Council approved a revised letter challenging the province’s proposed housing directives, after hearing a large volume of public feedback. Residents raised concerns about the evidence behind the province’s recommendations, infrastructure and tax costs, affordability, and the proposed expansion of the urban containment boundary; one speaker urged Council to accept the recommendations. Council made one wording change to state clearly that it opposes moving the boundary into any part of North Saanich, and agreed to send the letter the next morning, before the July 31 deadline. It left other suggested changes for possible discussion after the Minister responds.
Generated from the recording's captions and the official minutes.
Council extended the speaking period by 20 minutes after the chair saw four more people wishing to speak. Eleven speakers addressed the housing directives and draft letter: they discussed housing supply, farmland and rural character, infrastructure capacity and costs, heat resilience, affordability, the urban containment boundary, and whether the province’s report was reliable and transparent. One speaker argued the district should accept the province’s recommendations as consistent with the Official Community Plan. After the chair closed the period, Council allowed one more person to speak; that speaker raised speeding and pedestrian and school-bus safety on Barrett Drive in Dean Park.
Agreement
Several speakers supported the district’s Official Community Plan and opposed expanding the urban containment boundary into North Saanich.
Speakers on different sides of the debate raised questions about how proposed growth would affect infrastructure and services.
Disagreement
Most speakers on the housing letter urged Council to challenge or seek changes to the province’s directives; one speaker argued that accepting the recommendations should not be difficult or controversial.
Speakers differed on whether the proposed housing changes would meet local needs and whether the province’s evidence justified them.
Council considered an updated response to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs, after receiving extensive written and in-person feedback. Public comments pressed Council to clarify its opposition to moving the urban containment boundary into any of three proposed areas, explain the possible surplus of housing beyond provincial targets, and ask for evidence behind the proposed densities and their infrastructure costs. Speakers also raised affordability, consultation and conflict-of-interest questions, property-tax effects of rezoning, and the risk of leaving the Dean Park wording open to misinterpretation. A speaker supported the province’s recommendations, arguing they followed the district’s own planning vision. Councillors generally supported the revised letter but agreed its wording about the boundary and Dean Park needed clarification. Council amended the letter to oppose boundary movement in any area of North Saanich, while describing Dean Park’s inclusion as suggested in the provincial report. It approved the amended letter and said it would be sent the next morning; Council chose not to add the other requested changes at this stage, saying those could be considered after the Minister’s response.
Agreement
Council members thanked residents and staff for their input and regarded the letter as an opening step in discussions with the Minister.
Council agreed the draft’s wording on the urban containment boundary and Dean Park could be clearer.
Council approved a clarification opposing movement of the boundary into any area of North Saanich and approved sending the amended letter.
Disagreement
Public speakers differed on whether the province’s proposed directives should be rejected or accepted as consistent with the district’s planning vision.
Some speakers wanted Council to add specific requests now, including more evidence on housing capacity, affordability, infrastructure costs, and the province’s consultation process; Council decided to leave those issues for a later response after hearing back from the Minister.
Ask staff to add wording to paragraph 7 of the draft response letter. The added text would refer to any area in North Saanich and to including Dean Park Estates in Area 3, as suggested in the CBRE report.
Official wording: That Council direct staff to amend the draft "Response to the Minister – Proposed Housing Directives" by revising paragraph 7 under the section entitled "Specific Comments on Proposed Directives and Enhanced Reporting" to include the words "in any area in North Saanich and with regard to the inclusion of Dean Park Estates within Area 3, as suggested in the CBRE Report."
Allow one more member of the public to speak to Council after the public-participation period ends.
Official wording: That Council permit one additional member of the public to address Council following the conclusion of the Public Participation Period.
Accept the public feedback received on the draft response letter, and approve the letter with the specified addition to paragraph 7 about any area in North Saanich and including Dean Park Estates in Area 3, as suggested in the CBRE report.
Official wording: That Council:
1. accept as presented the public feedback submitted to the District of North Saanich regarding the draft letter of response to the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs; and,
2. approve the draft letter of response with the following amendments: paragraph 7 under the section entitled "Specific Comments on Proposed Directives and Enhanced Reporting" to include the words "in any area in North Saanich and with regard to the inclusion of Dean Park Estates within Area 3, as suggested in the CBRE Report."
10(a) Correspondence dated July 23, 2026, from the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs regarding an extension of the deadline for the District of North Saanich to provide a written response to the Ministry's June 16, 2026, correspondence
Council received the Ministry’s correspondence about an extension to the deadline for the district’s response. During the earlier discussion, the chair said the revised letter would be sent the next morning and referred to July 31 as the deadline.