stable, not to get rich. My husband is living with stage four kidney failure while awaiting transplant. Rising interest rates have greatly increased our mortgage payments since we bought our home five years ago. So for us, this income helps us keep our home during this very difficult time.

Speaker B · Thanks.

Speaker A · Thank you. As you will note, there is a notice of motion under 16. 2. And while I can't predetermine the outcome, certainly council will give consideration to this evening and we'll be able to, after the vote, tell you what direction the municipality is going to take. Just checking in to make sure I haven't missed any speakers who wish to ask questions or provide feedback, please.

Speaker G · Hi, Consul. I didn't know I was allowed to speak, so I'm not really prepared. But we are in regards to the short term rental as well.

Speaker A · Sorry, your name?

Speaker G · We lived in Brentwood for 33 years, lucky enough to have bought our house quite a few years ago.

Speaker A · Yeah, I just didn't catch your name. Sorry and. Sorry, your name?

Speaker G · Oh, Ernie Lee, 794 Delamere.

Speaker A · Okay, thank you.

Speaker G · Right down where the old church used to.

Speaker A · And your comment or feedback is in relation to short term rentals?

Speaker G · Yeah.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker G · Yeah, so just in our particular case, we rent our house three to four weeks of the year. That's it. We. And we've been doing it for over 30 years. We've never had a complaint. We have off street parking. We will never be providing long term for anybody. There's no room in it. We live in it and all we want to do is earn a little bit of extra money. Our taxes are brutal if I use the term, and it does help out with it. My wife and I are both retired. It really has a Big effect on our lifestyle. And I don't think we're going to be providing any long term place for anybody to live.

Speaker G · So we'd like you to consider possibly when you live in the house, you're not trying to get a bed and breakfast, not anything. It's not going to affect anybody that our place maybe is unique and maybe it's unique for a lot of other people as well.

Speaker A · Okay, thank you.

Speaker G · Thanks.

Speaker A · Thank you. Okay. I don't see anyone else coming forward. So we are. Oh, pardon me. Sorry.

Speaker H · Good evening. My name is Janet Warren and I live on Verdier Avenue and I'm here. I do not have an Airbnb, but my daughter does and she lives on Sluggett. And two years ago I sold my big family home in Gordon Head and downsized to a townhouse to come and support my daughter who's going through the worst separation you can imagine. And she has two small boys age 5 and 7 who go to Brentwood Elementary. And I sold my home and moved here to help her. And now if she can't have the Airbnb that she used to have, it pays for her property taxes and her home insurance.

Speaker H · And if she can't have the Airbnb, she's going to have to move because she has to buy out her ex. And if she moves, I moved here for her. And now I feel like I'm part of Brentwood Bay. I love it here. I do the before school, care for the boys, I know the teachers. I take my grandchildren to Brentwood Elementary. I feel like I'm part of a community. I live in a townhouse place on the top of Verdier. So all those people are very close and I'm very happy. And so I'm just hoping that you will consider the circumstances that not. I totally disagree with people buying up apartments, condos, houses and putting them all for Airbnb. But it's in her home and she would never have the rental long term to anybody. It's just Airbnb.

Speaker H · And the other thing to consider is that the vacancy rates now in Brentwood bay are like 5%. So there's no justification for not having it because there's plenty of rentals and new buildings even being built. I know on the corner where I live, on where the roundabout is, there's a six story rental going up in other apartments as well. So there's plenty to rent. So thank you for hearing me.

Speaker A · Thank you for coming and being a good family member to support another family member. And we appreciate the, the impassioned Plea. So we'll. Of course, when we get to the item, we'll. You'll see how council moves forward. Okay. Sorry, did I miss anyone? I'm not seeing any further speakers, so I'm going to move forward. Oh, in the agenda, we have a presentation from Peninsula Streams Society, and I believe it is Alison Weber.

Speaker I · Mr. Mayor?

Speaker A · Yes, Councilor Thompson.

Speaker C · Just to let you know that my video camera, for some reason, isn't working.

Speaker A · Understood.

Speaker J · I am here.

Speaker A · Appreciate your confirming that. When we saw you pop up, I assumed you were. But we also have Councillor Paltiel online, so thank you for voicing your presence.

Speaker F · Just to make sure you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. My name is Alison Weber and I work with Peninsula Stream Society. If you don't know us, we are a local nonprofit focused on restoring streams in the area.

Speaker A · Just for the record, can I get you to speak closely into the microphone just so that it gets captured on the video and for those online?

Speaker F · Yeah, and feel free to speak up if I'm ever turning away and it's not being picked up. But yeah, as I was saying, we're a nonprofit focused on restoring streams across the peninsula, specifically focused on restoring habitat for species like salmon and cutthroat trout. And I lead our water quality monitoring program. And so today I'll be chatting a little bit about our water. Water quality monitoring that we've been doing in partnership with the District of Central Saanich over the past 20 years. So before we begin, I'd like to start off by acknowledging that this monitoring takes place in the traditional territories of the Wessanich peoples, specifically the Sayaut and Sartlit First Nations.

Speaker F · I'd like to recognize their ongoing stewardship of these lands and these waters. And yeah, just the monitoring that we do, it's for the purpose of restoring and protecting these watersheds. And so we really hope to honor the history of stewardship that these nations have, as well as really respect the. The importance and deep significance that these lands and these waters hold for these nations. So for some background, the Central Saanich Water Quality Monitoring program encompasses two watersheds. So Kwanis, also known as Hagen and Graham Creeks, as well as the Tatayet or Sandhill Creek watershed. And so our monitoring officially began with support from DCS in 2005, and then monitoring only of the Qantas watershed. And then in 2011, we added to tie it to the program as well.

Speaker F · And so this program was initially founded in restoration. So in the early 2000s, we wrapped up a restoration project in Kwanis Watershed and from there kind of blossomed this ongoing monitoring project to continue on our work in the Kwanus watershed. And so today the main purpose, and this was also the initial purpose as well when it was founded, is to monitor drainage that Teteat and Qanus receive from, from the Keating Industrial Park. And so, given that we've conducted this program for now over 20 years, we have one of the most temporally extensive water quality data sets on the island. And from there we can use that data set to inform ongoing restoration and watershed management work.

Speaker F · That's kind of the key tenant of this program as well as it's a great way of identifying contaminant concerns, tracking long term changes. And another key aspect of this is that we have volunteers going out monthly. And so we always have eyes on the creek. And so these volunteers are very quickly able to identify if anything is amiss and take the necessary action if needed, very quickly. And lastly, one of the key tenets of this program is data availability. So all of the data that we collect is shared with members of the community and from there can be used by partners like first nations, like dcs, with groups like CRD, and with local stewardship groups to use that data for their own restoration projects and for their own environmental management to ultimately better the streams and habitat of Central Saanich.

Speaker A · By the way, I appreciate the photo of my late friend Dennis Kuplan there.

Speaker F · Yeah, Dennis was a pioneer in our water quality monitoring. So. Yeah. So on the slide here you can see the map of all of our monitoring sites across Qantas and totteit. We have 15 sites. So there's six in Qantas and nine in Totteyit. And these sites are sampled monthly by our trained volunteers who go out and they take both infield measurements and they also collect water samples and sediment samples to be analyzed by lab. So all of the 15 sites are measured for physical parameters. So physical entails just things like ph, temperature, oxygen, turbidity, conductivity. Two sites per watershed are measured for nutrients. And so nutrients entails things like ammonia, nitrites, nitrates.

Speaker F · Those are things commonly found in agricultural runoff and fertilizers. And then one site per watershed in red is the site that receives the Keating industrial outfall. And so that is our most heavily tested site. It's analyzed for heavy metals, it's analyzed for fecal coliforms and for hydrocarbons, which are contaminants associated with fuel sources. So all of our data is available publicly, as I mentioned, on an open access public database called Pacific Data Stream and all you have to do is just Google Pacific Data Stream and from there you can search Tataid and Qantas. And Data Stream is really great because you can see all of our monitoring sites for all of our parameters and they have really great visualization tools as well.

Speaker F · So you can see the data in a number of different graphs. And it also contains government guideline limits where applicable. So you'll be able to contextualize the concentration levels whether they're high and whether they're of concern or not. Today I'm going to keep this presentation really high level because I have a finite amount of time and there is over 20 years of data for over 15 sites for over 15 different parameters. So you can imagine that's a lot of data. But all of the analysis is done in our annual reports which have been shared internally with the District of Central Saanich. And we're also in the process of getting those up on our website. So stay tuned if you're interested in learning more about the nitty gritty data of the watersheds in the area.

Speaker F · So for some of you who may not have a science background, and before I get really into the data, I'm going to be talking very specifically about specific, specific types of metals and nutrients. But for reference, heavy metals are directly harmful to organisms that live in the stream. They tend to have adverse physiological effects on fish, and depending on the concentrations, they can be lethal. Nutrients are directly toxic to organisms. However, some are indirectly. So think of like a fertilizer ending up in a stream can result in an algal bloom. Those algal blooms can lead to hypoxic conditions or low oxygen, which can then indirectly harm the organisms of the stream. Hydrocarbons can be broken down into two groups. There's tehs and PAHs. And tehs stands for Total Extractable Hydrocarbons.

Speaker F · It's kind of just like a blanket term. It's indicative of poor water quality, just generally. But PAHs are polyaromatic hydrocarbons, which are essentially just the really toxic compounds that are found within these hydrocarbon sources and those are directly harmful to organisms. Biological refers to fecal coliforms, which aren't directly harmful to fish. However, it is indicative of overall poor water quality. And of course it is harmful to humans who are recreating in the area. And then lastly, physical oxygen, ph, temperature, those sorts of things. It's just a range that you need to be in to live and it's specific to the parameter. So for today I'm going to keep a really broad sort of overview of the data.

Speaker F · And for this slide, I'm going to be lumping both Qantas and Tetteit together and I'm going to be looking at the entire monitoring period. So in the past when PSS has done presentations, we've only looked at the previous year. But given that this is our 20th anniversary, I analyzed all of the data over the entire monitoring period. So I've broken down this table into persistent concerns and improvements. So there's a number of parameters that we see time and time again over the 20 years of sampling across Qantas and Tete IT. And that is we often see elevated concentrations of copper, iron and zinc. We also see frequent phosphorus guidelines. We do also see heavy metals in sediment as well as some hydrocarbon contamination.

Speaker F · However, improvement wise, we are seeing reductions in cadmium exceedances. Cadmium is a particularly toxic chemical or metal to fish. It's known to be lethal at certain concentrations. Concentrations. We are seeing improvements in nutrients. So those fertilizer sources that I was referencing at select sites, turbidity and dissolved oxygen concentrations are also improving at select sites. And we are seeing declines in PAHs, those really toxic hydrocarbon detections. One thing also to note is in the past, historically we have seen really high concentrations in fecal coliforms in these streams. However, In August of 2025, we switched labs, and since then, the concentrations that we've been recording have been significantly lower. So it's possible there may have been some analytical method differences at the previous lab.

Speaker F · And so we'll have to keep watching those fecal columns to see if they stay nice and low. Where they at right now? Where they're at right now. Excuse me. So, and then I wanted to examine how Qantas and Tetayit compare against each other. So again, I know this is a lot of information. I'll walk you all through it. On the top, we have kind of more of our negative impacts, but on the bottom, we have our improvements or our positive impacts. So overall, Qantas tends to have higher concentrations or higher guideline exceedance levels than Titayit does of heavy metals. However, Tataya tends to struggle more with nutrient loading, so likely more agricultural runoff as well as hydrocarbon exceedances as well.

Speaker F · On the positive side of that, even though Qantas is struggling with higher nutrient, higher metals, I should say, than tete it, many of those metals are decreasing over the course of the monitoring period. So we have seen declines in lead, zinc, phosphorus and copper concentrations, as well as decreases in high turbidity events and low Oxygen events and to tay it, although it is struggling with high nutrients, we are seeing reductions in ammonia, which is the most toxic nutrient to organisms in the creek like fish. We're also seeing decreases in mercury guideline exceedances in Titayid as well. So then you might ask, how do these results compare to other streams in the region?

Speaker F · So I took a whole bunch of CRD data of other water quality parameters from streams like Colquitt's, Craig Flower, Sachem Creek as well as some associated tributaries. And then I focused only on some of the main parameters that are of concern in Qantas and Tetteit to see how they fare. And we have Qantas in green and Teteat in orange. And what's really worth noting here is that for copper and zinc, Qantas and Teteat both are higher in their median concentration compared to other streams in the region. However, I do want to say, to interpret this very cautiously, there are a number of differences in the analytical methods that CRD may use than what we might use.

Speaker F · There could be differences in frequency of sampling, time of year, those sorts of things. And also it's worth noting that the sites that we take these heavy metal sample analysis samples at is sites that are directly receiving drainage from the Keating Industrial Park. So the other sites from across the region might just be the main stem of a creek. And so those sites could just be more dilute in their contaminant concentrations. So interesting. But it's not the end all be all here. So I know that was a lot of information all at once. Some of the general summary and takeaway here is that copper, zinc and hydrocarbons are some of the main key concerns for both of these watersheds at these sites that receive drainage from Keating Industrial.

Speaker F · Kantas is more impacted by metals, like I said, than totteyte and Teteit is more impacted by nutrients. However, on the bright side, over the 20 year monitoring period we are seeing very few cases of worsening conditions and concentrations of parameters. Most of them are either staying constant or several are improving. So we are seeing improvements in cadmium, those poly aromatic hydrocarbons, those toxic compounds from fuel sources, fecal coliforms and nutrients like ammonia, which is the most toxic nutrient to organisms. So one of the main strengths of the central sandage monitoring program is its involvement in an engagement of community members. So we've done a number of different local business engagement campaigns.

Speaker F · So we called them the Keating Industrial Park Watershed Protection Initiative. And essentially these were campaigns going around to businesses in the Keating Industrial park teaching Them about pollution into nearby streams, healthy stormwater practices, that sort of thing. And over the years, we found these to be successful, where we noticed measurable declines in concentrations following these campaigns. Another key backbone of this program is it relies on volunteers. So our volunteers go out monthly and collect all these samples. And over the years, over the 20 years, we've logged over 3,500 volunteer hours, which is equivalent to 150 days of volunteering. So pretty amazing with over 85 different people helping out with this cause. And again, I really want to stress the value that these volunteers have in having eyes on the creek. Right.

Speaker F · So we have people going out regularly, and they can quickly identify when things go wrong. So, for example, in 2023, we had volunteers out sampling at Tatayet, and they noticed some odors coming off of the creek, and from there, they were able to identify that there was a sewage leak, and that was able to be addressed quickly. So obviously, that's a huge win for both the community and the watershed and just the health and habitat of that stream. As I mentioned, initially, this program was founded in restoration. And so one of the key tenets is its application to restoration and informing restoration and watershed improvement.

Speaker F · So over the years, our data set has been used in projects like our Make a Witch restoration, which we are currently working on in partnership with Startlet First Nation. It's focused on restoring a section of Hagen Creek for coastal cutthroat trout. We've also done a number of restoration projects into Tayet with support from, say, out First Nation. And more recently, our water quality data has supported Westanich Land Trust Society's recent restoration and work at Seacol or Mabor Flats. So really amazing to see how our data can be applied to community initiatives and from there, improve the habitat overall. So for our future directions, we hope to continue to leverage this data set for future restoration work, for future watershed management and improvement.

Speaker F · We're also hoping to continue monitoring those parameters of concern, particularly copper, and also those fecal coliforms like I mentioned, to see if they do continue to stay low. We're also interested in potentially examining emerging contaminants. So some of you may have heard of 6 PPD quinone. It's a compound that comes off of tires, like when you're driving on the road, and it wears against the road. Rainwater washes into the stream and washes those particles into the stream. And that compound is particularly lethal to coho salmon and coastal cutthroat trout, which are two species commonly found in the streams in this area. And so that's something we could potentially investigate, depending if DCS is interested. But, yeah, going forward, I think we really just want to stress that we have, you know, a dedicated volunteer body who know these streams.

Speaker F · They're community members, they've been involved for years, and we have the community partnerships and, you know, we have the expertise of these streams, given our background. And so if there's anything that DCS wants to see or community members want to see, we are here to help and we're here to support you all. So with that, thank you so much for listening and thank you so much to DCS for the ongoing support over these 20 years. It's really been immensely helpful and yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions as well as. Feel free to email me and I'm always down for a chat if anybody has any questions on the data or anything like that. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you for the thorough presentation and I'll look to members of council here if there are any questions. Councillor Newton?

Speaker G · Yep.

Speaker D · Not so much a question, but just a thank you for the work that Peninsula Streams has done historically and continues to do. It's really appreciated. I know that you've worked closely with the engineering department on identifying some key challenges from that point, and I saw and was reading in the notes and the report about the declining numbers in some of the heavy metals that you're seeing. And I'm happy to see that, especially given the transition with some of the businesses in the Keating industrial area. But I would say from that perspective, is there something that you could see that we could do more of to try and continue that trend and reduction of that?

Speaker F · Yeah, there's definitely a lot of different ways you could approach declining the concentrations, I think, for sure. You know, I think engaging the businesses in the Keating area is always helpful just to, you know, sometimes management changes and having them know where their, like, stormwater is ending up, when they're washing their equipment or anything like that. I think that's always helpful. I do want to say Ivan from DCS has been immensely helpful and I think he mentioned in the past, you know, rerouting some storm drains into sewer rather than into the streams. And I think that's more been huge for also diverting some of the contaminants that end up in the stream as well. Yeah. And also just continuing the monitoring.

Speaker K · Right.

Speaker F · You know, it's really important to see how things change over time and from there, you know, track the mediation and interventions that DCS has conducted to see if they're effective or not. So I think that's also super useful too.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker A · Any other members of council? Not seeing any. Again, thank you for the presentation. It's great to work with Peninsula Streams and sort of like having your own environmental department, but not having one.

Speaker F · Thank you so much.

Speaker A · Thank you for the work you do and thanks to all the volunteers who support the outfit. Many, many years ago, I used to be one of them. Maybe when I'm done being mayor, I'll be one. Okay, we are on to the next item which is the Saanich Peninsula Environment Environmental Coalition. We have presenting Bob Pert. Welcome.

Speaker L · Hello everyone. My name is Bob Peart and I'm the coordinator of spec, the San Diego Peninsula Environmental Coalition. Thank you for the invitation. My presentation will be in two parts. First is an overview of what SPEC is, who we are, our purpose. And the second will be a summary of the community meeting that we had that we hosted on March 7th. And I understand both these documents are in your package, so I'll be referring to them as I speak. Before beginning, I want to acknowledge and thank two of my colleagues here tonight, Mary Morris and Frances Pugh. They've been involved with SPEC since the start and their knowledge of the community, their support and their advice has been really, really critical. So to begin, who is spec?

Speaker L · And you can refer to the RAC card which is in your package. I'll leave some copies for your use. We're a Peninsula wide volunteer community coalition that evolved out of the 2018 Sydney summit that perhaps a few of you attended. There were two summit recommendations that were particularly significant. One was to welcome the adoption of a PAN Peninsula Integrated Management Plan for Habitat and Environment. And the second was to call for municipal and community leaders to work together and advocate for such a collaborative approach. A number of us took these recommendations to heart and after a series of meetings with the three mayors, including Mayor Windsor, the MLA and various community groups, we spawned, we formed spec. Now here it is eight years later.

Speaker L · Isn't that amazing? Anyway, during this period of time we developed a bioregional framework for the Saanich Peninsula, a document we've got and we worked with you and your staff to have the key principles of bi, regional planning, jurisdictional collaboration and ecological integrity incorporated into your OCP and associated documents.

Speaker L · We were moderately successful and we thank you and we thank your staff for their support. So in summary, who we are, we're volunteers from a range of peninsula based like minded groups. Our message, the environment doesn't recognize municipal boundaries. Third, our work, our work focuses on building public recognition and municipal support for improved jurisdictional collaboration, all in an effort to build on the recommendations from the Sydney Summit. However, we all know that the OCP is a policy document and it's nice to have supportive wording. But without clear actions that measure and monitor outcomes, it's hard to determine whether progress is being made. So to this end, 18 months ago we launched Checkup. And Checkup is fundamentally an analysis of how your municipality's described outcomes and actions align with the principles of bioregional management.

Speaker L · To assist us with this analysis, we've partnered with the Action on Climate Change Program at Simon Fraser University. Needless to say, their professional academic approach has brought rigor to checkup, and it's the kind of rigor that SPEC could not have accomplished on their own through our volunteer work and organizations. Thus, at the March 7 community meeting, the summary notes in your package together we are making a difference. And before outlining the results of that meeting, I want to thank Councillor Sarah Riddell for attending the meeting and making a few remarks on your behalf, Mr. Mayor. The purpose of the March 7th meeting was twofold one, to update the community on Spec's checkup efforts to date and secondly to gather specific feedback on a set of six indicators that have been identified as critically important to bioregional planning, nature based solutions, living shorelines, tree canopy cover, landscape conductivity, healthy watersheds, agriculture and food systems.

Speaker L · There's more detail on each of these described in the meeting notes. As I mentioned, SFU conducted an analytic research of EUROCP as well as Sydney's and North Saanich's. At the meeting, this analysis was presented to those in attendance and the following themes emerged. Although climate is acknowledged in each ocp, addressing climate is best approached collectively, not municipality by municipality. The OCP content recognized that nature and the environment span municipal boundaries. However, there is little evidence of shared ecological priorities, common approach to natural assets management, or mapping frameworks. While jurisdictional collaboration was mentioned as being valued, it tended to happen only informally. As a result, environmental concerns are being addressed within each municipality rather than being coordinated. The public's becoming increasingly frustrated by the policy versus Practice gap.

Speaker L · Community residences are experiencing a significant disconnect between what's written in the ocps and what is often actually happening on the ground. During the workshop portion of the meeting, these four themes were discussed by attendees and we got the following feedback there's public expectation that the three municipalities should coordinate their approach, particularly to the management of natural assets. The public wants to see a renewed commitment by the mayors and councillors to meet jointly on a Regular basis, as was past practice. In order to protect the environment, the municipalities need to better coordinate the management of water riparian property and natural shorelines. Our agricultural lands are critical. So the municipalities need to better support the Peninsula Agricultural Commission.

Speaker L · And there's a need for an inter municipal advisory body to address these issues. Perhaps something like a San Ditch Peninsula Environmental Advisory Commission. Whether a formal or an informal body, something like this commission is needed to enable bioregional planning. So to conclude, the residents of the Sandish Peninsula have strong environmental values. They recognize the positive efforts that are being made at the municipal level. Given your limited capacity. However, they do expect the three local governments to collaborate and work together. Protect the health of the Peninsula and the health of its citizens. As to our next steps, SPEC and Simon Fraser are preparing a final public report of this research.

Speaker L · Report will be publicly available in early June and will be circulated to you. If you have any questions about the report, please follow up with me. And in addition, over the summer months, SPEC will be developing our approach for the upcoming municipal elections in October. October we'll be outlining our expectations for the candidates regarding their position on the three key principles of BI regional planning. In particular, jurisdictional collaboration. So thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. Any information about SPEC or our activities you can contact me or that can be found on the Placespeak URL site found at the bottom of the rack card in your binder. So, thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you. Mr. Peart. Any questions from members of council? I do not see any. So thank you again for your presentation and the work that you do in those key areas. Six of them as you identified in your presentation. Thank you.

Speaker L · Okay, thank you. I'll just give these to Jarrett.

Speaker A · Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Okay. Next item before us council is item 12. 1. Correspondence from the. I guess it's the chair of PAC about the minutes. Any. It's for information unless there are any questions. Not seeing any.

Speaker A · Okay, we move on then to council member reports under item 3. 13. 3. Any members of council wishing to report? Councillor Newton,

Speaker I · thank you.

Speaker D · Just along with Councillor Riddle and Mayor Windsor attended the Savage Inlet Protection Society roundtable discussion that was held at the Fire Hall. It was a full house and Mayor wizard spoke about some of the challenges that we see and have tried to deal with in the inlet. But I just wanted to acknowledge the work done by that organization specifically around the reinstitution of the Pumpty Dumpty Pump out boat and the service that that's going to be providing in the. In the inlet. In the bay. It's something that we've been working hard on here at the council table and it's happy to see that it's up and running again to the hard work of many people involved in that.

Speaker D · So I look forward to seeing how that rolls out and the success of that in the future.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councillor. Yes, the resurrection of Pumpty, who was retired for a while but has come back, is definitely a moving event. Okay, any other member reports seeing?

Speaker K · None.

Speaker A · We move on to the next item. Item 14. 1. As was already alluded to, I flagged this item. It's an application made by a family member and therefore I will step out of the chamber and ask the acting Mayor to assume the role of chair for this item. You can come and take this seat if you so wish.

Speaker D · Bear with me. It's been some time since I've chaired a meeting.

Speaker C · Where are we?

Speaker D · 10. 12 point.

Speaker F · 14. 1.

Speaker D · 14. 1. So I guess I'll see that there's a report from the Director of Planning and Building Services to be introduced by Mr. Patanowich, please.

Speaker I · Thank you, Mr.

Speaker G · Chair.

Speaker I · Applications have been received for the property at 6181B Old West Saanich Road for a Farm Protection development Permit and an Agricultural Land Commission non enduring residential use. The application is to convert an existing accessory building into a carriage house. The two bedroom unit would be constructed on the second floor and an existing built in an existing building that is close to the principal residence. The existing footprint would increase slightly due to the addition of exterior stairs which are required to meet the bylaw regulations to have separate entrances and a proposed sun deck as well. The unit would be accessed by an existing driveway and no impact to the existing farmland is anticipated.

Speaker I · With respect to the district's regulations, the proposed residential use is within the maximum permitted floor area and meets the setbacks and height restrictions. In addition, the proposal is in line with the OCB guidelines for the protection of farming. This application could be considered by staff. However, due to the need for a non adhering residential use application to the alc, both applications are presented to council for consideration in alignment with our development procedures bylaw. The ALC portion of the application is triggered due to the lower floor of the existing building being 6 square meters over the 90 square meter maximum that is permitted. The residential unit complies with the ALC regulations otherwise and staff have no concerns with these minor deviations. Should council support the application, the development permit would be authorized for issuance subject to approval by the Agricultural Land Commission.

Speaker I · For the non Enduring residential use application and the council motion to support the application would be sent to the LC for their consideration. Thank you.

Speaker D · Thank you. Any questions from council?

Speaker C · Yes,

Speaker D · Councillor Thompson? Yes, go ahead.

Speaker C · Thank you. It appears that this is both consistent with ALC and our bylaws. However, the report states. I just need to pull this up. The OCP states do not support applications for non farm uses and non adhering residential uses on agricultural lands unless demonstrated that the proposed use would directly support and complement agricultural operations.

Speaker C · I don't see any specific reference to how this would support and complement agriculture, is there? I'm curious how the staff would respond, Mr. Potanovich.

Speaker I · Thank you. Through Mr. Chair. I think in this case the impact on farming is negligible. It's an existing building, so there's no new footprint being created in terms of the OCP policy that was put in place prior to the changes that were made at the district to permit these types of dwelling units on ALR land and on rural lands. So as a permitted use, it's. It is an outright permitted use and it does show alignment with our guidelines in terms of the ALC requirements. That is a hard and fast line of 90 square meters for the garage. And because it's 6 meters of over it, it does require that non ad during residential use. So if it was 6 square meters less, it wouldn't even need to go to the ALC and staff have.

Speaker I · The council has delegated this to staff for the development permit as well. So we would look at it in terms of its alignment with the guidelines and the staff's opinion as presented in the report. It does align with the guidelines. But because our procedures bylaw says that where there's multiple applications and one of them has to be considered by council, we bring all of the applications to council. So that's why you see the development permit and the ALC application together this evening.

Speaker D · Did that answer your question, Councillor Thompson?

Speaker C · Yes, it did answer. Well, sort of. I mean, I understand that this clearly is consistent with required guidelines bylaws. It's just that the OCP seems to be a bit out of step in terms of perhaps dated in with respect to this application.

Speaker D · Anything further, Councillor Thompson?

Speaker C · No, thanks.

Speaker D · Okay. Councillor Peltiel,

Speaker J · thank you. And can you hear me okay?

Speaker D · Yes.

Speaker J · I just want to make sure through you to staff or the applicant, just that, that if I'm reading correctly, it doesn't look as though the dwelling proposed or has any impact to the actual existing building footprint. And is there any impact to parking proposed. Therefore, the arability of the Remaining lands.

Speaker I · Thank you.

Speaker G · Through Mr.

Speaker I · Chair. It's all contained right near the building where the existing parking is located for the garage.

Speaker J · And no additional parking is needed for this. It all works with.

Speaker I · That's correct. It would all fit well with right around that area of the building and the driveway.

Speaker J · Okay, thank you.

Speaker D · Any other questions from council? Not seeing any. And again, just.

Speaker C · Yep.

Speaker D · Councillor Peltiel, I see you.

Speaker J · Pardon me? No, not a question. I was gonna make a motion.

Speaker D · Please go ahead.

Speaker J · I was gonna move recommendations one through three.

Speaker K · Second.

Speaker D · Seconded. Any discussion?

Speaker A · Councillor Peltiel, just to speak to this,

Speaker J · as the mover, I believe this is a fairly consistent application with items that have been supported by council in the past and have been supported by the ALC in the past. Ultimately, I look forward to seeing what the ALC has to say on this item. And ultimately, I feel that generally being that there is no impact to the building envelope, nor is there an impact to the disturbance for parking or any other services. It does, in my opinion, meet the best practices outlined by the Ministry of Agriculture when it comes to residential applications on ALR land. And therefore I can support this application.

Speaker D · Any other speakers seeing. None. I'll call the question. Any opposed? I see none opposed. Motion passes unanimously and I will call the mayor back in.

Speaker K · Okay,

Speaker A · thank you. Moving to the next item, we are on item 14. 2 respecting 7815 Wallace Drive. And I'll look to our Director of Planning and Building Services to introduce the item. And then I understand the applicant has some representatives here as well.

Speaker I · That's correct.

Speaker K · Thank you.

Speaker I · A request has been made to amend a covenant registered on title as a condition of rezoning for the property at 1932 Mountain Crossroad, which is now 7815 Wallace Drive. The site is currently being developed and the owner is in the process of securing an occupant for the ground floor commercial space for medical offices. The request is to amend the covenant by no longer requiring the nine visitor parking spaces to be shared between commercial and residential visitors during business hours. The proposal is to have the nine visitor parking spaces restricted to commercial parking between the hours of 8am and 6pm and outside of business hours, parking will be shared between the commercial and residential visitors.

Speaker I · The development consists of 28 residential units which would each have one parking stall and then the nine visitor parking spaces for the commercial during the day. The number of parking spaces was varied by Council in 2021, and there was a parking study associated with this. Another memo from a parking consultant is provided with this application. And is included in council's package. Support from the consultant was based on time of day difference with respect to parking demand between the two uses and signage was recommended to be put in place to advise visitors of the parking restrictions. And as you mentioned Mr. Mayor, the developers applicant or sorry the developer's consultant is here today as well. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you. Just before we move to that Councillor Graham.

Speaker K · Well just perhaps the president. Anyways I was just thinking that as a question for this, as a compromise perhaps instead of saying that it's not available for the residents during the day because based on the earlier comments I think there was a good point about perhaps drop offs and things that could occur during the day for the residents or unloading, unpacking is perhaps limiting. The developer could perhaps think about having the Parking Ltd. Between 8 and 6 to 1 hour parking or which I think would meet the needs of anybody who's visiting for a commercial use. But it could be used as simply as whether it's commercial or residential. So that. And then after that period of time it would just be. Parking would be available overnight.

Speaker A · Staff, did you have a response to that?

Speaker I · Certainly the covenant, if the covenant's amended we can put those types of arrangements into the covenant. I would certainly want to hear from the applicant in terms of their the potential occupants business needs. But staff did discuss not having all nine be dedicated to the business during the day. Maybe there's a lower number that's dedicated so. But this is what the applicant put forward to for the district to consider.

Speaker A · Certainly we will hear from the applicant just now. If council amended the covenant to put some restriction in the covenant that allowed this but had some conditions. It would be incumbent on the strata to adhere to and enforce those, would it not?

Speaker I · It'd be incumbent on the strata to adhere to them. The district would be party to that covenant. So we would be the enforcers of that covenant.

Speaker A · Yeah, I don't think we necessarily want to be in the position of sorting out what's probably a strata item but nonetheless let's hear from from the applicant.

Speaker M · Good evening to the mayor and Council. In 2019 what Consulting Group completed the original parking study at the subject site at 1932 Mount Newton Crossroads, which is now of course 7815 Wallace Drive. The report noted several elements of sort of transportation focused positives such as five bus routes, the plan to opening the PAT Bay as a rapid bus corridor as well as a proposed park and ride. The report also where a lot of the data for this update memo has come come from provided the following bits of data. Data was collected by observation 3 visitor parking spaces were provided or were proposed based on a 0. 1 unit or parking spaces per unit ratio and medical offices were used for the land use only.

Speaker M · The previous study also mentioned shared parking to reduce the parking demand on site, indicating that visitors would use provided commercial parking spaces outside of business hours. Our 2026 update memo uses the Urban Land Institute's third edition for shared parking and supports the usage of commercial parking by residents outside of business hours after 6pm and before 8am when offices are most likely to be closed. Of course, as parking becomes more expensive and empty vehicle parking spaces become a less efficient usage of space, these shared parking arrangements are becoming more and more common and continue to be supported throughout the Greater Victoria municipalities. It is recommended by Watt Consulting Group that a shared parking arrangement be permitted for this.

Speaker A · Okay, any questions? Councilor Thompson, thank you.

Speaker C · You can hear me. Okay, we can. Good. Thank you. My question is the commercial component, does that include employee parking?

Speaker M · Yes, it would include employee parking.

Speaker C · Do we have a sense? For example, let's assume this is a medical office. How many patients or visitors. Bad term, not visitors, but clients would be expected at any one time.

Speaker M · That would have been found within the original study. However, we don't necessarily have the exact number of patients at this point in time. Sorry, that was outside of the scope of the update memo.

Speaker C · I mean, my concern really overall with this has been the potential impact on neighboring commercial properties, that is the station building where there have been issues. And so I'm hoping that this amount of commercial space is adequate, that we're not going to see folks flooding over to the station building to park, given the fact there's such limited parking in that area on street parking. So that's. Those are my questions. Mr. Mayor, my comments.

Speaker A · Thank you. I think they've been responded to. So, any other members of council wishing to. Councillor Graham,

Speaker K · I really don't want to be in a situation where we're enforcing private parking, so perhaps there's some way to just do something with cut this out of the covenant and make or just have the stratas. I'm assuming there's a commercial strata and a residential strata and having them the signatures to the covenant, the two stratas and have the district out of this entirely.

Speaker H · So.

Speaker K · So they can deal with their issues in the future. Is that a possible option?

Speaker I · Certainly through Mr. Mayor, counsel could withdraw the covenant, perhaps. I just note that this wouldn't be here if we didn't have the covenant and this would just be the Property.

Speaker A · I think what Councillor Graham is getting at is not necessarily removing the Covenant, but removing us as a party to the Covenant, which we wouldn't do. We need to be part of it.

Speaker H · But.

Speaker A · But perhaps the Covenant would simply say that the district would not have any enforcement. It would be up to the strata. So that would be an addendum, I think that would maybe accomplish what you're after, Councillor Graham. So if council were to go down this route, that it would simply say, covenant is amended thusly and the Strata must enforce as appropriate, such as if there were, you know, certain shared visitor stalls or limitations on parking, that those would be a Strata responsibility with no option to come to the district.

Speaker I · Yeah, that's certainly doable. The Covenant could just establish the framework and then the Strata would have to manage it that way.

Speaker K · Yes, I would move the staff recommendation with that language.

Speaker A · Okay. I think it's understood what's being put. Is there a seconder for that motion? Seconded. Thank you. And any further speakers? Councillor Riddle and then Councillor Newt.

Speaker B · Thank you. So I'm just trying to process the implications of what you've proposed there, because I do have to say I had the exact same concerns as a speaker earlier, I think, about who the likely tenants or owners in that building could be. I can see all of those things that were mentioned. Home care, dog walkers, family helping out, you know, anyone visiting, if they have any sort of accessibility challenge. Not being able to park nearby could be a significant problem. And there's already been quite significant parking variances granted here. So we're talking about having no. For people visiting this building to park at all during the day.

Speaker B · And so if we're kind of extracting ourself and allowing them to work out, and that's the likely outcome, Just to confirm that, I'm not going to support that. I understand the difficulty trying to find a tenant and obviously we do want a medical clinic in there. I'm not sure what kind of medical clinic it is. Depending on the public benefit that might be relevant here as well. But I guess we'll. Those are my thoughts for now. And if this is what we're going with and the implications are there could be no parking, then I won't be supporting it.

Speaker A · Okay. Just to advise the speaker, we have a motion on the floor, so you can take your seat. That wasn't necessarily a question to staff, or was there an element of that? That was a question to staff, I guess.

Speaker B · So just to surface the question and then if we go with this. This emotion as amended, and take Ourselves out of the equation. We would be allowing them to work out an arrangement where there's no daytime visitor parking. Just want to confirm that.

Speaker I · That, that would be correct. Yes. Yeah.

Speaker B · Okay. I'll say I am open to other compromises, other approaches, but I won't support this one.

Speaker A · Councilor Peltier. Oh, sorry. Councillor Newton and then Councillor Paltiel.

Speaker H · Sure.

Speaker D · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess similar question to Councillor Riddle, which was answered there was. You know, I don't want to discourage the commercial aspect of this and certainly the medical services intent of this. And I don't know whether I read in here whether it was a pharmacy or a medical office that was being proposed or what is being considered by the commercial side of it. Do we have an idea of what that is?

Speaker I · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Perhaps the applicant could describe the proposed use. My understanding is it's a medical clinic operated by a pharmacy operator, but I would certainly look to them for clarity on that.

Speaker A · I mean, I think that understanding the parking needs and the request is one thing. It meets the medical use and intention of the covenant. I'm not sure we should be parsing whether a parking variance is acceptable because it's one type of medical or another. It either meets the medical criteria of the covenant or it doesn't. And I don't think we should be parsing that out. And we do have a motion on the floor. So if we're going to table it, just be mindful that we have to be cautious about judging one type of use versus the other. It's the parking demands and the request. That's what before us.

Speaker A · And whether or not council deems that reasonable against the loss of visitor park.

Speaker D · Okay, yeah, then. Well, as as amended, then, I. You know, I think there may be a better compromise to support the needs of the residents. Again, given the variances that were already accommodated.

Speaker A · If you want to table the motion in order to understand. No, no, you do not wish to. Okay. Councillor Peltiel,

Speaker J · motion to table.

Speaker A · Okay. Is there a second or for said motion, what is the purpose of tabling?

Speaker J · I'd like to ask the applicant or their representatives a question.

Speaker A · Okay, I'll second then. And then, are there any opposed to tabling? No. Okay, it's tabled. Go ahead, Councillor.

Speaker J · Thank you. So, for context to this question, I believe is that I, you know, as I look around the chamber right now and from online and hearing the feedback from my colleagues, what I don't want to see here is the staff recommended motion and the consultant recommended direction fail because there's concern about residential visitor parking being impacted in this.

Speaker J · Where I have a significant amount of respect for where this application is at and the work done to date is this building was a very tired old medical clinic existing in the district. When the rezoning went through, Council of the day asked the applicant to work in earnest through a covenant and restrictive land uses to secure medical use. The applicant has done that and it's clear that through those negotiations we're in a position now where we're being asked to create a concession upon their concession to make this viable for them. So I am trying to be both respectful and alive to the fact that the applicant has worked to execute the vision and the request of counsel, and that's why they're in front of us today.

Speaker J · And I don't think anyone at this table wants to see us potentially forego the opportunity of a medical use within the Sanichton Village in an area where we know from our residents it is so very much needed on so many different accounts.

Speaker J · So I will stop preambling and get to my question now. My question is, if this was to earn support from our council and ensure that this does move forward, would the applicant be able to make one of the nine stalls, both commercial and visitor use during that business hour window? That's recommended in the report. And the remaining eight stalls commercial only during the business window, as is outlined in the report. So we're talking about changing one stall to commercial and visitor, and the remaining of them would be as recommended and as moved within the motion. So A, I guess, is that possible? B, is that feasible from the perspective of the. Of the traffic consultant?

Speaker A · Thank you, Councillor. I assume that that would be accomplished by some kind of shared parking sign, but I'll look to the applicant to respond to the feasibility.

Speaker J · Correct. That was my intent.

Speaker M · At this point in time, based on the land use of medical clinic and visitor, we only expect to see about a 20% likelihood of demand for this stall at the time or throughout the day until about 4pm and that's for the or for residential visitors.

Speaker M · As a result, I would say there is less likelihood to have competition for this stall and it would be within reasonable expectations to allow for the shared usage of the.

Speaker A · Okay, so you can accommodate potentially one with a sign based on the 20% demand potentially for that time of day.

Speaker M · Correct.

Speaker A · Okay, the answer is effectively yes then. Okay, thank you.

Speaker J · Understood.

Speaker A · Sorry, we have a follow up. Councillor Riddle.

Speaker B · Thank you. Yeah, so you can feel free to rule me out of order, but I'm just to going curious. For me, the type of medical clinic when we're thinking about the benefit to the community and making trade offs for residents that have visitors or may need support in their home, and then the benefit that the clinic could offer. So are we talking about a medically necessary, publicly accessible, public serving medical clinic? Are we talking about a private clinic?

Speaker A · The question is on the line in some respects in that I assume during a negotiating phase you also don't have to disclose publicly. So it's a choice of the applicant to disclose or simply respond that it meets the spirit of the covenant. I'll allow the question, but I understand the parameters in which they may be operating if there is a response.

Speaker M · So any I. Commercial is currently managed.

Speaker F · Sorry, I hate to interrupt. Can I just get your microphone on?

Speaker M · Sorry. NAI Commercial is currently managing over 50 properties across Vancouver island and is surrounding Gulf Islands, including Pioneer Square Mall, Heritage shopping Center located in central Saanich. And they also have a listed agent for future management company for the Cento development at 1932 Mount Newton Crossroad,

Speaker N · which

Speaker A · is now referenced as 3815 Wallace. But just so we're clear.

Speaker H · Yeah.

Speaker D · And did you want to.

Speaker B · If that's okay, I. I'd like to circulate this letter to all of the councilors and mayor.

Speaker C · Excuse me, Mr. Mayor.

Speaker A · Yeah.

Speaker C · If you're not speaking to the microphone, then those online councilors can't hear.

Speaker A · So one of the representatives appears to be presenting counsel with a letter. I'm curious how the letter pertains to what's in front of us. I'm not sure that that's new information. That is the nature of the request.

Speaker A · The question was asked, how much can you disclose about the use and understanding that it's at a preliminary stage and this application is being made subject to conditional real estate transaction. I presume it may not be appropriate for you to answer at this point and if that's the case, simply say so.

Speaker B · Sorry, my name is Aaron Glaser. I work for nai. My colleague Ken and I are marketing the space. We do currently have an interested party which is Joe's Pharmacy, an operating tenant in the central Saanich district. And he intends to buy this property and have it be a medical clinic. And so our opinion is if you do not have commercial parking, it will not work.

Speaker A · So the nature of the previous question was can a. The request was for nine.

Speaker B · Yes.

Speaker A · Can one of the nine be shared? We heard yes, I think so.

Speaker C · Yep.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker C · Yeah.

Speaker A · So you're reaffirming that.

Speaker M · That.

Speaker B · That that's news to Me today, but.

Speaker A · Well, this is. This is a council generated response to if there was no visitor parking during daytime hours, what would happen? It's been asked by a couple of members of council. Yeah, the motion was tabled in order to get that information. I think we now have that information. What is here is the. Is the basis of the application which council understood and will debate in. In the motion.

Speaker H · Yes.

Speaker A · I'm not sure what additional new information this provides. What.

Speaker B · What we're saying is if there is no commercial parking allocated to a medical clinic, we will not be able to find a tenant at all.

Speaker A · Yeah, we understand that and that's the nature of the request in the first place. So we've heard it through staff, it's come to us, we've had a response. So we definitely understand the nature of the request. It's up to us to determine how or what action we're going to take in that respect. So appreciate this and I appreciate the additional. We just have a couple of members online, so they won't be able to see this letter. I just am of the feeling that having looked at this letter that it's consistent with the information we already have and the question has been asked and answered. So unless you had something else to provide that was.

Speaker B · No, but we also submitted this letter to planning earlier today and it's, it's. This isn't a. Like, we're not trying to spring it on anybody.

Speaker A · No, no, no, no, that's fine. But it's consistent with the information before us. So those members online should be reassured that the information in this letter is consistent with the nature of the application. It's not new information.

Speaker F · Yes.

Speaker A · Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Thompson.

Speaker C · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that an idea I had relevant to Councillor Peltiel's suggestion for shared spot. Would it be relevant that there might be some time limit for visitor parking? I mean, we're talking.

Speaker A · Is that a question to the applicant? Because otherwise I would look to bring the motion back to the table.

Speaker F · Okay.

Speaker A · And would welcome then that commentary and question.

Speaker C · Let's move it back to the table.

Speaker A · Okay, so you're moving. Is there a seconder to bring it back to the table? Thank you. Any opposed to bringing it back? No. Okay, thank you. Now you. Your question was. Can you repeat it, Councillor Thompson?

Speaker C · Yes. Basically, in terms of what Councillor Peltiel has suggested, would it be reasonable to suggest that there might be be some time limit on visitor parking in a shared spot so that it's not that someone necessarily comes in and parks for eight Hours, but rather if it's a dog walker or something comes dropping something off, that's like a one hour or two hour time limit.

Speaker A · So I'm going to turn the question to staff. It's probably dependent on the text of the covenant and the specificity. So if the covenant says one spot would be shared and would have a time limit associated with it, I assume it simply needs to be spelled out. But what do you recommend, Steph?

Speaker I · That is correct, Mr. Mayor. Be specific and we can put that directly in the covenant. So eight parking stalls, as is being discussed, would be dead. This is an example would be dedicated to commercial between the business hours and then after that open to all visitors, including residential. And that one parking stall is a shared parking limited to one hour parking only. Something along those lines would work.

Speaker A · So the covenant that the recommendation from the staff with the addition that the district not be responsible for enforcement needs to be further amended to now stipulate that one of the nine spots would be shared and that an appropriate time limit be inserted. So I think I'm capturing that, but I want to make sure that we capture the spirit and the intent to the satisfaction of council, if that's the direction we're headed. Councillor Peltiel.

Speaker J · Yeah, if, if the chair a lot like. I'm happy to move that amendment at that. If that's the appropriate time rail.

Speaker A · Yeah, it's an appropriate time. I just want to be clear what the amendment would be.

Speaker J · Yeah, to be clear, I would move an amendment that one of the nine dedicated commercial daytime stalls and visitor evening stalls is both a commercial and a visitor stall that allows up to one hour parking within the hours allocated for commercial parking.

Speaker A · Thank you. That's the amendment. I think it is clear staff have caught it. Is there a seconder?

Speaker K · Sure.

Speaker A · Thank you. Yes, it has been seconded. Did you wish to discuss the matter further as an amendment or does anyone else wish to weigh in on the amendment? Councillor Riddle?

Speaker B · I think we need more than one shared stall and I think if we had time limit it, we could maybe increase it to three. So I'm. I just. I mean one is better than none. But I'm.

Speaker A · Without overthinking this, you could insert an option into the covenant that if the. The available spots turn out to be a balanced mix, that the strata could readjust. But they'd probably do that anyway. Councillor Graham, I just feel like we're

Speaker K · really getting into the weeds on this

Speaker C · one a little bit.

Speaker K · Even though we're discussing it this long. And I understand the concern when it gets all built out. If there's serious concerns both of the stratas will be involved, it can be brought back to council to be amended at that time. If there's. If it becomes a problem, then covenants can be amended. And I think that we need to see how this plays out and we're not enforcing it. It may not even be an issue. It'll depend on how it works between those two stratas. And regardless, it'll be based on whether there's adequate parking there or not, whether it's residential or commercial. So I think we need to just let this ride itself out and see what comes out of it.

Speaker A · Okay, I will call the question on the amendment. Anyone opposed to the amendment? None are opposed to the amendment. So the main motion then, which I will not rehash because I think we're all clear. Councillor Paltiel?

Speaker J · Yeah. Very briefly, I mean, is it 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, like. The fact is, we asked for medical, we didn't stipulate whether it was private or public medical. We understand that there's a need for both private and public medical. I know there's a lot of people that really love public medical, but I think we can agree that the municipality needs all providers at the table to service the needs of the community. They're willing to make this investment in this commercial space as a medical user. Therefore, I'm sure they're fulfilling a demonstrated need. And ultimately, I think that based on the 20% usage for those visitor stalls that Watt has recommended, I think that one stall is sufficient.

Speaker J · I also know that in cases where buildings achieve occupancy and then a commercial tenant is either over parked or under parked, those are typically items that do get hashed out between the strata, as Councillor Graham had alluded. And so the way that this motion, the staff recommendation has now been amended twice to kind of consolidate the relationship of this commitment between the strata and the commercial tenant as well. The one visitor stall, I believe both addresses feedback as well. Ensures viability for the benefit of residential tenant. Residential owners as well.

Speaker A · Okay. If there are no further speakers on the covenant question, I will put it to vote. Any opposed? Councillor Riddle? Opposed? The motion carries. Okay, the next item of business is 14. 3.

Speaker A · Award of RFP 26014, Construction Manager, Hovey Road Civic Facility. We have a report of the Director of Financial Services, Chief Financial Officer. And I'll look to our Deputy Director of Finance, Strategic Capital Planning to present, please.

Speaker E · Thank you. Through the chair, this report requests Council's approval to award RFP 26014 for Construction Manager services for the Hovey Road Civic facility to Chandos Construction staff are recommended. Approval of the pre construction fee of $37,541 with the balance of the construction construction management services to return to council later as part of a fixed price construction contract. The procurement was completed through a competitive public RFP process and six proposals were received following evaluation and interview. Chandos was the highest scoring proponent and a unanimous recommendation of the evaluation team. Shandos brings relevant experience in complex civic and institutional projects and demonstrated strong capability and early cost planning, constructability review and risk management. The construction management model supports better coordination during design, helps strengthen budget and schedule certainty.

Speaker E · The pre construction fee is within the approved 2026 financial plan and any future construction contract would return to council for approval. Staff are therefore recommending that council approve the award to Shandos Construction as outlined in option one. Thank you and happy to take any questions.

Speaker A · Okay, thank you. Members of council, are there any questions? Councillor Newton, thank you.

Speaker D · I guess what is the role, I mean it's in here briefly, but what is the role of the construction manager that we're looking at approving?

Speaker E · Thank you. Through the chairman, there's actually three roles, so it's broken up into three phases. So there is the pre construction services. So that's where they're going to work with our architect, our designers and they're going to look at constructability as a good example, what materials are we choosing? They're going to look at the schedule, see if there's any risks and things like that. And then they turn to construction services and post construction services. So basically when what they're going to do is tender out, they're going to look at our requirements, look at the construction drawing, they're going to tender out, they're going to create tender packages, we call them work packages and then they're going to bring all that together, come up with a fixed price contract and that's going to be presented to council and then they're going to be the general manager.

Speaker E · In better terms, they're the general manager for the whole construction period and then the post construction as well. So once it's done they're also responsible for warranties and things like that. So those are kind of the three phases of what they're responsible for.

Speaker D · And when would we anticipate this service being enlisted to start?

Speaker E · Thank you to the chair. The services will start in June. It just takes a couple weeks to execute the contract. The post or sorry, the pre construction is going anticipate to last about six to seven months. And that's just $37,000. And then. And then the post construction, or, sorry, construction, and then post construction, obviously after that.

Speaker D · And that second phase would. Is what would come back once we have a much clearer picture of still the road that we're traveling down, correct?

Speaker E · That's correct.

Speaker H · Thank you.

Speaker A · Any other questions? There is a recommendation, if council so wishes. Okay. Need a seconder. Thank you. Any further discussion on the matter, Councillor Newton?

Speaker D · Yeah, thank you. We're still. For me, this is still, you know, a little bit of the cart in front of the horse. We don't know what's still transpiring and the viability of what Hovey could look like. So I appreciate staff bringing this forward, but I just. It's. It's still a bit premature from my perspective.

Speaker A · Okay. Councillor Riddle?

Speaker B · Yeah, thank you. I guess I did have a couple questions that I guess I can still ask.

Speaker O · Right.

Speaker B · We're still on the table. My question was just around what opportunities the public will have to provide input as the design advances. So through this process, I know we've had some feedback provided at meetings and certainly gathered a lot over the past couple years, but I'm just wondering, once we start down this path, what that looks like

Speaker E · through the chair. Right now there is a motion on to provide or gather feedback regarding the Council Chamber area only. So that one will be part of. Of. I think we have it scheduled for June and we're obviously mentioned it to the architects. So we're trying to see which way we can gather the feedback. So we are working on that. But the other areas are not right now open for the public. I would say we do have the working groups for fire and police as a good example and operations. Operationally, we did that so that, you know, operationally they tell us what their requirements are and again, even for the municipal offices as well.

Speaker E · So I would say those areas are probably limited in public feedback, but Council Chamber as motion, I think is a good way to get some public feedback on the build.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you. And I guess people can always write in and share their thoughts with us through the normal processes. Okay. Yeah, I did. I appreciate the work done on this. I did take a look into the recommendation. The recommended company, it looks like they have a lot of good experience on some tricky projects and a solid. Well, B Corp. Like a lot of things that I like to see in a contractor, so I am supportive of moving forward.

Speaker A · Any other speakers before I put the question? Seeing none. Any opposed? Councillor Newton in opposition. The motion carries. Item 14. Point 4 Model Demolition Waste and deconstruction bylaw and I'll look to our director of planning and building services to introduce this item.

Speaker I · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The purpose of this report is to introduce council to the possibility of developing a draft demolition and deconstruction bylaw for the district which would be modeled after one that was provided by the CRD. In a letter that was sent to all municipalities which is included in an appendix of this report, the district showed interest in the salvage and reusable and salvage of reusable and recyclable materials from building demolitions via motion passed in 2021. The the motion asked staff to report back on the success and implications of a similar city of Victoria bylaw. Once the city of Victoria's bylaw came into effect in 2022, CRD staff were directed to develop a model bylaw based on city's the. For all municipalities in the capital region. And that's what you have in attached.

Speaker I · Should council direct staff to develop a similar similar demolition waste bylaw staff would provide a more detailed review of the CRD's bylaw and include any impacts and cost implications for both the district and the industry and report back to council at a future meeting. Thank you.

Speaker A · Okay, any questions? There's a recommendation somebody want to thank you moved and seconded any discussion. Councillor Paltio,

Speaker J · thank you. Appreciate staff bringing this forward and for the interest in participating in this draft bylaw to two important points to think to make is that the. The city of Victoria introduced this in it was around 202020 and and the. We'll just say the real estate market itself was in a very different position than it is today. And also two of the prominent companies that were focused on this kind of unbuilding are now out of business. And so while I appreciate the intent here behind this, I think that there are a lot of important planning projects that our district is working on right now. And I think that for me I would rather keep the standards set out through the province and our own current bylaws as opposed to adding additional regulations at this time.

Speaker A · Okay, I'll. Councillor Riddle, thank you.

Speaker B · Just a question. Three to staff around how many homes or roughly the percentage that this would apply to because I noted that 1960 is the cutoff and so just curious about the impact.

Speaker I · Thank you. We have a seven to ten demolitions per year. So that's. That's what we would see. So it's not a huge number in the district and in terms of the year I wouldn't be able to Comment on that without looking into it, but that's about the number of demos that we would see.

Speaker A · Assume most of the housing stock is on this side of that date.

Speaker N · Okay.

Speaker A · All right, Councillor Newton, thank you.

Speaker D · Just with respect to the criteria, so three to six staff, how would that be determined with the refund of the deposit upon completion of the demolition?

Speaker I · In terms of. So if the deposit amount was established in the bylaw, that's what we would consider be part of the report. The CRD makes a recommendation to that staff would essentially collect a deposit, just like we do for landscaping, for development permits, for example, and we hold that money until the demolition is complete. And the applicant would show us proof that they essentially did recycle, either be it receipts or invoices from recycling company, something along those lines. And we would set that criteria of what's expected, and then we would, as soon as we receive that, deliver the deposit back.

Speaker D · So, yeah, how are we monitoring that that is transpiring? I guess that's the question I have with this, is that setting out the goals for how much of it is able to be recycled or repurposed or sent into landfill. So, you know, obviously you're not weighing the house before it's being demolished, but do you have a sense of what the pro. I'm just like, I think it's kind of a good idea, although it's adding to the cost of potentially. But just how is it finally implemented on this?

Speaker I · I think that would be our next step. We would really spell out all the details in another report for council about the type of materials, the percentage of construction materials that could be recycled, and that's what the recommendation that staff are making. If we, if council see merit in this initiative, we would do more analysis and bring back a more detailed report with a potential draft bylaw.

Speaker D · All right, thank you.

Speaker A · As I see no further speakers, I'll jump in. Well, I think material recovery is a laudable goal. I think the underlying challenge is what is the value of those materials and is there a market or are we simply ratcheting up the price of something for very little benefit? I mean, if you're talking about seven to 10 demolitions on an annual basis, this is not a huge volume of waste, and it's not all of that material, in any event, is going to be recoverable. So from my perspective, having staff do this seems like an exercise that might tell us something. And then we adopt a bylaw.

Speaker A · We don't know really what the result will be for how much material will be recovered, but it will be an imposed cost on housing. So while I appreciate how laudable this is, I don't see a lot of these materials. I mean, old glass windows, people used to rip them out of their homes and put new ones in and discard the old ones because that was more energy efficient and there was, you know, the old glass was of no. Of no use in new construction anyway. So I'm going to vote against. Councillor Graham?

Speaker K · No, I think those are some really good points that have been raised. From my perspective, I like to see recycling and reusing and perhaps instead of mandating it through a bylaw, looking at sort of an educational steps instead. When people come in for demolition permits, just to remind them that there may be useful materials that they, if they can reuse that, we encourage them to do so and leaving it at that.

Speaker A · Okay, I'll put the question and ask for those opposed to the motion. Councillor Graham, Councillor Paltiel and myself are in opposition. So the motion is defeated.

Speaker K · Councillor Graham, prior to moving on, I would just ask staff if they could look at extracting some of the information from the other bylaws and providing an information package that we could email to people who apply for demolition permits to consider reusing, reducing.

Speaker A · Okay. Any further discussion? Any opposed? None. Carried. Item 15. 11 is the animal control amendment bylaw. I think we have 2263 to be introduced. Read a first and second time, please. Is there a seconder?

Speaker F · Staff are here to present to council wishes as well.

Speaker A · I don't think we need a presentation.

Speaker C · Did you get a second?

Speaker A · I heard a seconder, yes. Any questions? Councillor Newton, thank you.

Speaker D · I'm happy to see this coming forward and hoping that it will resolve some of the challenges that we're seeing either out on the streets or in the parks. So I guess my question through you, Mr. Mayor to staff, is just around the change in definitions for aggressive and dangerous dogs. And how will that be implemented from a enforcement capacity?

Speaker A · Stephen,

Speaker O · thank you. Through the mayor, the CRD is already rolling out some of these or these two different definitions as part of their services. So they're prepared to do the same within Central Saanich and work with us in ensuring that we're providing consistent information to our residents and park users.

Speaker A · Thank you, Councillor Riddle.

Speaker B · Thank you. Yeah. So a couple questions through UTA staff. I'm wondering, with the aggressive bylaw or aggressive dog definition, does this apply to incidents that happen on private property? Because I know that's something that's come up as the first incidents happen somewhere and I'm just curious, is it only in public places.

Speaker A · My understanding is that dogs on private property previously could be labeled as. Was it dangerous? There was an older term and they could be. Even if an incident occurred on private property, you could be assessed a fine and have the label assigned to a dog. That was my understanding, yeah.

Speaker O · Through the mayor, any investigations conducted on incidents between a dog and another living being will determine the parameters and the applicability of the bylaw.

Speaker A · So regardless of private or public property, it applies.

Speaker D · Okay.

Speaker B · Okay. And thank you. And then one more question. Just around the fines, it says up to 50,000. It's a big range. So I was just wondering if there's any more specificity that could be offered there.

Speaker O · And so through the mayor, under the municipal ticket information bylaw and the bylaw offense notice bylaw, the fines are designated. We as a local government, we do have authority to create fines up to 50,000, but it's not often that we are doing that, particularly for contraventions such as this.

Speaker A · Will there be a change to the fines assessed over previous. I think there were certain numbers that used to float around,

Speaker O · yes. As part of the bylaw enforcement notice. Bylaw offense notice bylaw, we're updating a lot of our bylaw fines.

Speaker A · Okay. So those are to come, potentially. Okay, good. Okay, thank you, Councillor Newton.

Speaker D · Thank you. Then a follow up to that is, you know, previously somebody's been issued a ticket and they've just, you know, washed their hands of it. So where, where has this changed or does this change intent? And with the other bylaw, a bit more, pardon the pun, but a bit more teeth into where the district is with it with respect to the enforcement of some of these infractions.

Speaker O · So through the mayor, the two different designations allow for more incident specific management and enforcement of the situation. So it will allow for a better matched enforcement action based on the severity or the lower impact of the incident.

Speaker O · Does that make sense? Okay, so through the mayor, we have two categories to deal with dog related incidents. Right. So that improves the ability of enforcement to better match the incident itself rather than over penalizing or under penalizing.

Speaker A · Where will these tickets be adjudicated? Because we've just changed our process, haven't we? So they would be under the new process, would they not?

Speaker O · We maintain our municipal ticket information process as well as now introducing the bylaw offense notice bylaw.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker O · All right, so we'll have options.

Speaker I · And Mr. Mayor, in terms of adjudication under the new, the new bylaw enforcement notice bylaw, it would be. First step would be to try to resolve it internally. And if that can't be, there's a provincially appointed adjudicator. So it's a process that avoids the court system and that's what I was getting at.

Speaker A · Yeah, that we're moving away from the old problems with mtis.

Speaker I · That's correct.

Speaker A · Okay. Seeing no further speakers, I'll put the question. Any opposed? None carried. I'll look for third reading, please. Moved. Seconded by. Thank you. Any further discussion? Any opposed? None carried. Item 1512, Traffic and Highways Bylaw amendment.

Speaker A · A brief introduction by the Director of Engineering.

Speaker N · I guess I'll speak fast. Thank you, Sue. The Mayor the current Traffic and Highways bylaw is seven years old and does does not address trends in active transportation or increasing road risks observed in the last seven years. The Traffic and Highways bylaw governs traffic regulations not regulated by the Motor Vehicle act, including parking, boulevard maintenance and other street and traffic related matters within the municipality district projects such as active transportation improvements and zoning. Bylaw updates have affected the effectiveness of the bylaw as they may allow for behaviors contrary to the intent of the bylaw or create situations that affect accessibility requirements or create enforcement issues.

Speaker N · Additionally, small scale multi unit housing requirements from the province are bringing densification to the district. Currently, parking tickets are administered through the Municipal ticket Information system which requires a district district's one bylaw officer to serve the ticket in person. Staff have reviewed the current bylaw and surrounding municipalities bylaws to propose updates on that factor in all transportation corridor users needs. The updates are focused on improved parking enforcement through connection to proposed bylaw offense notice Bylaw which would enable parking tickets to be issued by fixing a notice directly to the vehicle or by mail with towing and cost recovery provisions. Secondly, enhanced boulevard maintenance and management through establishment of clear and transparent guidelines for boulevard maintenance and thirdly, enhanced customer service through creating accessible communication channels, clearer signage, easier to understand bylaw and allowance of accepted infrastructure like elephants, feet, yellow painted curbs and being consistent with neighboring municipalities traffic markings, new special events and road away permits.

Speaker N · Changes to the bylaw include updates to the definitions and roles, clearer boulevard maintenance requirements and boulevard use controls, vegetation clearance standards, clear sight line and site triangle protection, updated parking rules including EV charging stations, overnight parking in district lots, recreational vehicle parking, accessibility, parking wording and provision of recovery of district cost of enforcement.

Speaker N · Staff are recommending that Traffic and highways bylaw number 2241 be introduced in red a first, second and a third time and we are available for any questions.

Speaker A · Thank you. If there are any questions before we have the motion.

Speaker K · Councillor Graham, I Guess specifically under the current situation, what kind of complaints or problems are we? Are we just having on a regular basis that this needs, that we need this to be addressing.

Speaker O · Through the mayor. Parking complaints, use of municipal property are rising exponentially year over year. And the densification of the district is also increasing the amount of cars on the street. So this will allow us to better address the current state of traffic related issues in our district.

Speaker N · Additionally, we do get numerous complaints on sight lines and boulevard maintenance. So those are ones that don't, aren't addressed immediately for parking, but they do affect road safety and so this would aid in enforcement of those.

Speaker A · Historically, I can recall actually being summoned to people's homes because people were parked on the boulevard in an incorrect way and neighbor was sure that we should enforce against the other neighbor. And yeah, so it's not surprising. I've also had conversations with people who talk to me about cars and then tell me that they have six. So where do you park six cars? Maybe get rid of a few, I don't know. Anyway, just. Councillor Newton, thank you.

Speaker D · Just with respect to an item of late correspondence and just speaking to this and the changes around allowing biking or cyclists to cross multi use paths or bike lanes as in other jurisdictions, does this change that ability or does it have any impact on that?

Speaker N · Thank you through the mayor. So elephants, elephants feet allow for cycling across side or crosswalks? I think the individuals who rode in were asking for the explicit ability for cyclists to ride through crosswalks that don't have elephants feet. Especially where multi use paths tie in

Speaker A · into

Speaker N · either existing multi use paths or other bike lanes. There are some safety issues in having those unprotected crossings. We have been, for example, the Wallace Drive Willow Way crossing, we were very intentional with how that crossing was designed. It's on a curve and a lot of these paths are usually have sight line issues that are problematic. When you have uncontrolled crossings for cyclists, they do create a safety concern that doesn't preclude us from not having elephants feet. We can put elephants feet down, it allows us to put those in. We have very few, few of these instances, legacy instances where we have sidewalks that would safely allow for that type of crossing.

Speaker N · So as we do construction say of the Mount Newton multi use path, where we do have possible crossings, we would be putting down elephants feet where it is safe to do so.

Speaker D · Great. Do we have a way of educating people on what actually elephants feet are and what they do and what the implications are? Because I think if we're just Putting large square dots down. People don't really.

Speaker N · Thank you very much, Google. We do have our active transportation coordinator and our climate and infrastructure active transportation communication specialist. They are working right now on a couple of programs on education. Part of it is the newer infrastructure that we do see. Elephants feet have been around for quite a number of years. I designed a couple of crossings in in Sanich 15, 15 years ago with those explicitly. So they have been around for quite a while. I know that they're new to the district, but they aren't new to the region.

Speaker A · Okay, somebody like to move? Oh, Councilor Riddle, you have questions?

Speaker B · Well, I will move. I'll move the staff recommendation. I do have a question.

Speaker A · Is there a seconder? Thank you. Go ahead with your question.

Speaker B · Thank you. First, I want to say thank you for all this work. It's quite a comprehensive update. When I went through the whole thing sort of related to the elephant's feet. But I'm just wondering if there's a communication plan for this. And the one that's tweaking for me particularly is just just around the special event permits because I know we've made a lot of changes. I understand why they're made. But I think it'll be helpful to be proactive in getting that out there along with any other new concepts or processes.

Speaker N · Thank you. I will take this time to note that the special events permit is actually just a more formalization of the existing policy that we've had. So all the existing communication that we put out in the past, this is just that formalization of it. So it's the same thing with a road right away permit. We do have a policy and a permit in place. This just formalizes it so that it's easier to enforce.

Speaker A · Okay, I'm not seeing any other speakers, so I'll call the question. Any opposed? None carried. And third reading, please.

Speaker D · Moved.

Speaker A · Thank you. Probably don't need further discussion. Any opposed? None carried. The next one is bylaw enforcement bylaw, bylaw notice enforcement bylaw amendment and there's a recommendation for council resin. Third reading of the bylaw notice enforcement bylaw number 224 2. So could I have that motion, please? Moved. Is there a seconder? Any opposed? None. This is the bylaw amendment. Sorry, Bylaw notice enforcement bylaw amendment.

Speaker A · Okay, and number two. Sorry. Any opposed to that? And none. Bylaw number 2242 be read a third time as amended. Moved. Any opposed? None carried. Okay. Item 1503, Mount Newton Crossroads zoning bylaw amendment.

Speaker A · So there was the recommendation to adopt. But I will Go to Councilor Riddle.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you. So I had. I've reflected on all of the input that we gathered through the public hearing process and the conversations we've been having for many months now around the zoning. And I like to propose a couple amendments to the zoning bylaw. And I there's a procedure that we need to follow here. So thank you for pulling that up. We've talked a lot about and certainly heard the desire for less density, particularly where we're bordering neighboring properties. The RFP requests lower density options. And so one amendment to the zoning bylaw is to permit townhouses because that wasn't permitted. And then the other is around the maximum height to be more consistent with the ocp, which references five stories, only six if there's an amenity. And we don't know quite what that is yet.

Speaker B · And I think it's also better aligned with the Sanichton Village plan and certainly feedback we heard from the village. So two amendments that I'm proposing, one is to allow town homes and the other is to set a maximum height of five stories. Need to do this in two ways. So need to first make a motion to rescind. Third, the text is on the screen if you.

Speaker A · You want to just read the motion.

Speaker B · One, yeah. So that third reading of Central Sanich zoning bylaw amendment bylaw 2252, 2026 be rescinded.

Speaker A · Second thank you. It is understood what this is about. Are there any comments or questions at this point about this, Counselor Graham?

Speaker K · I guess I'll go into the comments. My concern is just going to be the financial impact and the fact that, I mean, we just earlier tonight were talking about another development that's six stories, that's going to be kitty corner to this particular development. I mean, assuming that we do go ahead with the redevelopment, and I am very cognizant about the impact on the the neighboring properties. That's one of the reasons why I suggested leaving the fire museum in situ as a buffer zone. But at the same time, I'm also aware that there is a larger financial impact issue to be dealt with. And there's also something that we've did, most of us around this table have talked about, which is the concept of infill and maximizing a very scarce resource.

Speaker K · And quite frankly, this building is right in the heart of downtown, if you want to call it that, downtown sandstone. And this is where you want that maximum amount of infill. And that's kind of the way my mind has been thinking for a while of preserving the rural Central Saanich and protecting the agricultural land in exchange as a perfect, as a pressure relief and for having vibrant urban cores, allowing for that higher density in our urban centers. And I hate to say it, this is in our urban center and I know it impacts the immediate neighbors who have established themselves there for a long time. But that's, that's sort of, this is the challenge of infill.

Speaker K · And we all bear the costs when we aren't building to capacity because in theory that whatever does get built there is going to be a long lasting, enduring building. And this is where you want the people to be, where the amenities are. And so I'm not going to support this approach.

Speaker A · Okay, Councillor Riddle and then Councillor Thompson,

Speaker B · thank you. And I mean, I do understand where you're coming from. And I mean we do want to ensure that we are generating significant revenue from this land so that we can minimize the tax impact of infrastructure replacement. So I completely understand that perspective and I think, you know, this council certainly is very committed to preserving the rural and creating walkable, dense villages. I think with this motion we set out, the terms of the RFP are moderated. We have incented, awarded points to neighborhood sensitivity. And so this makes them a little bit more consistent. And I think my goal with this is to try and strike some balance so that we get a proposal that the majority of council can seriously consider. I think six stories might be a deal breaker for some.

Speaker B · I think too much density along the neighboring properties might be a deal breaker for some. I think there's still a lot of potential here to generate density and revenue for the district to do the development, to rebuild the new municipal police fire and also, you know, reflect some of the things that we've heard from the community.

Speaker A · Okay, Councillor Thompson.

Speaker C · Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with Councilor Riddle on this. I think you are looking potentially to an option we've already supported an option for lower density option for whoever the proponent is. I think this would allow that to happen. I think we have to respect people living in the villages, not just the direct neighbors. And I walking around through the neighborhood, I meet a lot of people that are really concerned about the direction that this is going independent of those folks living directly next to the municipal hall property. You know, it may require a small tax increase through both increasing the size of a loan and some borrowing from reserves. So that is a possibility.

Speaker C · But you know, I go back to what I heard in terms of the survey that was done that, well, you know, a lot of folks in Brantwood Bay and Tanner Ridge Area, for example, were, were supportive of this idea and,

Speaker J · but, but why not?

Speaker C · Doesn't impact them and there's no tax increase related to it. Well, perhaps if you're impacting on the

Speaker H · social

Speaker C · well being of people living in Salaster Village or their expectations, you need to find a compromise and it may cost everyone a little bit more in order to achieve this or achieve some sort of solution.

Speaker C · And I can accept that to a degree. I haven't supported the rezoning in general, but I certainly support this motion to provide that opportunity. And I think it is important to people that live in this area that don't see this at the same sort of density, six story high thing that Councillor Graham envisions. And I think it is important again to at least offer the opportunity for lower density options. That's it.

Speaker A · Thank you. Okay, so speaking list, I have Councillor Paltiel and then Councillor Newton.

Speaker J · Yeah, I think that shape of this motion is generally supportable and you know, I give council good props for being responsive to the feedback that we've received from some of the immediate neighbors raising concerns through this process. I think that as Councillor Thompson's mentioned, we need to be prepared to say to ourselves and say to the public, by doing this there is likely going to be a taxation increase in the decision to move ahead with the plan as proposed.

Speaker J · I'm not opposed to that. As Councillor Graham said, you know, if we feel that five stories is the line in the sand for what it means to live in a rural area and you know, the difference of 3 meters changes that to no longer feel rural and we're willing to pay for that, then that's a cost that the entire district, businesses and residential taxpayers will do bear.

Speaker J · And so I just think number one, we need to be prepared to own that if this motion passes. And number two, I would also offer that I think if residential attached uses is supported. I would also like to consider, and I'll wait to hear from other members of council, but I would almost like to consider a amendment that we look at reducing the setbacks in the event that those are the uses proposed. Because right now a residential attached building is allowed anywhere in Sanichton Village as long as it's within the ucb. And those buildings can be built with a rear yard setback of 7. 5 meters.

Speaker J · We have already imposed, I believe, a rear yard setback of 10 meters in this proposal. And so I would think that in the event that residential attached is used and it does include a rear yard setback, we should actually be in fact Reducing that setback so we're not negatively encumbering the site relative to other sites in the area with further reductions in density.

Speaker A · For the benefit of all of council, can we just get confirmation from the planning department that. I Understood it was seven and a half meters? With 20 meters, if you were going above four stories, I'm not sure about the reference to 10, so perhaps I can get staff clarity for that one.

Speaker I · Thank you, Mr. Bryan. I know we have a draft bylaw. Could we pull that up? Possibly? Thank you, Ms. Gorman. See that.

Speaker A · Rear yard? 7. 5.

Speaker J · Okay, then we're already in line.

Speaker A · Yeah, I think there was some. Definitely some. With that addition of the 20 meters on anything above 4, which would still apply. Even if we're. If we only end up going to five, it would still presumably limit.

Speaker J · Okay, that's what I was.

Speaker A · Yeah, no, that's fine. Okay, so we have clarity. Sorry I interrupted you there, Councillor. I just wanted to make sure.

Speaker J · I appreciate the clarity and I stand corrected, so. No, I mean, I think if we decide to go in this direction, I think it's fine. My preference would be that we still allow for six and we allow for a average of five stories across the site and then allow for the planning process in the way that we've worked through this RFI pro to. To help applicants themselves decide and work with the community and district to see how it responds, how the site could respond. But, you know, at this point, that's not what's before us. So I'll. I'll wait and see what council does.

Speaker A · Okay. Councillor Newton. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Speaker D · First, thanks to Councillor Brittle for thoughtful consideration on this. And what. What we heard certainly at the last meeting provided some additional insight around what could or what was permitted within the proposed zoning. So to see that now townhomes could be a permitted use, I think strikes again a balance with respect to density and height and certainly along the neighboring and adjacent properties. I will agree that, you know, there's been discussion around what Sanichton is, and as a resident of Tanner Ridge area, I don't have the intimate feeling and knowledge and connection to Sanichton, But I agree that this site is still, you know, within the downtown core of what Sandagen is.

Speaker D · And I think that when we're looking at what density is, and the Sandrington Village design plan speaks to what that is. And so on one hand I'm reticent to have a potential negative impact on the taxes and the implication of that is. But at the other hand, we've. We've heard consistently from the residents within SAN about what, you know, could be tolerable. And I think that this, you know, we're not going to get anything perfect. We're going to try and appease, as Councillor Thompson alluded to, you know, the neighbors and the immediate residents in here. And this decision is going to have an impact across everyone in the district.

Speaker D · And so, you know, we just need to be cognizant of that. So I'm happy to support, you know, the rescinding and then the following motion that comes out of this to what we could consider here and see what that looks like as we go through the RFP process. But I think that this provides a bit more direction to potential applicants about what we expect or hope or want to see when we're looking at a potential application that comes forward.

Speaker A · I think having heard from all members of council, yeah, he's a second time speaker at this point, so. And I'm not going to entertain them because I'm not obligated to. I'm going to speak and then I'm going to call the question because there's two more motions after this one and there'll be opportunities to speak to that one. This is about rescinding. What I will say is I am not thrilled by the financial concession that this entails. I'm also not thrilled by the concession that this site will serve housing needs for 50 to 80 years into the future. So what gets built here isn't just about tomorrow, it's about decades from now.

Speaker E · However,

Speaker A · I recognize that sometimes concessions need to be made. There will be a financial impact to this concession. But as someone who lives elsewhere in the district, but who is cognizant that things happen across the district that has an impact on somebody, sometimes a concession relating to the financial model, which doesn't disappear. If this goes to 5 versus 6, there's a slight reduction in value. It's not a disappearance of value or disappearance, either monetary or housing into the future. It's simply adjusting the mix for those 50 to 80 years and accepting that there was maybe something left on the table, so to speak. I don't know if this concession would be enough to satisfy in some way those who continue to be concerned about it, whether they're at this table or in the gallery or in the community at large.

Speaker A · But if I was having a conversation with people across the district and I was trying to help them understand the thought process that I was experiencing at this table now or in the future, I could say to my own satisfaction that a Concession was made and it was balanced against a cost for all of us as taxpayers now and into the future.

Speaker A · But that it was reasonable to do so, even if it wasn't my preferred option. I'm willing to say I will make that concession again knowing that there may be some who simply regardless of the mixture of townhomes and a reduction in height of buildings, will not be satisfied. There were some who wanted to see this site highly underutilized. And I think that does fly in the face of the financial model, the housing needs of the community, its location in the ocp, in the village core, and frankly to everyone in Brentwood. You know, now and in the past there are buildings in Brentwood that were under built and yet they persist. We can't do anything about them. And questions have been asked about developments in Brentwood when they've come forward.

Speaker A · Can we add stories? Can we do this? Why wasn't that done? And yet there was a lost opportunity. So, you know, looking back and I say if this goes forward at five, for example, with some townhomes, was that a reasonable concession? Knowing that, you know, some additional units might have been left on the table? I can, I don't love it, but I'm willing to make that concession. So I will support rescinding the bylaw and likely the other two motions that will come after. Okay, on that. I'm going to call the question on the rescinding. I'm sure there will be more speakers to the other two. Any opposed to rescinding?

Speaker C · Opposed.

Speaker A · Councillor Graham in opposition. I do not see any other hands. The motion carries. Councillor Riddle, the next motion please.

Speaker B · Okay. That Central Sandwich zoning Bylaw Amendment, Bylaw 2252, 2026 be amended by adding Section 2B, residential attached as a permitted use, amending Section 2D by revising the building height from 23 meters or 6 stories to 20 meters, 5 stories and amending figure 1 by revising the legend for the blank area to 20 meter height, maximum 5 story building.

Speaker A · I'm going to hold it there. I won't make you read it again. I do require a motion to extend the meeting. Please don't move.

Speaker B · Second.

Speaker A · Moved and seconded. Any opposed? None carried. Your motion has been read. I'll look for a second or for as it was. Motion two. Thank you. It's been seconded. Do you wish to speak to it, Councillor Riddle?

Speaker C · No.

Speaker A · Councilor Thompson, you seconded it. Do you wish to speak to it?

Speaker C · Just to say that I certainly am supporting. I think a lot of comments have already been made, but I think in terms of the finances, trying to find some intermediate position is useful.

Speaker C · I did have a question of clarification and please remind me this really is through the staff with reference to five stories. I thought that for Sandichten plan that buildings were limited to five, but could go up to six with community benefit. Is that the case?

Speaker I · Thank you. Through Mr. Mayor, that. That is a policy in the official community plan that was transferred from the Santish Village design plan. So it says up to five stories can go higher where community benefit is, is achieved and lists the type of community amenities.

Speaker K · Councilor Graham, I'll just move to sever 2b from the other sections because I have no problem with adding residential attached.

Speaker A · Okay, so you want to. Okay, we'll just consider them individually then. I'll just call the question on 2B. Any opposed? None carried. 2D would be the next one, amending section 2D, which is building height.

Speaker K · I'll just quickly speak to it, if I may.

Speaker A · Yep.

Speaker K · Just for the record, we already, as Councillor Thompson pointed out, there are already policies to enable six stories if there's a community benefit. And I can't think of anything more of a community benefit than providing the funds and the means to building a new municipal facility, including police, recreation and recreation and fire. I think overall we will find that reducing this to five story will significantly impair our profitability with very little impact on the level of discontent by the surrounding neighbors. I don't think the neighbors are going to be much more happy that the construction beside them is 5 versus 6. I understand that those people impacted will be impacted, but I think they'll be impacted very similarly if it was 6 versus 5.

Speaker K · But the overall effect on the bottom line and the message it sort of sends in general, I think is unfortunate.

Speaker A · Any other speakers? I do not see any hands. I shall put the question and look for those opposed. Councillor Graham in opposition. The motion carries. Okay, so the last one is amending Figure 1 by revising the legend as is written on the screen there. So is there any further discussion? I'll call the question. Any opposed? Okay. Councillor Graham in opposition. The motion carries.

Speaker A · And Motion 3.

Speaker B · Councillor Riddle, that Central Saanich Zoning Bylaw Amendment Bylaw 2252, 2026 be given third reading as amended.

Speaker G · Thank you.

Speaker A · Moved and seconded. And any further discussion? We've debated this, I think adequately. Any opposed? None carried.

Speaker M · If I can.

Speaker F · Mayor, does council wish to adopt tonight? We are permitted as it is a zoning bylaw amendment.

Speaker A · Yep.

Speaker B · A move. Adoption.

Speaker A · Oh, sorry. Moved and seconded. Councillor Peltiel. Did you want to add something?

Speaker H · No.

Speaker J · If this passes, I was going to make a subsequent motion.

Speaker A · Oh, you have a motion rising. Fine. I'll put the question then on adoption. Any opposed? None. Carried. Your motion arising, Councilor?

Speaker J · Just that council directs staff to update the RFI or RFEOI process to eliminate the request for a lower density and a higher density option from applicants. And if there's a seconder, I'll speak to it.

Speaker A · Thank you. So that's the RFP process. It's an amendment to the RFP process that we carried a few minutes ago. No, sorry, that was on Hovey. Never mind. Yeah, okay. The high density, low density option. Go for it, Councillor.

Speaker J · So, when adopting the RFP process, we included in the previous week's meeting a request to model options for lower and higher density and understand the cost implications of those. We have just updated the zoning to include the lower density option. And so. And we know from, you know, with good certainty in this market that anything below four stories is not feasible unless it's townhouses, which we've now enabled. So I think that personally I'm less excited about, I guess, seeing those two options because ultimately I think that we've now created at least a moderate or a lower choice. And so I think that being that this is going to be an update and I think that being clear, concise and and reasonable in our process is a value that will elicit the best responses.

Speaker J · I think that informing applicants of the update to the zoning bylaw and the fact that we're no longer requiring multiple submissions from them, it would be a positive step in eliciting the best responses and also saving our staff time.

Speaker A · Any comments or questions from other members of council, I'll put the. Oh, Councillor Riddle.

Speaker B · Yeah, thank you. So I'll just add, I'm in support of this. I do think the two concepts was a bit confusing even to begin with. And so now we've provided really clear direction. I think the other piece is that we've allocated a significant number of points to sensitivity to the surroundings. It's 12 points. That's quite a lot. So I think we've really built in a strong incentive to come forward with something that is going to be respectful and acceptable, hopefully to a wider range of folks.

Speaker A · Councillor Newton, thank you.

Speaker D · I wasn't in supportive of the two separate options previously, so I'm happy to see this come forward to provide some clear direction, not only with the update to the zoning, but now to what the RFP could look and entail. So I think that this will elicit a much, you know, more concise and specific offer or proposal for what we're trying to accomplish here.

Speaker A · Okay. Any opposed? None carried. Councilor, you have two notices of motion. So you're just moving the first one. You don't need to read it. You're moving it. Yes. Okay, it's moved and seconded. Any discussion? Any opposed? None carried.

Speaker A · The short term rentals. Again, no need to read it. Therefore be it resolved. You're moving it.

Speaker K · Second.

Speaker A · Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Councelor Riddle.

Speaker B · Thank you. So I just have question through to staff because we did previously discuss this and then request a staff report. Curious when that's coming forward, what it might include because I, I'm not opposed to the, the direction in this motion. I just, I think we've asked for a comprehensive report and so my preference would be to, to refer it to that report where we could understand the implications, get the other information and then make a more informed decision based on a more complete set of facts and potentially get staff's views or informed work around this option when we make the decision.

Speaker I · Thank you through Mr. Mayor. Yes. So council's direction previously was for staff to report back in Q2, 2026. So that's on our work plan in, in June. That was the intent either probably the, the second meeting in June at this time. And so that report would outline just what other jurisdictions are doing, an update on any of the provincial legislation, the experience that the province has had in mandating this and, and regulating it, and then provide a recommendation to council. So in terms of maybe I'll just add one piece in terms of implementing this into our if into our zoning bylaw in the future, should this occur, we would also have to update our official community plan as it does not support short term rentals at this time.

Speaker B · Okay. And then I guess the other question sort of related to that just as around, I mean I appreciate we've certainly heard a lot from folks that are in support of allowing short term rentals. Definitely there was a change and that impact was felt and I appreciate everybody coming forward and sharing their situations. I'm wondering is there going to be like with the OCP amendment we would have to have a public hearing. I assume this references the zoning bylaw and we're doing engagement on that. So I guess the two things that I'd like to see before making a, a decision would be just that engagement that's reaching out to maybe the full community. And then that report that we've previously asked for

Speaker A · Councillor Peltier. I saw your hand up but then it went down. So I'm going to go to Councilor Thompson.

Speaker C · Thank you Mr. Mayor. I think more a comment in general that we received some correspondence today with some people concerned about us debating this tonight. And just to notify or just to note that really this is simply a series of motions that request staff to provide potential draft bylaw when we receive their report and if council decides to move on there will of course be a full public process that we would expect with any OCP and zoning amendments.

Speaker C · And that folks need not worry. I think there is a time to debate and it will be in the future.

Speaker A · I'm going to weigh in here with my brief comments. This is actually a circumstance where I wish the province, in addition to issuing their edict as they were so willing to do on Bill 44 and so many others had just simply said that if you have a residence within a residence and you it's your primary dwelling that you can do it regardless of jurisdiction.

Speaker A · I'm not super happy. I think this is a massive time wasting exercise for municipalities quite frankly. We're going through motions and OCP amendments and all this. It came forward last year at probably the worst possible time because we just adopted an OC and yet the only people who care about this are the people who have them. Most people view the in residence solution as not ulterior. The hotel lobby probably doesn't really care we overthought or the province overthought this one and then under implemented it. If I'm being candid and put a bunch of work on us and every other municipality in the province of British Columbia when the they could have just simply said if it's in your primary residence it's allowable.

Speaker A · Municipal OCP bylaws didn't mean a lot to the province in so many other regards. I don't know why this one was one. They just didn't strike the pen and make it all easier for the rest of us. Anyway, that's my candid $0. 02 on this. I'm happy to support the motion and move on. Any opposed to the motion? Excellent. Motions carried. I'm going to move that we consider item 17. 1 this evening. Any opposed? None carried. I move the resolution. And that's just because staff would have to amend the election procedures bylaw by the end of June in order for this to even be a possibility. So I'm moving the motion. Perfect.

Speaker K · Discussion.

Speaker A · Excellent. Okay. I have nothing further to say. It's in the whereas be it resolved so go ahead no just just in

Speaker K · speaking against it I don't think we want to make things more complicated and the problem with this approach too is that life situations change I mean my life situation has recently changed and all of a sudden you just don't have time or capacity to deal with things you thought you might have so I'm not supportive of this approach of trying to elect the CRD director as a separate position I think it rightly is a decision that council makes based on the whole picture because that CRD director should be representing council particularly

Speaker A · okay any opposed Councilor Graham Opposed Councillor Thomson okay the motion carries Calendar meetings for information any correspondence that anyone wants to flag Motion to adjourn no move second Any opposed None carried Isn't there a closed

Speaker J · meeting item or is that

Speaker H · a what item?

Speaker A · Sorry Councillor Paltiel I thought there was a closed meeting We've dealt with all the close items thank you wonderful.

Speaker G · It.