Transcript: Special Meeting of Council - 29 Jul 2026

Okay. Hello.

[clears throat] Okay, good evening everyone. Thank you for being here tonight. This is a special meeting of council Wednesday, July 29, 2026. Call to order at 7:01 and I look to councelor McConi for the territorial acknowledgement. Thank you, Chair. North Sanage exists on the traditional territories of the Wasanic peoples, specifically Pakuchin and Sikum. We recognize these neighboring municipalities are an active and vital part of our community and the district is committed to building relationships built on trust, mutual respect and working together on matters of common interest. Thank [clears throat] you. We now move on to item three which is introduction of late items. Uh we we have two late items uh which is 7 A2 and the late items are item 48 and 49.

There any other late items? I see none. So I look for a motion B sorry an approval of the agenda with laid items. Councelor Marshall has seconded councelor Sanjie. [clears throat] Any questions, comments? I see none. Those in favor? Unanimous. We now move right on to item five. This is public participation period. And I'm assuming there's going to be a number of speakers tonight. So I'll go through the rules of procedures. Uh [snorts] persons wishing to address council must state their name and municipality of residents for identification and also the topic involved. Questions and comments must be on topics which are not normally dealt with by the municipal staff as a matter of routine. Questions [snorts] and comments must be addressed through the chair and answers given likewise.

Debates with or questions of individual council members will not be allowed. No commitments shall be made by the chair in in replying to a question. Matters which may require action of the council shall be referred to a future meeting of the council. Each speaker during public participation period must use respectful language and refrain from making offensive gestures or signs and is limited to speak in for 3 minutes or unless [clears throat] authorized by the chair to speak for a longer period of time and 20 minutes will be allotted for the public participation period unless extended by a vote of council. So with the first person that wishes to speak, please come forward.

[laughter] Okay. Can I be heard by everyone? Push a button. Uh okay. Yep. Joan Pashley. Um North Sanage. I [snorts] should be out farming, but I'm here instead. 20 years ago, I was at meetings like this on exactly the same issue. I am still concerned about the same things now that I was concerned about then. Um despite piles of more building in Sydney, more building on Marold land, tons of housing in Langford, all the same problems are still here. I don't know if you're aware of this, but Burnaby solved the problem by buying apartment buildings and having a council that only rented to workers who were working in that community.

You build more housing, more people come here. We already have the largest seniors population. Although Nova Scotia is fast outgrowing us, we don't have the resources we're going to need in the next 20 years, let alone the next year. If we have what just happened to Japan, how are we going to provide enough water for the animals people in North Sanich and Sydney if we have a 7 earthquake that takes out all the connections to souk? How are we going to feed those people when we don't have food security? So all this focus on housing is missing what actually matters which is how are we going to keep people alive when I'm not allowed to say those words I don't think but it hits the fan real hard. Um so we the the current system has shown in 20 years that building more housing isn't solving the problem. We need a totally new model and we need to convince the PR the the provincial government of that fact.

Point number two, we are also massively ignoring what is happening in Europe this year. They have had heat wave after heat wave after heatwave. We are very lucky, but we had a heat dome. More people died in two weeks of that heat dome than during CO. So, this is a very real concern. And yet, the homes people are building, they're allowed to build homes that aren't going to cope without air conditioning. Except when you have a heat dome, that's the first thing that's going to go because that's going to mean that our winter snow pack will have been less. So we're not going to have the cheap renewable re re electricity unless we have plans to make sure that happens.

We also know from what Europe has done and other places that growing forests is one of the best protection from heat waves. It's one of the having pocket parks with good forestry is critical to keeping people cool and alive. And yet I don't see that happening. And that's easy to do. So if you ain't doing the easy things, Lord help us about the hard things. Um so those are really my three points. Um I was just this afternoon listening to an interesting um YouTube by the officer of order the order of the British Empire Mina Husman which specifically was about building for a hotter world and air conditioning wasn't the answer.

Thank you. [applause] Uh Michael Woodward uh uh North Senate. I would like to speak about uh infrastructure. Our president built infrastructure uh particularly the sewage treatment plant and the point of marine discharge. I was a member of the environmental advisory commission of North Sanich when this plant was first conceived at times as chair and uh I resigned from that commission so I could be more outspoken about the point of marine discharge. I'm an oceanographer. Uh part of my duties in the past was to advise engineers uh with data and advice um regarding these uh marine outfalls for the whole coast of British Columbia. I'm looking back to the year 2000 which is the where [clears throat] have uh figures for the uh original design capacity of the plant around 18,000 cubic meters per day average flow and I got some information uh that refers to the April this year um minutes of the um wastewater commission and I see by my calculations that we're now at uh 74% of the uh treatment capacity as of December this last year.

This commission has created a a technical advisory committee that has advised uh to defer a review of our liquid waste management plan until provincial new provincial and federal guidelines are available. New standards may reduce allowable marine discharges at the present site, increase requirements for treatment, andor put constraints on expanding the existing plant when the new start standards are available. Uh this advisory committee estimates three years to review the existing waste management [clears throat] plan. And we don't know when these new provincial or federal guidelines, regulations will be available, but we may not know where we stand with respect to this plant 5 years or more down the road.

The original plant had a design horizon of 2012. I don't believe the plant has substantially changed um from its original design except uh to enclose the headworks because as their chief designer said, "We never said it wouldn't stink." Well, I would advise you to be very cautious about this matter. Many people continue to expect to have a shower and flush their toilets. We don't live on submarines. You can get by with two gallons. Thanks very much. Thank you. [clears throat] [applause] Barbara told me North Sanage. Like the first speaker, I have been interested and been involved with the OCP for many years. I have actively participated in the OCP review process through public meetings, written submissions, neighborhood outreach, and two subdivision applications.

During that time, I consistently heard strong support for sensitive infill and quarter eagle lot development in the souththeast quadrant and the terraces. We are on sewer and water. What concerns and frustrates me is that this documented support has largely disappeared from the current discussions. Public engagement results showing support for smaller lots have not been reflected in the OCP showing however showing exact exact exaggerated claims about the impact of these modest changes have always been presented as facts. I want to publicly state that I support the provision for allowing sensitive infill and quarter acre lots and I do not support retaining the current 13 acre minimum lot. A quarter acre lot is not high density development. It is a reasonable measured approach that provides more housing opportunities while preserving the character of Noranage.

I hope that council will base its decision on all documented input and verifiable evidence since the beginning of the OCP review which started a few years ago and is not based on fearbased speculation. The support for smaller quarter quarter acre lot is real has been expressed repeatedly throughout the OCP process and it needs to be recognized in the revised OCP. Thank you. [applause] My name is Terry Gold, uh, resident of North Sanage. Uh, US President Franklin Roosevelt once told a group of human rights activists, "I agree with you. Now, make me do it." I want to thank the mayor for essentially telling us the same thing when it came to writing his updated reply to Christine Bole's proposed housing supply directives. At your invitation on July 13th, more than 120 residents filled this room and two dozen people spoke for over 90 minutes.

Then again at your invitation, they wrote 47 well-reasoned letters published in today's agenda. The vast majority argued that Boil's directives were based on a gravely flawed CBRE report, which in turn was based on a sloppy, error-filled reading of our OCP and the findings of other reports that were provably and factually wrong. Our OCP categorically states, quote, "Housing and development demand for a 20-year period have been accounted for in this OCP as per provincial legislative requirements. Ignoring the factual evidence for this premise in our OCP, Bole proposed that to meet our targets, we had to reduce minimum lot sizes, reszone existing R2 lands, expand subdivision opportunities, and extend into North Sanage three large urban containment boundaries that would urbanize seven square kilometers of our district. Mayor, you commendably objected to all these proposed directives because they are not necessary to meeting our housing targets. I do however have a small criticism with the way you phrase the first part of your paragraph objecting to the extension of the three UCBs into

our district because there is room for misinterpretation. On page three, paragraph 4, you state, although this arises from a proposed additional reporting requirement rather than a directive, council cannot support movement of the urban containment boundary or the inclusion of Dean Park estates within area 3, the southeast quadrant. You then go on to categorically object to the extension of the UCBs in all three areas. But the beginning of the paragraph that deals with Dean Park estates leaves room for boil to mistakenly believe that you could be willing to compromise on having the terraces included in a UCB. I've checked this with other readers and they came away with the same conclusion. I don't think it's clear why you single out Dean Park estates as separate from the southeast quadrant in the context of flatly rejecting the movement of three UCBs into our district to avoid giving boil a handle. Maybe de give Dean Park its own short paragraph with a line of background explanation. Thank you.

Okay, that's a that's I can give a comment. I sorry I can't hear guys. Sorry. I can give you a comment on that. Why Dean Park? Because Dean Park is different to most other areas of North Sanage because it has a covenant. Yeah. So that's mentioned in there. So that if we don't get a satisfactory arrangement with the minister of housing or the province, the [clears throat] chances are then that the province will try to remove the covenants that are on land title which would then bring in in the lower man mainland especially places such as British properties which would then exacerbate or increase the pressure on the provincial government [clears throat] because to to do a to change Dean Park from one/ird of an acre to 0.22 of an acre will require the removal of the covenant on the land title.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think you should take it out from that paragraph and give it its own little section. And we we will look at that because I haven't noticed that. So, I appreciate you bringing it up. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. [applause] Good evening, mayor and council and staff. My name is Diane Reefe. I'm a resident of North Stanage. First, I'd like you to thank you for strengthening this second draft of the letter to Minister Bole and for listening to the concerns raised by constituents. I I would like to suggest that one critical issue be given much greater emphasis in the letter. That is the absolute necessity to challenge the province on exactly how much excess housing North Sanage will be left with over and above our mandated targets if the province issues directives based on this advisor's report. Before the province relies on the CBRE report to alter our planning framework, we must know the exact scale of surplus housing that could be forced upon us.

Failing to calculate the surplus is a critical omission that undermines the very foundation of the province's recommendations. Council must address this directly in its letter. By contrast, our local planning does provide strict statistical clarity. An email obtained through an FOI dated Tuesday, April 15, 2025 titled OCP density policy development documentation explicitly shows how our municipal planning department quantified housing capacity based on a defined planning framework. Our official community plan clearly identifies and quantifies the housing capacity North Sanich is planning to accommodate, providing a transparent basis for understanding exactly how the housing capacity in our plan was determined. The CBRE report however does not provide a comparable analysis. Most importantly, it fails to explicitly isolate and disclose how many units those recommendations would create above and beyond North Sanich's provincial housing target. Without those baseline numbers, council and the public cannot determine whether the proposed densities are necessary, proportionate, or supported by evidence. Thank you.

[applause] Mayor, mayor and council staff, my fellow residents. Uh, good evening. My name is Spring Harrison, Forest Park Drive. I think my piece here is about two sentences over three minutes, so I'll try and uh, pick up the pace here. I would like to comment on the draft response to the minister regarding the CBRE advisory report and the proposed housing supply act directives. First, I want to acknowledge that the draft letter is is comprehensive, sets a reasonable tone, and is generally moving in the right direction. It correctly defends the recently adopted OCP, raises infrastructure and fiscal concerns, identifies the need to respect the regional growth strategy, and importantly, [clears throat] it rejects movement of the urban containment boundary into North Sanage.

That said, I believe the response should be strengthened before it is sent. The first point is clarity. If council's position is that the urban containment boundary should not be moved into North Sanage in any of the three proposed areas, then the letter should say so explicitly. As it stands, the paragraph on page three is somewhat ambiguous. The issue is too important to leave open to interpretation. The UCB is a core part of the regional growth strategy and of North Sanish's role within the region. Second, the letter should make clear that the housing targets themselves have not been adequately justified. Council should not accept that the housing target order has been adequately reconciled with the regional growth strategy. The district's role outside the urban containment boundary or the recently adopted OCP.

Before directives are considered, the province should provide the methodology and statutory analysis showing how the targets were derived and how they comply with the housing supply act requirement to consider regional growth strategies. Third, affordability should be addressed more directly. The proposed directives appear to be housing count measures, not affordability measures. More market units do not automatically create affordable units. In a high value, highd desiraability land market. Additional density can simply produce more expensive market housing unless affordability is built into the approval, 10ear covenant, ownership, or financing structure. Fourth, I believe the council should ask for more uh more than just delay given the factual error all error already identified in the advisor's report and the unresolved cumulative impacts of the proposed directives, the lack of demonstrated affordability outcomes, the unresolved infrastructure and service impacts and the insufficient explanation of consistent with consistency with the RGS. Council should ask the minister to pause and reassess the CBRE advisory report and the proposed directives before taking further action. So to sum up, North Senate should continue to accept a fair and defensible share of regional regional housing need, but fair

share must be established through a transparent method that respects regional planning, rural land protection, agricultural values, infrastructure capacity, and actual affordability. So I therefore urge council to strengthen the draft response before sending it and to clearly request that the CBRE advisory report and the proposed ministerial directives be paused and reassessed through an open and collaborative process with the ministry. Thank you. [applause] Uh just excuse me through the chair. We you need to uh have a motion to extend the public participation period. Oh, I didn't that time went back. Extend. Certainly. Um could please put your hands up if you wish to speak tonight. One, two, three, four. So I just see four. Is that correct? Okay. Um so we got four people times three. Call it 20 minutes.

Yeah. Okay. I'll make the motion to extend for 20 minutes. Seconded. Council mccllintok. Those in favor unanimous. Sorry, please proceed. Susan Chandler, North Sanage. What is the potential tax burden of increased density to North Sanage residents? How will water, sewage, schools, flood mitigation, hospitals, policing, parking, transit, fire protection, green and agricultural lands be impacted by increased density? And what will be the associated costs for residents? We have two approaches to housing in North Sanage, our existing OCP and the CBRE report. I would request that council direct staff to estimate the comparative infrastructure costs for these two very different approaches. Sorry, Ben. Our existing OCP is built upon and uses justifiable data including land area, lot sizes, floor area ratio, land cost, construction values, housing typology, unit counts, and sales value. The densities are well justified in our OCP and will let us meet provincial housing targets. In comparison, nowhere in the CBRE report is there an extrapolation of how many units could be constructed over a 20-year time frame based on the introduction of six-story buildings,

smallcale multiple unit housing, reduced minimum lot sizes for lots. There is no data to support the density proposed and no calculation of housing units either market or nonvalue or non-market. In summary, we need a clear understanding of whether or not the required infrastructure to support the densities suggested in the CRB CBRE report can be supplied and what the estimated costs might be. Let's not repeat the experience in Langford with doubledigit tax increases over the past four years. And finally, long live the urban containment boundary. Thank you. [applause] Good evening. I'll take my turn. Uh my name is Greg Warner and a lot of the previous speakers have dealt with some of the things I'd like to say, but I I'm going to say them again. Um uh I think I mentioned I live in North Sanage, but I would like to comment and make suggestions for change to the draft letter to the minister under agenda item 7 AI.

Due to the deficiencies within the CBRE report, the letter from the mayor should request the following information. a a perform analysis to justify the CBRE recommended proposed densities. Just as an example, where did the six-story story buildings come from? What is the support for that? B. A land capacity study to support the proposed densities. C. It should be requested that the minister provide a rationale as to why the medium densities of North Sanage OCP are not acceptable to the province, but they are acceptable to other municipalities in the CRD, which use very similar floor ratios and height restrictions and are meeting their housing targets. D. Minister Bole states, "The advis the adviser conducted a 10-week review which included interviews with yourselves, district staff, as well as review of council decisions, bylaws, policies, and procedures. Miss Boiled letter does not mention former municipal staff, active developers, thirdparty consultants, and other stakeholders who were also consulted.

Council should request a copy of all of the former staff, active developers, thirdparty consultants, and specifically other stakeholders that took part in the interview process of the advisor's report. E because the report and the minister's letter specifically reference individual properties, the council must look closely at the methodology of the consultation process. The letter for the mayor should request the following. number one, the number of participants and the criteria used to to select them. Number two, how competing viewpoints were balanced and three, how the gathered information directly influenced the final recommendations. Without this transparency, neither council nor the public can assess if the process was balanced or if it had certain stakeholders groups were disproportionately represented.

To strengthen public confidence in the independence of this review, council should formally request confirmation of number one, whether interview participants held direct or indirect financial interest in the proposed properties discussed. Two, whether land owners or development proponents whose properties are specifically referenced participated in the consultation, and three, what procedures were used to identify and manage potential conflicts of interest. I would also suggest one wording change on page five. On page five, second paragraph, please remove the reference to consumption of services report. I find it very confusing and is my understanding that no one uses this kind of nomenclature. Instead of consumption of services report, use the term infrastructure capacity assessment. This is more descriptive. And when I read that, I think sewer, water, roads, schools, parking, fire protection, and related infrastructure needs and costs associated. Thank you.

[applause] Good evening, Mayor and Council. Jack Thornberg, North Sanage. I have a lot of admiration for the uh it's a new uh format, the new new letter. Uh and I just wanted to say thank you and appreciate the work that went into it. I don't know how many people were involved, but I thought it was a wonderful start. I do agree with uh a couple of colleagues like um Spring Harrison who brings up a few things that could be um I think put in or or at least um might might be put in in a slightly different way. But I think the overall effort is is excellent and I certainly hope that uh province um listens. Uh I particularly liked uh the last page which deals with directives two, three, and four uh straight on. And to [clears throat] me, I don't even think that I don't even like the word directives. Uh it sounds too much like edicts or um demands. And I I [clears throat] think a a a good provincial government should be working in cooperation with its municipalities

rather than issuing directives from above. I mean the senior government has power over uh junior government and I I understand that but uh there was uh to me very little attempt to uh to do a a real connectivity of of of brain power where there some of their people meet with us and talk about this things these things before these directives are issued. To me, that sounds I mean, with the way it it happens, it almost sounds like a um an authoritarian [clears throat] um top down. Thank you. Thank you, Jack. It does not say the district will amend parking standards. It says parking standards will be reviewed.

It does not say the district will reduce minimum lot sizes. It says the comm cumulative impact of the province's proposed changes will first be analyzed. It does not say the district will apply to extend the urban containment boundary. It says there will be further discussions with the CRD. It does not say the district will pre-zone the three strategic development areas recommended by the adviser. In fact, the draft response makes no reference to that recommendation. It does not say the district will permit six-story residential development in those locations. Again, the draft response makes no reference to that recommendation. Perhaps I've misunderstood. Perhaps the draft response could simply have said, "The district has committed to providing a variety of housing in order to achieve a healthy, sustainable, and affordable community through focusing growth in strategic areas that are served by transit away from hazards and near daily needs." Those aren't my words. They're a direct quotation from the 2025 official community plan.

The question is no longer whether that vision is desirable. Council has answered that question when it adopted the official community plan. The question is whether the district's planning regulations give practical effect to that vision. In my reading, that is the central finding of the advisor's report. Given the council adopted this vision in the 2025 official community plan, accepting the advisers's recommendations and the minister's proposed directives and enhanced reporting requirements should not be difficult or controversial. I encourage council to do exactly that. [applause] Does anyone else else wish to speak? One more Linda McAdam Nors Sananich. Um, Mr. Mayor, council members, and staff, I'm going to talk about two things this evening. Number one is who will be living in these proposed housing developments. and number two, the effect of the change the proposed change in zoning on property owners that live in these proposed zoning change areas. Now, I don't see that we have a lot of people in North Sanage uh couch surfing because they have no place to live. Uh it seems

to me that we need to provide housing for young people who want to get out from their parents' basement for people who are working in this area and learning earning low salaries, minimum wage salaries in stores whatsoever in that sort of thing and possibly for people that have mental health issues or whatever. So, I would like to know, are we supposed to be building housing at market rate on this land for anybody in Canada who decides they want to work here and stay here and retire here? Are we going to build housing for people that really need it in North Sanage? So, that's one consideration. I don't think anybody's talked about this. There's no restrictions on what you're going to well you can build. Is it going to be rental? Is it going to be subsidized? Is it going to be, you know, luxury housing for rich people from Toronto to move to?

That's something that I need think needs to be considered. The second thing that I want to talk about is the effect of the reszoning on people who live in the reszoned areas. And I need information from council on this. What I understand is when you reszone property for a higher use, higher density, bigger buildings, that the value of the property goes up and the taxes go up. Is that true? That's how it works in Vancouver. If that if that is the case, there's going to be people whose land is reszoned for say uh six-story apartments or town houses who who could find their taxes go up and they're going to be stuck paying those taxes until they can uh sell the property to developers. When you reszone so much land, that land is going to be developed over many, many years of time. Are these property owners going to be stuck paying higher taxes for years? I don't know, but somebody needs to look into that. It also will increase the increase the value of their land and then that might take the land

away from being used as I don't know people who want to run have their horse or whatever and then I don't know if you'll have a difference in the in the property values of acreage in those areas and acreages um around here say I don't know but somebody I think needs to take a look at that um so that's really all I have to say I think those I haven't heard anybody talk about those two issues But I think they're quite important. Okay, I can give [clears throat] you a comment there. In the lower mainland, it is a major problem because what's termed airspace and that's because you could have enrichment as an example and again that this has been well well thought of in the [clears throat] in the lower mainland where you could have a bicycle shop owner in a singlestory building or street enrichment. It gets reszoned for a higher density which means you can now put a 20s story building on it and the poor person that owns that bicycle shop is now paying property tax on the

airspace which is the 20 the 19 stories above it is a problem there. [clears throat] Will it be a problem here? Possibly but nowhere near to the same extent. Mhm. [clears throat] But I still think somebody needs to look into those kinds of effects of doing this and reszoning a huge area all at once. There's no need to do that. Yep. So I question why they're doing that as well. That's a different matter. [laughter] Thank you. Thank you. [applause] Does anyone else wish to speak? I'm seeing no one else coming forward. So I shall call an end to the public participation period. And [clears throat] I see an item six, the reports. I assume there are no reports that there are no reports. So we move on to item seven which is unfinished business which is the the district of Los Angeles draft letter of response uh to the housing obviously to the house supply sorry [clears throat] I'm losing my voice supply directives and enhanced reporting requirements.

Um perhaps I'll make [clears throat] I'll make a comment here before I open this up to uh to to council. Obviously there's a big difference here between what you see now in this draft and what you saw a few weeks ago in the initial draft. And of course the major reasons for that is we all we've taken staff input, we've taken residents input, we've taken council input, and we've taken external health input. So this the the draft response you see now has been carefully constructed based on where we're going to go once we receive a response from the minister. So there's going to be a phase B, phase C, phase D and who knows from there on. So this council together with staff has looked at this and thought of this and again constructed this letter based on what we would like the minister to come back with. uh when it comes to items like for instance consumption of services that's a term of art in the appraisal industry it's also a term of art in in some ways

in the [clears throat] um land economics industry what it means for BC for BC and this is my view is that when the province decided it was going to do this massive increase in housing which is an increase in density they should have looked at just one part of consumption of services. Where are the where are the hospitals? We're hospitals as an example are already, you know, got 8 n 10hour waiting waiting lists. If you're going to increase the population by 20 25 to 50% over the next 20 years as per what this this province wants, they should be building hospitals now because they can take 8 to 10 years to construct.

[clears throat] So that particular consumption of services has been put on there for a specific reason to see what response we get back from the government and we will have answers to that. Does it affect North Sanage consumption of services to a smaller extent because it then goes back to the micro aspect of a consumption of services is roads and uh water sewer storm water but [clears throat] that's down the road. it doesn't form part part of of this particular report. So again this has been carefully constructed and it's been carefully constructed again as I just said to to get a response from the province and once we get that response obviously you as members of North Sage will know because it'll be made public and [clears throat] it'll be interesting to say the least.

So now I'll open it up to to council. Council, any questions, comments? C Council Mento. Yes, thank you. And um in my term on on council over the past 12 years, I've never seen the public input as far as the written input is concerned on any other item that's been before council. It's um it's great to see it's great to see the thought that was put in and the uh and the effort that everybody has has given. And there seems to be a constant theme that this council has looked at as far as um crafting this letter. This letter was a a collaborative um a collab a collaborative uh effort by council and the mayor as well as staff and the mayor has already pointed out who who uh was involved in it.

There are some serious concerns that that struck me not only from the directives but from the report that um are now um in this letter and I think it's clear and I and the tone of the letter I think is very very important. We have had discussion about um how we'd like to proceed and there was some there was some differences as to how we would approach this. [snorts] I believe that this council has settled on a um on a a letter that is the most effective and will be heard by the will be heard by the minister. Now the minister has enormous authority to exercise [sighs] that over over us being the um being [clears throat] the municipality. We'll see where it goes from there. This isn't this is just um the beginning of a uh of the conversation that we have we'll have with the minister and um and we have to see where it goes. There are some again I couldn't get I don't want to get into the minutia about

what's being said on each paragraph and each line. I do thank the speakers for coming forward as to whether or not it will be altered or not. I I don't see it being substantive enough. However, um thank you very much for not only speaking today but the letters that came in and um and uh we look forward to continued input because we will see um what this community will accept as far as a um uh a response from the minister. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? I see none. Uh oh, councelor McConni. Uh, thank you, Chair. First of all, I'd like to thank all the members of our community who have taken the time to provide their feedback to council to assist us with drafting our response letter to the Minister of Housing. And thank you to staff for all the additional work that has been done to support this process. And I know how important this is to our community. I appreciate your emails, phone calls, and for attending our meetings. And for those of you who spoke during public

participation, especially during the middle of summer when I know it's a very busy time for many people, and I truly appreciate your contribution to this effort, and it has been a collaborative one. There is a lot that's gone into this to date. Uh but I do I did hear through a couple of comments and it's something that did catch my eye as well too was a comment in regards to the um UCB and the inclusion of Dean Park. I do believe that is could use a little tweaking on the wording there because when I when I read it myself when I read it out loud it kind of reads differently when I read it just silently. So I would like to see some a little bit more defined language than that as far as the entire UCB. But uh again, thank you for everyone for the contribution and um and we'll I guess look forward to the next steps.

Thank you. Young counselors, questions, comments? Councelor Marshall. Um yeah, thank you chair. Um I'm I'm going to pretty much echo the comments of councelor McConi. Um I appreciate the work that's gone into this uh this draft. I think it's better aligned with what our community is telling us and it's a more collaborative effort. So, I'm I'm [clears throat] uh appreciate all the work that's gone into it. And I had the same question was just around um which one of the speakers commented was Dean Park. I'm reading that that same way. And I I'm hoping we can actually reword that slightly. Um perhaps if we have a conversation around what the context was and then we can find some some wording that would better suit. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you, [clears throat] Council Sanjief. Thank you, Chair. Like fellow colleagues, I would like to acknowledge the work and the input from the residents who have been very proactive and who have provided vital input. Uh I agree with the urban containment boundary [snorts] comment Dean Park and also I needed to highlight something that was raised by one of the speakers with regards to RGS that the housing numbers and that were allocated do not justify what we already have approval in terms of RGS. So I think there should be some emphasis on that. If there is room to do that that would be wonderful. Thank you. Thank you.

Any second round of comments from council? I see none. Um I'll [clears throat] make a comment particularly with the one m Mr. Gold was was correct. um when I looked at it, it it can be misleading. What the intent of that is and what I will um suggest as wording and um I'll do [clears throat] this as check the temperature of council first is that um staff in that particular paragraph where we got um cannot support movement of the urban containment boundary. I suggest that we add in in any area of North Sanich and [clears throat] with regard to or the in or the inclusion of Dean Park states within area three as directed by the CBI report that staff um yeah through the chair is that Oh, Holly, sorry. I was just checking. We're on page 249 of the agenda, correct? Yes.

Third, fourth paragraph down. And sorry, I fifth one down, isn't it? My colleagues do captured. Oh, Holly's on it. Sorry about that. So, [clears throat] I'm not putting that out as a motion right now. I'm putting it out to see what council did ask. Councelor Marshall. Uh, yeah. I guess um I will support it when you put it forward as a motion. Okay, thank you staff. Oh, I thought you put your hand up. [laughter] Okay, thanks. Uh, council, any other question? Any other comments before I put it down as a motion? No. Uh then I'll the motion I'll do is as as stated that after urban containment boundary add in any area of north sanich and then continues with all the inclusion of dean park estates within area three as directed in the CBRE report again was it in the CBR report staff do you know if it was the direction or a suggestion I know it's a tough question if you may not have the vote uh through the chair. I do have the

report though, but I don't think I'll be able to find it in a timely in a timely manner though. Okay. What I would suggest is then that we'll do the motion based on direction and that if staff comes back in the morning and says it's not a direction but a suggestion, then we will make the change tomorrow morning. Is that okay, staff? Thank you. So again the motion is after the urban containment boundary in any area of of north sanage then it continues sorry within areas in North Sanage or the inclusion of Dean Park estates with an area through as directed by CBR report. Do I have a second council manki questions comments? Council Linthawk.

Yes thank you. Is it necessary to specify Dean Park um when you've already set any area of North Sanage or um no because the inclusion of Dean Park estates is a is a different directive to with regard to the urban containment boundary but it the change suggested by CBRE does include uh Dean Parker states yes I understand that and I I did read that but I was just wondering whether or not your motion was redundant or uh I'm certainly in support of But uh uh just toss that out for clarity. No, it it's not redundant because we again because the way this has been constructed to to generate a response from from the province Dean Pakist mentioned specifically not any other um area within North Sanage council me.

Uh thank you. Yes, through the chair just on I'm looking at the I took the CB report out of um a previous agenda, but I see on page 44 of the report it does say state established southeast quadrant infill area which Dean Park estates has been identified as. So, and that's where it's the um panhandles, lots, duplexes, all that sort of thing. So, that's okay. Thank you. So does it say if it's a directive or is a words of a suggestion under is under item 3.1 six. So whether that is the directive or a recommendation I don't know because it was a fairly staff complex report.

If I if I may, uh to the chair, if I may, um there are explicitly four directives under the proposed directives and that's the first section of their summary and then it goes into the enhanced reporting section and item number one is urban containment boundary area and that's when it talks about McTavish um and the southeast quadrant itself. So it it would it appears to be under the enhanced reporting. It's enhanced reporting criteria. So is the enhanced report a directive or a suggestion? It's just an enhance. It's not a directive suggestion. Okay. Thank you. So I I'll change the motion then from directed as suggested in the CBR report.

Are you okay with that, Council Marshall? Thank you. I won't do we won't do an amend amended motion. [laughter] Uh any further questions, comments? I'm seeing none. Those in favor? Unanimous. And again, I appreciate what a number of residents have said here tonight. Um, but I'm going to suggest we don't make those changes to this particular report because the the many of the comments will be um once we receive a response after we receive a response uh from the minister to this this particular letter. So, we're not ignoring what you've said. Um it's just again we we've already considered it when we would put those kind of um uh questions or requests and uh we did consider putting them in this type of report but the decision by the experts was don't do that do it later.

So again council anything else with regard to the report councelor Marshall sorry mongi [laughter] thank you chair the only comment I have is I know that the extension we had was until July 31st and I see the date of the draft is July 31st is there any capacity within staff to have this compiled called for tomorrow and sent out tomorrow instead of the very 11th hour. Yeah, this has been sent out tomorrow morning. Okay, thank you then. I guess I just have to have the date changed on it. That's all. Yeah, I was assuming that would be automat automatic. Yeah. Is that okay? Okay, staff. Thank you. Further questions, comments.

So we have many we now have 49 emails. Does uh council wish to speak bring forward any one of them to address further um or should we simply go not simply it's not the thing or should we go to the recommendation um [clears throat] by staff and [snorts] Councilman Fent. Yes, I can make the recommendation. I don't see council um um picking any particular letter out. Okay. Okay. Uh, but I'll certainly make the the recommendation that council receiving consider the public feedback submitted to the district of North Sanage. Sorry, Jack, if I may. I'm sorry. I think what we've done is we've received it. We've made an amendment, one amendment.

So I would suggest is that is that we um because we've considered it is that um is that we adopt not adopt the motion is to accept um the the letter as presented tonight with amendment one uh made as a suggestion. Yes, I was going to do that on um point two. Oh, my apologies then. Okay. Yeah, I was still on point one there. If if I could continue. Uh my recommendation is that council receive and consider the public feedback submitted to the district of North Sanage regarding the draft letter of response to the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. I break that that motion in two or do you want them both?

Um do them both. Okay. and to accept the amended draft letter of response to the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs as presented or approved the draft letter for response with the following amendments which we've made. Um, [clears throat] and the following amendment was any area of North Sanage or area of Dean Park as suggested in CBR [clears throat] report. Okay, staff. Is that acceptable? I yes, the motion's acceptable. I do have another piece through the chair. Um, a member of the public did just approach us and request to to have one more person speak. So, I thought I would offer it to the council for consideration. It's item number 16, um, El Don, and she was she was, uh, unaware that the public participation was closing. So, Okay. Thank you. Uh, council, do you have a motion to accept one person coming forward?

Um, I've I've got no objections to that. Um, do we re do I make my motion after the speaker or before? Well, that you haven't seconded it yet, so it's open on the floor. Okay, this is the time to do it. Yes. Um, do you have a motion to do that? Yes. Council seconded. Sorry, for the speaker. Yes, one speaker. Yes. Okay. Uh those in favor unanimous. [snorts] Good evening, mayor and council. I've got a different topic for you guys tonight. Hopefully a little refreshing. I wanted to talk again, please, about the traffic safety issues on Barrett Drive within Dean Park and uh particularly as it relates to speed [snorts] and the safety of people that are walking along there and parked cars on both sides of Barrett Drive. And when there's no sidewalk and people are forced out into the road as the shrubs and trees are not cut back, so there's nowhere for people to go. And when you've got the parked cars there as well, they're walking right out onto the road. And it's an extreme safety issue.

In particular, where currently where the bus stops, the school bus, the line of sight is obstructed to the point where traffic is sometimes clocked at up to 80 kilometers an hour and they go right through a stopped school bus with the signs out and one day the children are going to get hit. Now, I was told that this needed to wait until September. I understand the urgency of the densification issues, but I'm asking please, mayor, council, and staff, if you could consider making this a priority before someone is literally killed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. So, we come back to Councilman Clint's motion and the staff said it's a valid motion. So, do we have a second?

Councelor Marshall. Uh Council for the questions, comments. Councelor Marshall. Uh yeah, again, just to say thank you for everybody's work on this and the collaborative effort it took to bring the the letter forward. Um I've taken quite a few notes on what was said tonight. Um and I look forward to further discussion on that. And I'm happy with the letter to see basically [clears throat] the approach of um finalizing our zoning bylaws and seeing how our OCB does before we jump into all of these other uh directives. And I um thank you mayor for clarifying what the process is going forward. We're certainly hearing you. Um there is touch the letter does touch very briefly on asking the um minister for a cumulative impact analysis. So giving us a little bit of information about how that worked and I think that's the a good starting point. So, um, I'm definitely hearing what you're saying. Uh, and I appreciate the approach that council's taking of this is the first step in responding to the minister. So, thank you.

Thank you. Further questions, comments? I I see none. So, we're looking for motions, new business, and understand is what? First of all, is there any motions, new business? I assume not. Sorry. Oh, my apologies. Yes. [laughter] Okay. Those in favor, unanimous. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll move on to motions and new and new business. There are no new motions of new business. So, we move on to item nine with correspondence. There is no correspondence. There's correspondence for council information. I look for a motion based on uh [clears throat] received council Marshall. Seconded, council me. Those in favor? Unanimous. And there is no rise in report I assume. Thank you. And uh I look for a motion for adjournment.

Councelor Marshall seconded. Councelor Mcccleintoch. Those in favor unanimous. And thank you very much. We're done for tonight. And again I thank you all for showing up and and giving your comments. [snorts]