Council heard that Saanich’s proposed tree bylaw would set canopy targets for development sites, bring more mid-sized trees under protection and require planting even on sites with few existing trees. Public speakers broadly wanted stronger protection, but some objected to incentives and cash-in-lieu payments that could let trees be removed; councillors also split over whether the draft should go to an advisory committee before returning to Council. Council added that committee review and received the report, but did not adopt a new bylaw: staff expect to return with a draft in late 2026 or early 2027. Council also endorsed a call for the province to address barriers to team-based primary care, citing a local shortage of family doctors and the need for stable funding and operating models.
Generated from the recording's captions and the official minutes.
What was discussed
AI summary · check against sources
I Motion to close the meeting to the public
governance
The meeting notice listed a closed session to discuss land matters, early-stage municipal service negotiations and confidential negotiations involving another local government. The public transcript begins with the reconvened Council meeting and does not include the vote to close the earlier session.
Carried, unanimous
Routine: close the meeting to the public to discuss specified land matters, preliminary municipal-service negotiations, and confidential negotiations involving local governments.
Official wording: That the meeting be closed in accordance with the Community Charter, Part 4, Division 3, Section 90 (1) (e), (k) and 90 (2) (b) (ii) as the matters relate to the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the Council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the Council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public; and the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the municipality and another local government or between another local government and a third party.
Council ratified a direction from its Committee of the Whole meeting on a development permit and rezoning application at 3308 and 3312 Tennyson Avenue. The direction allows staff to prepare a Council report and bylaw for a decision based on the proposed concept; it does not itself approve the application.
Agreement
No one opposed the direction to prepare a report and bylaw based on the proposed concept.
C.1 Tree Protection Bylaw - Project Status Update, Engagement Summary and Recommended Directions
parks environment4 public speakers20:17 Watch · Read
Staff and a consultant outlined proposed changes to Saanich’s tree bylaw, with a draft expected back in late 2026 or early 2027. Inside the urban containment boundary, trees at least 30 centimetres in diameter would be regulated; rural properties would lose the current allowance to remove one tree per acre each year without another reason under the bylaw. Development sites would have to meet canopy targets set by land-use type as well as a one-for-one replacement requirement: on development sites, a large tree expected to grow to a large size at maturity would count as two replacement trees, a medium one as one, and a small one as half. Cash in lieu would remain available where planting is not feasible, while staff proposed higher security or cash-in-lieu amounts for trees needed to meet canopy targets and extra compensation for removed District-owned trees. The proposal also includes more structured arborist oversight and tree-retention security deposits on some projects, stronger penalties, and a permit pathway to remove listed invasive trees while still requiring replacement. Several public speakers said rules should require tree retention rather than rely on developer incentives; one resident also questioned whether cash-in-lieu funds reliably restore canopy near where trees are removed. Councillors discussed whether advisory committee review would delay the bylaw: an amendment to require a presentation and endorsement from the Natural Areas, Parks and Trails Advisory Committee passed over Councillor Chambers’s objection. Council then received the report as amended; staff said the draft would return for Council consideration, with further public input expected at that stage.
Agreement
Council members and public speakers recognized the value of mature trees and the need to improve long-term canopy cover.
Several councillors supported linking development approvals to canopy outcomes, including planting on sites that currently have few or no trees.
Staff said the bylaw would be tested against representative applications before returning, and that the existing bylaw would remain in force in the meantime.
Council received the report with the added direction for a committee presentation and endorsement before it returns to Council.
Disagreement
Several public speakers argued that tree retention should be a firm requirement, not something developers are encouraged to do through credits or incentives; others worried that flexible credits and cash in lieu could weaken protection.
Staff said incentives are meant to encourage suitable larger trees and retention of high-value trees, because a single mandatory tree size would not work on every site.
A resident questioned whether replacement planting should occur near the neighbourhood where trees were removed. Staff said the Urban Forest Reserve Fund can support broader canopy needs, including tree equity, and is not tracked as a one-for-one replacement pot.
Councillor Chambers opposed referring the draft to the advisory committee, saying another step could delay an already long-awaited update. Supporters of the referral said additional review could help check the details and would not leave trees without protection because the current bylaw remains in effect.
Councillor DeVries raised a concern that canopy targets need to consider where trees are placed, not only the percentage of a site covered; staff said the treatment of District-led projects was still being worked out.
Add a step requiring staff to present the proposed tree protection bylaw to the Natural Areas, Parks and Trails Advisory Committee and seek its endorsement before bringing the bylaw back to Council.
Official wording: That the motion be amended to add the following: that staff bring the proposed bylaw to the Natural Areas, Parks and Trails Advisory Committee for a presentation and endorsement prior to returning to Council.
Routine: receive the tree-protection-bylaw project update for information, and have staff present the proposed bylaw to the Natural Areas, Parks and Trails Advisory Committee for endorsement before returning it to Council.
Official wording: That Council receive the report titled “Tree Protection Bylaw - Project Status Update, Engagement Summary and Recommended Directions” dated May 13, 2026 from the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services for information and that staff bring the proposed bylaw to the Natural Areas, Parks and Trails Advisory Committee for a presentation and endorsement prior to returning to Council.
D.1 Enabling Team-Based Primary Care in British Columbia
community services3 public speakers1:57:12 Watch · Read
Councillor Phelps Bondaroff put forward a motion asking the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) to call on the province to address barriers to team-based primary care through sustainable funding, governance and operating models. He said that on the Saanich Peninsula, Oak Bay and part of Victoria, about 133,000 people are in the area described to Council; 98,000 are attached to a family doctor or nurse practitioner, 19,000 are on the Health Connect Registry, and about 22,000 have no family doctor and are not on the registry. He described team-based clinics as bringing together family doctors, nurse practitioners and other health professionals, but said clinics face funding, recruitment and operating-cost barriers. A public speaker supported the model but urged Saanich to focus on what the municipality can do to enable clinics locally; another argued that calling on the province was outside Council’s role. Councillors in favour said advocacy is part of the municipality’s role and distinguished this motion from proposals for Saanich to provide health care itself. The motion carried without opposition and will go forward to UBCM.
Agreement
Councillors supporting the motion agreed that the province has the main responsibility for health care and that municipal advocacy is an appropriate way to press for action.
Supporters described team-based primary care as a way to improve access and increase the capacity of local clinics.
Disagreement
A public speaker questioned whether the motion was within Council’s role and argued that Saanich should focus on local ways to enable clinics; the councillors who spoke in support said advocacy to the province was within that role.
Ask the Union of BC Municipalities to urge the Province to develop lasting funding, governance, and operating arrangements that make it easier to establish and sustain primary-care teams, including teams with nurses and other health professionals.
Official wording: WHEREAS team-based primary care is widely recognized as an evidence-based approach that improves patient access, continuity and comprehensiveness of care, and health outcomes, while increasing clinic capacity and improving the efficiency of primary care delivery;
AND WHEREAS the Province has identified team-based primary care as central to British Columbia’s primary care system, but widespread implementation continues to be hampered by systemic barriers, including physician-centred funding structures, limited funding for nurses and allied health professionals, lack of local flexibility to recruit and manage interdisciplinary teams, and inadequate operational and infrastructure funding;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that UBCM call on the Province of British Columbia to address systemic barriers to team-based primary care by developing sustainable funding, governance, and operational models that enable the widespread implementation and long-term sustainability of team-based primary care in British Columbia.