Transcript: Special Council Meeting and In-camera Meeting Notice - 2026-06-08

Miss Froud, shall we call the meeting to order?

That sounds like a good idea.

Okay, do you want to take us through the first item please?

The first item on the agenda on the reconvene special council meeting agenda is public input on business item C and D and for info that is the tree protection bylaw project status update, engagement summary and recommended directions report and the enabling teams based primary care in British Columbia.

Notice a motion from Councillor, Councillor Phelps Fondoroff. We do have one individual who pre registered to speak and Anthony Ralph was. If you'd like to either come forward to the microphone or unmute your line, you'll have three minutes to address council. Please begin by stating your name and if you're comfortable your address, sir, neighborhood or if you're a resident, Saanich.

Welcome,

I'm Tony Wass of 956 Dunn Avenue in the Swan Lake neighborhood. So shortly you'll hear the motion from Councillor Phelps Bondaroff entitled enabling team based primary care in British Columbia to be considered at the EBCM in September. So on behalf of family doctors for Saanich, I ask that council agree to support this motion tonight and also in September when it comes before the ebcm. Team based primary care clinics are rapidly taking over from the single family doctor as entrepreneur. For example, the West Saanich Medical Clinic has been purchased by the South Island Primary Care Society from the doctor. It's now run by a non profit society gearing up to 10 to have 10 doctors serving about 10,000 patients. Since I last addressed you there have been a few more interesting developments.

Surrey seeking to expedite approvals for new clinics in city owned buildings. This was announced just last month. View Royal is supporting a non profit primary care clinic in Eagle Creek Village. I'm sure there are many similar projects underway across the province. Here in Saanich there are more than 30,000 folk waiting for a family doctor. 30 more doctors working from three new primary care clinics will address most of the need. We know the rate limiting step is setting up the team based clinics and we know the optimal size for a team based clinic like this, about 4,000 square feet. So Phelps Island Primary Care Society has a Rolodex of a few hundred doctors who I've been told are prepared to come to the capital region as soon as we've got the clinics built.

So right now what we need is the province to engage constructively with these NGOs who will expedite the build of team based primary care clinics. Build it and they the doctors will come. Thank you.

Thank you.

If there's anybody else who wishes to address council, please come forward at this time. And a reminder for those participating via teams, the meeting link is located at Saanich CA Agendas which is on the displayed on the screen presently. And if you're interested in addressing council on either of those items on teams, we just ask that you leave your video display off and microphone muted except when addressing council. And if you wish to speak, you must use the raise your hand function to join the speaking queue. A reminder speakers are going to have up to three minutes each to address council. And just looking if there's anybody in chambers who wishes to come forward.

Good evening again.

Good evening.

Like we've met before. Matt McGeechy. I live in the Brayford area. Just a couple of comments on the tree or whatever this is the tree report. One of the things that really strikes me is the incentive incentivizing developers to meet or beat canopy cover goals. And you know, again it says allow developers to play a major role in preserving and enhancing canopy cover. Another one credit will be given for projects that retain trees or surpass canopy height and introducing replacement tree size class credits. All of those things to me

kind

of defers everything to the developer instead of just giving them the guidelines that you're willing to work with and forgetting about incentivizing somebody to do the right thing. It is kind of, you know, I spoke about the OCP before but is there anything official about the ocp? And this just kind of has the same kind of feel to it. It's like, well, I guess the developer makes the calls, not the council. So if you have a belief in whatever you're trying to achieve, I don't think you should necessarily need to incentivize somebody to do that. You could just simply make the rule and stick to it. Second error. Yeah, you know, again at the end the conclusion ends was while also supporting additional housing options.

So I guess the trees will still kind of play second fiddle to everything else that Sandish wants to do, which is unfortunate. I was how much time I have left. I was up at both Montalme and Pickles the other day and you know, when you look at Saanich from that height, it's amazing how few houses you actually see, you know, but the tree cover is really nice and it's certainly something we wouldn't want to lose. So you know, to simply incentivize somebody to, you know, to do the right thing to me is the wrong message that you're sending anyway, that's All I have to say about that.

The other thing is I wanted to quickly address the team based primary care. The motion that's in front of council. I think once again it may be well intentioned but it's really out of scope for the council to decide. I think it's way outside of your lane. You have no control over what the provincial government does and I think it has more to do with electioneering in my opinion than anything else. There's nothing there about Sanich in this motion at all. So thank you.

Thank you.

If there's anybody else who wishes to address council, please come forward at this time or use the raise your hand feature if you're participating via teams.

Hi.

Hi.

Okay.

Jan Ellison, Savage I left home without my notes of what I wrote before. So this is a quick faked one. C1 first, I think it's almost impossible to balance tree protection with development and density, especially with the current building envelopes and the variances that are being allowed. I agree with the reduction of diameter for regulating trees within the bylaw. That would have saved two of my neighbor's trees recently. There are many substantial trees that are short of the 60 centimeters that really should be saved. I disagree with keeping the cash in lieu process. I don't know if you're going to do that or not, but I find it's a cheap way to get more mass and density on a site without a commitment of making room for the trees.

If it's retained, the tree dollar value should be increased substantially. We're not valuing enough these trees that are slated for removal. Also, we need some way for residents to check on where the cash in lieu dollars go. All we know now is that they go into the urban forest fund and then there's no way to track where or if the trees are ever replaced. It's now two years after the phase two of the Shelburne trees that were removed. We're owed about 200 trees and Saanich still doesn't know where the whole Shelburne tree, where they're going and the immediate vicinity has now become the whole Shelburne Valley, which I don't find to be a fair system.

For areas that lose a mass of trees. That means that they might not ever go back in that area. Also, there should be a time deadline for planting after removal and a distance radius to prevent long term canopy loss in certain areas. The report doesn't have enough info about what you mean by size, class credits, incentives for high value and mature trees, canopy credits and moving from the Stem count replacement to the canopy area. If that's the direction you're going, it would be helpful to know more about it Now. I think saving trees, especially the large ones, should be a condition of development, somewhat like the land dedications for street fronts.

We shouldn't have to need credits or incentives. We should expect that to be laid out for the developers or for anyone for that matter. I assume that this will be back in council as the bylaw changes are more defined. But will there be another chance for public input before it comes to council?

Thanks.

Thank you.

If there's anybody else who wishes to address council on either of these items, please come forward at this time.

Good evening, council. My name is Mike Corey and I

live in the Shelburne.

Shelburne Valley watershed area where apparently it sucks. Nevertheless, I'm here to speak on sea tree retention. I am complete favor of anything that results in in retention of trees and protection of the natural environment, which I feel is far, far more important than economic growth any day. I didn't get a chance to really read it much. I'm speaking here tonight because I. I came to watch. I have to say something. I agree with the previous speakers. I don't think we should have incentives for pre tree protection. We already have tree bylaws. I get worried when I hear things like size class credits. I couldn't really find anything on it, but I know a lot about carbon credits and carbon trading and I know that they're kind of a bit of sleight of hand if anything else,

especially

when it results in flexible replacement. I don't know what that means. I would humbly suggest that it would be nice to have the presentations for this new tree bylaw prior to us being able to speak so we have a better understanding of what's really going on. I also think that the staff work very hard to do this and in my opinions, most of the time I see changes to local area plans, OCPs, bylaws. It's not for the protection of the residents or the environment. It appears to be just more efficient way of economic growth through building and construction. I'll admit that very cynically, but that is my observations.

I think that before the staff goes through all this trouble of trying to get the bylaws made, even with their ambiguity, is that maybe you get in touch with the variance board because all this work, all this tree bylaw potential will be relatively, if not literally useless if the 10 to 12 variances are given for building projects where they just build them.

Lot line to lot line and of course trees that are on the building footprint can't be protected. So it's all irrelevant. It's a waste of taxpayers money even going through the steps. I just spent a weekend in Vancouver where they've built lots of towers but every tower has trees. They have gone beyond the call to keep vegetation and the urban forest happening regardless of the size and the densities. The one in front of me, upstreet wall to wall buildings. Even in the afternoons I can't even look out my window because the sun is reflecting off all the glass and there are zero trees. Thank you.

Thank you.

If there's anybody else who wishes to address council, please come forward.

I'm just going to share a little bit about myself before I begin. I want to speak to the team based primary care.

Could we have your name?

Oh yes, I'm Nathan Ng. I live in Saanich.

Thank you.

You know I moved here in 2022 to attend university of Victoria. I grew up in Vancouver B. C. in East Vancouver. And you know this, you know, I do support team based primary care but I think the question should not be, you know, calling on the province to, you know, address this. It's really not specific but I think what we should really ask is what you know, Saanich and the municipality is doing to you know, incentivize team based primary care. I mean the first speaker said it quite well. You know, build it and they will come. But when I see things like I've seen the Quadro McKenzie plan and huge scaling back of that plan, things like the Beckwith and Chatterton hub, I bring this up because I grew up in East Vancouver on East 41st, in a townhouse two blocks down.

East 41st is a major hub, It's a major street. And you know, two blocks down there was a development that went up. You know, when I still lived there, you know, I was still an adolescent but I wasn't consulted, you know, on that development. I didn't go to any public hearings, my family certainly didn't, they didn't speak English that well. But that development went up and it was a four story and it had commercial services at the bottom there and there was a medical clinic that opened and a pharmacy that opened and I went and used that. You know, I already had a family doctor. But think about the rest of the people in the community. You know, this new medical clinic that opened up, they're able to go use that now.

And that wouldn't have happened if that development didn't go forward. I did use that pharmacy which, you know, it was a one minute walk away and I was able to develop, you know, get to know that pharmacist personally. And that is, I think a big advantage of, you know, those sort of hubs that you see in the QMP plan that were seriously scaled back in, you know, what, you know, in recent months. And that's a missed opportunity. I mean, furthermore, you know, when I lived in that townhouse, you know, two blocks into the side street there was a new townhome development that opened. And think about, you know, now we have this new development. Those people who live in that townhomes town, new townhomes, can also go to that clinic that opened up. Right.

So I think this goes to really, you know, what can Saanich really do to really, you know, incentivize, you know, more building of, I mean, build the clinics and they will come.

I'm sorry, that's your time limit.

Thanks.

Thank you.

If there's anybody else who wishes to address council, please come forward.

I'm here, so I might as well say something. Rishi Sharma, 4541 Pisseton Place in Sanich and Gordon Head. I actually came here because I heard on the radio that there was going to be a discussion about tree bylaw amendments. I think it was Adam Sterling on cfax. So I made sure I came today because I wanted to have a. I thought we were having more of a discussion, more of a presentation of what the changes might be. I should have been more prepared, maybe read, pre, read some material so I could talk about the actual amendments that might be happening. But I'll tell you a story about what happened just this past weekend.

We were having a backyard barbecue and all of the parents and children were sitting in the backyard staring at the beautiful trees. And we're suggesting that this is why it's so beautiful being in Saanich, because we have this cover, this canopy, the shade, and it was just stunning. And my father, who you may know was a builder back in the day, he did a complex, a small complex, and proactively he decided to save many trees on his own because it just beautified it and they're still there. And we drive by that complex and it's just beautiful. So I do understand the incentive aspect of it, but having pure guidelines of what we need to do, having authority and just letting it, letting it down, this is what we're supposed to do for the trees.

I don't think there is a developer or a builder who would argue that we do need to maintain and keep the trees and looking at more setbacks and the setbacks of these larger buildings if they're going to have to put in place, have a little gathering area at the front, have some grass, have some trees, have some greenery. I think it's necessary to keep the fabric of Sanish moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

If there's anybody else who wishes to address Council, please come forward. I'm just calling for a last time. If anybody wishes to address Council on either of these items, or if you're participating via teams, please use your raise your hand feature. So, just going to pause for a

second or two,

Madam Chair. There's nobody else who is coming forward and there's nobody who has raised their hand within teams. The next item on the agenda is the Tree Protection Bylaw Project status update, Engagement summary and recommended directions report. This is a report from the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services and the purpose is to present an update on the Tree Protection Bylaw Review project.

Councillor Harper,

thank you. Don't we have item B first?

My apologies, I skipped right over.

We do actually have ratification of the motions from the committee at the whole meeting. My colleague Colton has forwarded the recommendation to Council, or if Councillor Harper wishes she could read in the motion as

well, I kind of know it. Okay. That Council provides staff direction to prepare the Council report and bylaw for decision based on the concept as proposed.

Okay.

Any comments? Seeing none. All those in favor?

Opposed?

None are opposed. That motion carries. Thank you. Okay, next item, please.

Then the next item is the Tree Protection Bylaw report.

Staff, please.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Natalie Deschene and I'm the Acting Senior Parks Manager as well as the Manager who oversees our current Tree Protection Bylaw. It's our pleasure to be here tonight to share with you an update on our proposed bylaw Tree recommended changes. Online we have Emilia Nidoba with Diamond Head Consulting and Andrew Connell, our park's Business Improvement Manager and Senior arborist. A quick reminder what brought us here this evening is Council Strategic Plan asked us to review, update and implement the Urban Forest Strategy, which was adopted and has since won several awards in 2024. Within the urban Forest Strategy, there are some actions. Action 1. 1. Excuse me, strategy 1. 1, action 2.

Within the strategy, calls to review and update relevant policies, bylaws, programs as opportunities arise to integrate the Urban Forest Strategy goals within, for example, and that included the Tree Bylaw. There's several other recommended changes in that MOT. Ms. Nidoba will now take us through a summary of the proposed changes and directions that will help Saanich achieve our canopy cover goals.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening everyone. And I'm pleased to be here to present the proposed tree protection bylaw updates. I will just initiate the presentation. Okay, so great. I'm going to take you through a bit of a refresh on the project, overview this extent of the scope and the timeline, and then share some of the high level engagement results that have informed the updates that we're proposing and then take you through those key changes and try to provide some of that detail and context that will explain how they're structured and what they'll achieve and then briefly touch on next steps.

So this work was initiated in 2025 as initially as a background research phase, and that's really where we drafted our initial key directions and then we moved into an engagement phase to sort of test some of those initial findings with staff and industry and the public.

And we wrapped up that engagement in December last and then since then have been developing the process of drafting those bylaw updates and working through an iterative process to going back to staff and stakeholders as we refine those. And now we're ready tonight to provide an update to you and then anticipate completing the draft process and bringing the bylaw back to council in 2027. So, as Natalie mentioned, in terms of some of the drivers behind why the tree bylaw update is occurring, a big one of course is the adoption of the Urban Forest Strategy, which set a long term 2064 canopy cover goal of 44%.

And the strategy also did include a specific action to update the Tree Protection bylaw so that the policies would align with the canopy cover goals and support that long term growth and sustain of the urban tree canopy. And at the same time, the provincial housing mandates also require Saanich to accommodate more housing in existing urban areas. And so the updated bylaw needs to both regulate tree retention, tree removal, tree replacement towards achieving the district's canopy cover goal, while still enabling the required zoning and housing mandates to be met. And so tree bylaws are an important tool to regulate urban tree canopy, but they do have limits.

We did author as well a tree regulations toolkit for the metro region and go through a range of the tools that are helpful for municipalities to comprehensively regulate their canopy. And tree bylaws are an important tool, but they're just one of the tools. What tree bylaws can do is they can establish which trees are regulated, they can set retention and replacement requirements and they can support and enforce the tree protection that can occur during development. But a tree bylaw cannot prevent land from being developed for the uses and densities that are allowed by zoning, and it can't override provincial laws or utility safety rules. So, for example, if there's a lot that's zoned to develop, from a single house to a new fourplex, if a protected tree sits where the approved foundation or required services have to go, the tree bylaw can't prevent that that project from being built.

The zoning and provincial legislation set the permitted use and density, and the tree bylaw can't override those higher level rules. So what the tree bylaw can do, it can make that process of development accountable. It can require a permit, it can require an arborist assessment if needed, it can require protection for any trees that can be retained. And if that can't, if they can't be retained, it can require replacement trees or cash in lieu if the removal is necessary. But it can't prevent someone from using their property for the purposes or the density that the zoning already allows. So, in addition to some of those policy drivers behind the update, engagement with the people who interact with the bylaw was also an important part of this process.

We gathered input from district staff, the development and arborist community and the public. And that input has contributed to identifying where the current by law is working well, where it has gaps, and how we could potentially improve it. The activities that occurred in 2025 included both internal and external workshops, public open house and a questionnaire on hallowsanich. And this engagement was building on earlier urban forest strategy engagement, where we'd also heard support for stronger tree protection and some potential updates to the bylaw. And so across this round of engagement, we heard from participants that there was high value placed on mature trees, on long term canopy growth, on climate resilience, and on having clearer expectations for applicants and reviewers through the process with the tree bylaw.

So I'll summarise what we heard just briefly in the context of these four themes that we're using to talk about the bylaw updates. And I'll just note too that these little icons on the left, we repeat them where they relate to the proposed changes to relate back to these engagement themes later on in the presentation. So one of the focuses of the bylaw updates is on administration improvements. And so on that theme we heard from staff and arborists that they wanted clearer definitions, better communication and more consistent requirements to just make that administration smoother. And the development and arborist community also Asked for more predictable standards and better alignment with other municipal processes on tree protection.

The public questionnaire responses showed that the majority of respondents supported keeping healthy trees and having stronger projection measures associated with that goal. An arborist also emphasised the value of early involvement so that tree retention could actually inform the site planning before but design decisions were locked in as the process moved forward. In terms of replacement, participants supported moving beyond the current replacement ratio approach alone and towards a canopy cover approach for development sites. And participants also noted that constrained sites can make on site replacement very difficult if not impossible in certain cases. And they requested more flexibility in how they could meet replacement requirements when sites are very constrained.

And finally, in terms of compliance and enforcement staff and engagement, participants supported having better tree retention tools, having clearer arborist roles, having more consistent fencing standards and having stronger enforcement options. And so that input along with the original objectives of this project UP update project have really informed the main updates that we're proposing. Before I get into those, these were the initial objectives established from the outset. They were to align the Bylaw with the urban forest strategy and official community plan, including a shift towards canopy cover based outcomes. The second objective here is to clarify and streamline administration across land uses and permit types. The third is to prioritise the retention of high value trees and recognise the asset value of public trees. And then the last one there is to strengthen tools for compliance, enforcement and protection during development.

So we're still drafting and testing the Bylaw updates, but the staff report in the following slides show the direction that we're expecting to include in the draft bylaw. So administrative changes really are intended to make the Bylaw easier to understand and apply. So they don't necessarily have a big impact on how the rules that are within the Bylaw, but they should improve its functionality. So updated definitions we expect will help reduce uncertainty for staff and applicants and arborists. For example, we've added definitions for canopy area and canopy cover to help support the new canopy based replacement framework. We've also defined time frames and more consistent submission requirements which close some of the gaps which we expect will make the permit review process more consistent and predictable.

In terms of enhancing tree protection, there's several core elements of the existing Bylaw that remain unchanged and that includes native species protections and the protected tree size outside the urban containment boundary. So in the rural areas, the main proposed change here is inside the urban containment boundary, where in urban areas trees with a diameter of 30 cm or greater when measured at a height of 1. 4 meters above the ground would be regulated. And that specific measurement type is called dbh or diameter at breast height and is the standard in the industry. And so although reducing the protected tree size will bring more trees into the permit process, it can also make the bylaw more flexible and effective.

And that's because mid sized trees are often easier to retain and design around than very large trees, especially on development sites where building footprints and access and servicing can really limit the options. And sometimes these mid side trees might also be healthier and more adaptable to changing development conditions or site conditions from development, or better located on the property to enable retention. So we expect that will actually allow us to improve the tree retention outcomes on site. Additional changes include clarifying the size at which district trees are protected and also adding shore pine to the list of regulated native trees. When it comes to the reasons why a tree permit would be issued to remove a tree, the updated bylaw would keep most of those existing reasons. The proposed changes would eliminate the annual removal allocation for rural properties.

So instead of just being able to remove a tree the trees per year for any reason, instead those rural properties would also need to fit one of the reasons for removal in the bylaw. And so that would enable sort of more consistent approach to tree retention and permitting removals across the municipality. The update would also allow sort of a clearer pathway for removal and replacement in specific situations that staff have encountered, such as when it's an invasive species that someone wants to remove, house moves and landscape renewals, things that have come up but the current bylaw hasn't really sufficiently addressed.

In terms of tree replacement. The framework of the draft bylaw update would keep the one to one replacement ratio for trees that are removed on non development sites because it's simple to administer and broadly understood by the public. But for development sites, the tree bylaw would move towards a canopy cover driven outcome. So development sites would need to meet land use defined canopy cover targets at the building permit stage, in addition to addressing a one to one replacement requirement. So this means that applicants would need to show how they'll achieve the required future canopy cover target on that site, in addition to how they'll meet the one to one replacement requirements.

But this will create sort of a stronger link between what replacement planting is doing on site and the actual canopy performance that we're expecting in order to meet the canopy cover targets established in the strategy. So this slide explains how replacement tree size classes would work on development sites. So a tree size class refers to the expected size of the tree at maturity. It doesn't refer to the pot size or the nursery size at planting. Under the proposed approach, one large class tree, so a tree that would be very large at maturity would count as two replacement trees. One medium class tree would count as one replacement tree, and one small class tree would count as half a replacement tree.

This approach rewards the planting of trees that will provide more canopy at maturity and the higher benefits that are associated with large trees where the site has enough space and the good growing conditions to support them. This graphic illustrates the difference between the small, medium and large class trees at maturity. And again, larger trees. They generally provide greater canopy, higher shade and cooling benefits, more rainfall interception and habitat value. So we really want to encourage those larger trees on development sites. The intent isn't to require large trees everywhere. The intent is really to encourage that the largest tree suitable for that site and that available space be incentivized to be used whenever, whenever possible.

The development sites will need to meet the canopy cover target that applies to the relevant official community plan land use designation. These targets come from the 2024 Urban Forest Strategy and they were developed based on forecasting the canopy potential on these different land use types, both based on what's existing there today and what is anticipated in a post development scenario. So for example, the primary growth areas have a lower target because they're expected to accommodate more density and hardscape, whereas rural and institutional areas have higher targets because they generally have more space to support free canopy. And this creates a clearer link between the bylaw and land use planning and then those long term canopy cover targets. So this is a simplified example just to illustrate how the canopy cover approach would work.

The lot in this case is 10 by 30 meters for a total lot size of 300 square meters. In this example, the land use target is 35%, so the site would need 105 square metres of canopy cover. The green tree here represents a retained tree. The white tree symbol represents a replacement tree. The drawing isn't to scale, but it shows the principle that retained canopy and new canopy are both considered when assessing whether the site meets the canopy cover target. In this example, retaining one large class tree is sufficient for the site to meet the canopy cover requirement. In the next slide, I'll show how that then interacts with the replacement obligations as well.

So, in the same example, two trees were removed and therefore they had a replacement requirement of two trees that one to one replacement. And there are different ways an applicant can meet that requirement, as discussed. So one large tree could count as those two replacement trees, or two medium class trees could meet the requirement or four small class trees could also meet it. So again, providing those options when the site may not support that single large tree. But but we'll try to get whatever tree is suitable for the size of that site to be replaced on site. In the example shown, it uses one medium class replacement tree. So that would count as one of the replacement trees. And then there'd be one cash in lieu payment of $700 for the second required replacement.

So this gives flexibility on constrained sites. So while while still requiring the canopy cover outcome and replacement accountability to be met, if it is not possible to meet to replace all of the trees on site that were removed, then the cash and lieu option is available. This slide shows a simplified example based on a type of development application that typically comes before council. It's in a primary growth area where the canopy cover target is 20%. So under the current bylaw, this project would owe 27 replacement trees. The proposed landscape plan has been able to show 29 with a mix of those small, medium and large class trees.

And so those symbols there represent the approximate canopy those trees would provide at maturity. With the proposed plantings, the future canopy cover would reach approximately 29%, which exceeds the base 20% target for the land use. And it shows that both replacement counts as well as future canopy cover targets can work together to really encourage good canopy cover outcomes or the best possible canopy cover outcomes for these different sites. So cash in lieu and securities would continue to apply on development sites. And these tools are there to provide accountability when replacement trees or the required canopy trees cannot be fully provided on site due to unavoidable constraints or when planted trees need to be.

We need a security to guarantee that planted trees will survive through the establishment period. The proposed change is that trees required to meet canopy cover targets would have a higher security or cash in lieu amount than standard replacement trees. And this is really to reflect their critical role in achieving the site canopy outcome. For non development trees, the replacement tree security or cash and lieu amount would receive a nominal increase while keeping the process simple for residents. So the current tree bylaw includes a replacement tree fee of $1,350 for district trees when replacement planting isn't completed by the developer. The proposed update would keep the district tree replacement, but at 1 to 1 and would add additional compensation for removed public trees to better reflect their value. So this is really separating two ideas.

The replacement addresses the basic cost to plant another tree, what it would cost the district to that planting. The compensation value, in addition, recognizes that a public tree is being removed for a private benefit. And that public trees already received significant investment by the municipality in order to establish and maintain it. And it already is providing value to the community, especially when it's a large, mature, you know, tree that is difficult to replace. So the way that would be implemented is through a table that would define compensation values based on tree species and size. And the logic would be, just as an example, you know, a small ornamental tree like a magnolia that's easier to replace would sit at the sort of lower end of that scale.

Something like a large mature Garry oak would sit much higher. And that table based approach will give certainty in terms of, you know, what the cost of that compensation value would be. As well. We're looking at improvements to compliance and enforcement. So the bylaw would continue to require arborist reports whenever needed. But the proposed changes would would make the arborist involvement more structured on development sites, especially where trees are being retained and the construction is occurring near that protected root zone. So when arborist supervision is needed because of the proximity to, you know, excavation to the root zone, before that occurs, a letter of assurance would be provided saying, you know, what works, the arborist will supervise.

Associated with that would be a security deposit that would be required for retained trees to ensure that process of tree protection required. Arborist supervision is followed through on that security deposit would be refundable. And if permit conditions are followed and the retained trees are protected as required, then that deposit is returned and it will be capped at a certain amount to ensure that it's a reasonable figure. The proposed changes would also increase penalties for bylaw infractions. And that's really to support, you know, a stronger enforcement and help make tree protection requirements more, more meaningful in practice. And so our next steps are to continue drafting the tree protection bylaw and to test these proposed changes against real and representative application scenarios.

And that testing is really important because we need the bylaw to be clear, to be enforceable, to be workable across these different land use and permit types. It's one of the core objectives of the pre bylaw update. The draft bylaw will then return to Council for consideration and as it moves forward, we'll be developing education materials so that staff and applicants, arborists, developers, residents, property owners understand the new requirements before implementation. And so with that concludes the presentation and we welcome your questions and your feedback. Thank you,

Council.

I have a few questions I'll put forward from the speakers and then I'll ask you for any questions. Staff so one of the speakers had said they're concerned about incentives. So could you explain why you think incentives are better than the law? I think that's what they were saying, enforcement.

Sure. Thank you to the chair. Incentives are going to are proposed to be baked right into the bylaw. So, you know, providing one of the incentives is that large class trees are worth two replacement trees. Right. So that the bylaw still will require a replacement tree. But having that incentive of if you plant a large class tree that credits you for two replacement trees that just incentivizes applicants to plant those large class trees. It would be really challenging to have a bylaw that said you thou shalt always plant large class trees because there's not, they're not always appropriate for every site. There's some sites where there's not enough soil volume or there's not enough space to accommodate that. So that's why we've chosen to really incentivize those large class trees and deincentivize the planting of lots of little trees.

Okay, so it really is about getting bigger trees planted.

Yeah, absolutely. Some other incentives that we're, you know, drafting into the bylaw are around high value trees or we're proposing that an applicant, if they choose to, or if they can retain one of those high value trees that are really important trees to retain, they could get double the canopy cover. That's incentive for developers. Specifically, they're going to put some money into retaining these trees and if they get double the canopy cover credit for them, that's really going to incentivize them to work around those trees and make it more, you know, make it a better choice to work around those trees than it is to cut it, cut them down and replace them.

Okay. Another question was just one sec. Yep. Oh, sorry, Natalie.

That's okay. Thank you, Andrew, for helping us understand some of the incentives. I think the question was what makes the incentives maybe better than the law? And I want to remind council, Ms. Adiba show that our bylaw is limited in what we can retain and what we can't retain or what we can make developers do or homeowners. So an incentive helps to also provide something other than regulation to do the right thing.

Okay. The other questions that were put forward was really around when we get paid, there's no room on the site to plant the trees, so we get some money. There was questions around where do the replacements happen, how come there's no time deadline and how do the public find out when you're going to plant the trees? So in other words, you get money, it goes into a pot. I guess what they're trying to say is, okay, when do you, do you have any timeline when you're going to plant these trees and are they going to go in the neighborhoods that you took that old, that other trees had come down.

Through the chair to help answer that question, I think what we're referring to is the urban forest strategy, excuse me, the Urban Forest Reserve Fund, which is regulated by bylaw. So there's only certain reasons we can take monies for that bylaw and there's only certain reasons we can spend them. The reason we can spend them are purposefully quite broad. But one of the purpose is to enhance the urban forest. We have not made a commitment to necessarily the plant the trees back in the neighborhood from which they came because we want to address several issues including tree equity and making sure that if there's canopies or areas of town that have less than desirable canopies, we focus some of our efforts there.

So I think it's really important that when you call this a pot of money, that's a good way of putting it. It's not meant to be used. And tracking one replacement tree at a time, on the most broad scale, that money can also be used to buy land that's suitable for planting trees. So you can imagine how much money we'd have to save with land costs these days. So I hope that answers that question.

Okay, thank you. Those were the questions I have. Councillor Chambers, please.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair. I'm very pleased to hear this information. When I was reading the report, it was very information light and I understand that there are, there's a lot of models, different model being changed like the considering not on an individual tree but on a canopy level.

Now, thank you through the chair question to the diamond head colleague here.

How.

Oh, I've just lost my, myself here. How can we. Is there any other municipalities using this model with great success? And how does it, how does it elevate or why is it better than the current three to three which we adopted last term and we were very, very pleased to do a three, three. Now we're doing two to one and then one to one and so. And now canopy and, and so after that question about the modeling and where it comes from, can you please also confirm to me the one to one ratio on municipal lands and was that intended just for district removals? So those first two questions go ahead. Thanks.

Through the chair to Councillor Chambers. I will initially, I guess answer it in the broader context and then I'm Sure. Staff have some additions to add to the comments too. So, yes, there are several municipalities, both locally and then in the broader region that are shifting from ratio based approaches to either a canopy based approach or a tree, what we call a tree density based approach. So Oak Bay, for example, uses the canopy cover based approach. The city of Victoria uses the tree density approach. They essentially achieve the same thing. They're just different ways of calculating it. And one of the benefits of the canopy cover based approach that worked really well for Oak Bay, they're very, and I know Andrew Connell has more direct information from them about how it's working, but they have really appreciated that approach because having so many mature Garry oaks that overhang these development properties, they really wanted to also encourage the retention of not just the on site trees, but those big adjacent, big trees that are on adjacent properties.

And so this canopy cover based approach also incentivises the retention and protection of those trees through the process. Really one of the mechanistic reasons for having that approach, and I guess what I'll point out is, is we've kept a one to one replacement requirement because that ensures that a minimum of successional replacement requirement. And then over and above that, we are using a canopy cover target approach. So that means that sites that don't have any trees or have hardly any trees still required to meet to come up to that canopy cover target. On the flip side, if a site has tons of trees and they were being required to replace them at three to one, there'd be, it wouldn't be possible on a site that was already very tree.

So there'd be a lot of cash in lieu required or a lot of, or a real incentive to plant lots of small trees instead of, you know, fewer but better big trees. And so that's really what this shift in bylaw approach is intending to do. It's intending to really encourage the high quality canopy cover outcome on sites rather than those higher replacement ratios serve a function in municipalities when you're really trying to get that sort of high level canopy replacement. But at a point in time, the level of trees on those properties or on those sites can make it less practical to use just ratio based approaches.

And so we sort of move to this more, I guess, sophisticated approach to achieving and linking canopy cover targets to planting on sites.

Okay, thank you very much for your answer. Just like a quick one word, is there any other municipalities outside of the CRD that are finding success with that? That's one question. Next question is, is we've adopted a 330, 300. And I'm wondering in those situations when there's only a one to one replacement and we've decided to use the investment to put trees in another area, I'm wondering. There was one meeting where we said at least you're going to look out your window and see three trees. And we're learning that not everybody in Saanich has that luxury. And are we still going to stay with the 330, 300 if this new canopy calculations are being put up? Next question. So there's three and they're really quick because I'm going to run out of time here.

Do you think driving up the securities for tree retention is going to mean that we will just be getting a lot more cash in lieu. And, and yeah.

Staff, please.

Thank you for the question. Through the chair to Councilor Chambers. I guess I'll start with your 33300 rule that council endorsed. I think it's safe to say that that is a policy direction and while we can aim to do that on average, it's, it's not something that's easily implementable on a bylaw point of view. So I think we have to continue to look beyond the tree bylaw just to help satisfy that. But in what we've discussed as a canopy cover goal that will help to get more trees where currently there aren't any. So I'm hoping that answers that question. I think I will direct our consultant to perhaps answer the question. Beyond crd, are there any other agencies using the canopy cover model with success? I think was the question.

Through the chair? Yes, there are other municipalities in Canada and the U. S. also using that model or the tree density model. It's becoming increasingly prevalent in terms of, of our research and also in the bylaws that we're working on and where it's applied. We've contacted, well, certainly the Victoria and Oak Bay, but also the city of Courtney, the city of Coquitlam. There's various sort of versions of this approach and they have been implementable and they have, I guess in terms of the staff feedback we've heard on how they're working in general, we've heard positive things about the approach.

Okay, thank you. Final question. Maybe I was talking too fast. I'll just say this final question and I'll save the rest until it's on the table. Do you think that driving up the securities for retaining trees is going to bring us to a state of unattainable cash and lose without potentially planting spaces? That's I Do have another question. And has staff done a thorough review on all the plantable spaces that are becoming available or that are going to not be available if we continue. So those are two questions, please.

Okay. The first question I understood was if we are foreseeing more cash in lieu, I think the retain tree security deposit is to ensure that people are securing or retaining the trees they say they can retain. So I want to maybe dissect that from the cash in lieu paid in lieu of replacement trees. And I would say it's too early to do any analysis on that because we don't have any data to indicate whether or not our cash and lieu will go up or down. I think it's really important to remind us all that the bylaw does require you to put trees in plantable areas where the conditions allow.

And we will continue to require a tree get planted before cash and lieu will be accepted. So that will be our primary approach. And then the second question. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Did anyone grab it?

I think it was something about an analysis about plantable areas. Was that what you said?

Thank you.

Okay, so staff are always doing an analysis of where we can plant more trees, both on private property. But we haven't done a deep analysis on public property. We have left ability to regulate or control that. So we are always seeking plantable areas and we do our best to plant in areas that are suitable to plant trees.

Thank you very much, Ms. Chachain. Thank you through the chair. Thank you.

Councillor Phillips Bonderoff, please.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thanks to my colleagues and the chair for asking some of the questions I had written down. I'll try to go rapid fire on these, but some of them might be more technical. And I'll start with the one that is, I think, the most technical, but perhaps there's a quick answer to it. So we're talking canopy coverage. How does pruning factor into this? Through you, ma'.

Am.

Sure. To whomsteever is best.

Staff, I guess through the chair to Councillor Bondroff. So we anticipate that there will be some pruning and we do anticipate that there's going to need to be a margin of error in that. In that canopy cover analysis. It will be a snapshot in time of the application. So our expectation is that the applicant's arborist and their team would be, you know, giving us a canopy cover map. We will be verifying that via the ortho photo. So there will be some pruning and they understand that there'll be some pruning and where the house is versus the trees that there's going to need to be a margin of error. But, yeah, they're going to.

They're going to know how much of the trees that are being retained need to be pruned so they can calculate that for that snapshot in time.

Okay, yeah, no, I appreciate that. I think there's a lot of complexities. I'm glad that's being considered because I always had this image of, yes, you can. I've seen bonsai trees effectively before, so, yeah, you can have a big tree that can be maintained, a smaller form, but through pruning. I'm glad that's being considered. My colleague was just talking about. In the response to one of my colleagues questions, there was a very interesting response. I wanted to follow up on that a little bit. So we currently have tree replacement. This is through you, of course, Madam Chair. We currently have tree replacement, but if there is a development site that doesn't have any trees on it, my understanding is with the canopy cover model, we would then be putting a requirement on the person developing that site to meet that canopy coverage.

So we're not just replacing trees, we're actually enhancing the urban forest canopy through this policy. Could staff just confirm that that is a correct reading of the situation through

the chair to Councillor Phelps? Wander off?

Yes, that is correct.

That's also fantastic. Thank you.

Thank you.

There was a question about additional public input into the process and I just wanted to follow up on that. Presumably there would be public input at when this item comes in front of council, but through the chair, of course. Are there any other opportunities for the public to weigh in on where we're at in the process between now and when council sees the final version of

the bylaw through the chair to Councillor Phelps? Bonroff. No, our intent is that the next phase of public engagement will be when the bylaw comes to council. So we've conducted fairly thorough public engagement. We also did during the Urban Forest strategy that's all been considered and is being drafted into the draft bylaw. And so the next phase will be when the bylaw comes to council.

Perfect. Thank you so much. We're on pace for speed questions. Thank you.

3.

Madam Chair, fruit trees. Is there special consideration for fruit trees with respect to replacement, retention and or cash in lieu or any other provisions that might be changing or relating to fruit trees or trees, not fruit and nut trees, I suppose would be the proper way of answering that, Asking that, rather.

Thank you for the question. Through the chair to Councillor Phelps Bonderoff. In the bylaws eyes, the tree is either seen as protected, currently we're calling it that. We might change that to the word regulated, or it's not. I don't think any special consideration to fruit trees is given outside of that. There are several reasons a fruit tree might be considered regular protected.

Okay, appreciate that. So, no, no new provisions. That's excellent. One of the new provisions with respect to individual trees, though, was the shore pine. And I was wondering if staff just could elaborate on why that provision is being added. I don't know very much about shore pines. Through you, Madam Chair, of course, through

the chair to Councillor Phelps. Wander off. Shore pine is one of those trees that we as staff see when we're out there, you know, adjudicating sites, that really is one of those trees that fits within that class of trees in that 30 centimeter range. We see lots of decent shore pines in that 30 to 40 centimeter range that, you know, currently aren't protected by the. By virtue of the existing bylaw. And that's one of those native trees that just really fits within that group of trees.

Appreciate that. Thank you so much. Three last quick questions, and thank you for your patience. Madam Chair. There was a mention in the staff report around the importance of including arborists and trees in the site plan early in the process. And I was wondering if staff could just walk us through what that looks like in practice, or more specifically in best practice, just for those folks from the community who are listening. What's the best process there?

Yeah, through the chair to Councillor Phelps Ponderoff. Yeah, I used to be a consultant before I worked here. And, you know, on those projects that bring in the arborists early in the site planning, you know that the developer can hire their consultants, their consultant can go through the site with them early and say, yeah, those are the really high value trees over there. These trees over here, maybe not so high value. Maybe there's something wrong with them. And that if that's done early in the process, it seems that, you know, the wheels go in the right direction. You know, they're able to design their building around those trees. And really, if that's one of the outcomes that they're looking for, it seems to work a little bit better.

And that's what we heard from the arbor community through our engagement. So we're really hoping that that letter of assurance of the arborist and the applicant having to sign that letter and both state, you know, when they're going to be there and what those steps are in order to receive that bonding back for that retained tree. That. That seems to work in other jurisdictions.

Thank you very much. I do appreciate that. Yeah, we want to make sure that trees are foregrounded and not an afterthought. So I think that's really important. I'm glad to see that reflected in the process. Last few questions here. Madam Chair. With respect to. There's a lot of technical stuff in here. I remember the first time that we were given orientation as new counselors. The opening line was what is a tree? And I thought, oh, we're really getting to the weeds now. Or perhaps the opposite of the weeds, more the foliage. And I suppose the question I had was what's our communications plan? Will it be a good communications.

Sorry, what is the communication plan around the rollout of the new tree bylaw? Because this is quite technical. I know we were all kind of wrapping our heads around it. Maybe just give us a quick run through as to what the communications plan will be like once testing is finished and once we're closer to approval.

Through the chair to Councillor Bonrof. Yeah, that's part of the piece of our engagement with our consultant is to develop those educational materials. We are hoping to have, you know, once the bylaw's been brought forward, a bit of a longer lead time before implementation. So between when council gets to see it and when we actually implement it, you know, we're going to need some time in between there to educate the community, to educate, educate our staff to make sure that everyone understands these changes because some of them are pretty big. And so that's part of the communication plan.

Excellent. No, that's very important. And the final question through Madam Chair is. I think my colleague may have asked this in part, but there was mention of compensation around size and species only applying to Saanich property trees. And I was just wondering if we could get a little bit more elaboration on that and some clarity as to whether that's the intention and flesh that

out a little bit.

I may have a follow up question if I may.

Sure.

Through the chair to Councillor Felspondroff. Those. Yeah. The compensation piece is only intended for district owned trees. Those trees are a municipal asset so they belong to everyone in the community and that's why that compensation piece is proposed. The current bylaw is, you know, depending on why you're removing a tree, you know, 1 to 1, 2 to 1 or 3 to 1. We have made a commitment through council's direction or a practice through council's direction. Sorry, excuse me. To all municipal projects are at three to one. We're still working with our colleagues in engineering. When there isn't a three to one in the bylaw anymore how do we amend that practice?

So we're working on that behind the scenes and we'll be bringing that back forward when we do bring the updated bylaw for the have to have the one to one replacement. But that community asset still be valued is why we're considering that compensation table. Does that answer the question?

That does. Yeah. No, that makes a lot of sense. And then just the size aspect. So it's. There's compensation. No, I think I've got my head around it.

That's fine.

I think I'll. I'll mull and have a follow up. I'll ask after it. Thank you very much Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Councillor Plant, please.

We're in a council meeting so I'm going to move the recommendation.

Thank you.

I'd like to ask a question. My first question would be when are staff envisioning this bylaw would come back to

through the chair to Councillor Plant? We're anticipating late 2026. Early 2027.

Great. Then I'd like to propose an amendment that I've just sent to staff this very second because I wanted to hear the answer to that. So the amendment would be and for staff to bring the proposed bylaw to the Natural Area Parks and Trails Committee for a presentation and endorsement prior to council. If you'll accept that, Madam Chair.

Yeah, they've already come to the sustainability committee so.

Okay.

And if someone wanted to make a further amendment to say come back to the sca that would be fine with me. So colleagues, there's two parts here but we're on the amendment right now. So I'm going to speak just to the amendment. I think one of the things we heard from the public was there's a little bit of a desire to have another check in prior to this going forward. And I am not hoping that hundreds of people are going to show up and attend the napt but the handful of people who have shown a high degree of interest and passion about it could and as per our council procedure bylaws applying to our committees they would have the chance I believe to speak

is my depends on the chair.

Yeah. So. And that's you?

No, I'm sustainability. I'm not natural.

Who's napt right now?

Mina, I think.

Oh she's not here. So we're volunteering potentially.

And you don't even know if that committee be alive after the next election.

Correct.

But I think it should go to a committee before it comes back.

Yeah.

So my recommendation, colleagues, is that we have another body have a chance. We do know from the staff report, 150 people gave us feedback. That's what I'm seeing from the staff report. And truthfully, for something as important, I don't think it's enough. And so this is not meant to delay it, it's not meant to stop it. It's just to make sure that when it comes back to us, if it was a matter of, no, no, we're going to have this for you in a month or two, then I wouldn't have suggested it. That's why you only heard me say I make the amendment after the answer from staff. This isn't something that I think we're in a huge rush to get through. I'd rather do it right.

And just for the clarity for staff, the idea is they're presenting the bylaw. They're not asking for feedback on, you don't have it. Right. Go back. If the committee were to determine that they didn't support it, I would still expect staff to bring it, to be perfectly blunt. So I'll speak again, Madam Chair, if I can, when the motion to amend has been dealt with.

Okay, we're on the motion to amend. You don't need to speak to it. Councillor Bryce, on the amendment.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I support the amendment A because I value the input that would come from the committee, for one. But also I think we know we're moving in a good direction here. We know we're wanting to improve the bylaw, but little aspects of it like the 3 to 1 being changed to the 1 to 1 can be misinterpreted by the public or for somebody who might want to misinterpret it. And I think that it would be excellent to have an arm's length body of interested and knowledgeable individuals take a look at the recommendations and give us the information back. And if they're not convinced this is an improvement in going forward, better, that will certainly play into my ultimate decision.

So I would value that input and I would see it as a sort of unencumbered voice of knowledgeable, interested people.

Thank you. At this point, I just want to turn to the CAO because one of the things within the report talked about the zoning bylaws being amended, the subdivision bylaw's being amended, this is being amended. And I asked the CO to talk to various staff. How are we going to sequence. So we're not going to approve the tree bylaw and then oops, zoning says this, or oops, subdivision says this. So could I just get Mr. Reams to respond, please? Thank you.

Chair.

Yes, the zoning bylaw is just. Project is just starting now, so there's a path that it will go down which includes coming back to council to talk about the project, which will happen likely after the election. So the new council will receive a presentation from staff on that bylaw and the proposed process that bylaw will take in terms of its update. So at that time, I think the, the tree bylaw will already be well on its way to coming back to council chambers. But we'll pursue the zoning bylaw update with the tree bylaw changes in mind to ensure that there's alignment across both the those bylaws and that the tree, the new tree protection bylaw is taken into consideration through the update of the

zoning bylaw process and the subdivision bylaw.

The subdivision bylaw, in terms of timing, I can't speak to the specific time frame. There's an internal process going on right now that's reflective more of staff's requirements internally that will be reflected in a separate bylaw that will be coming forward to council. The staff that are working on that are also tracking the progress and in communication as heads are nodding over there with the staff that are working on this bylaw. So there is alignment between that subdivision bylaw update, the zoning bylaw update, as well as this bylaw update. So they're all taken into consideration together.

Perfect. Thank you. The next speaker I have is Councilor Chambers.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just for to make a point here, I'm not going to support this motion on the table because I think that adding any more time to this much delayed situation. I've been waiting two terms here. We've been waiting since 2010. There's been so much stuff and I'm really concerned that with Bill 44 and the amount of density that is planned, legislated and the idea, I think we've got our numbers a bit skewed and wrong. So I do hope we have a check in point. But going from 41 to 44% cover and yet having having so many variables here for cash and lieu, different situations, I am not 100% confident in, in meeting that 43%.

I do have a lot of faith in staff, a lot. And so I hope that I'm just being paranoid, which, you know, I was paranoid. The local areas were paused last term. They never were Unpaused, you know, lots of things. My concerns have been very valid and despite being told in the past that they were outlandish, they were actually fact. So I will be stating those at the. I will be stating all those times. Thank you.

Thank you. Could I ask one more question of staff, please? What? When do you expect the tree bylaw to come to council? Like I'm trying to think in my mind about. You've gone election cycle. Our committees are wrapped up this month, so. So when will you be coming to council with the report so that if this motion passes, it can actually go to a committee before you do the

report

to the chair? Our anticipated timeline is to have the bylaw ready for council in late 2026 or early 2027. I can't speak to when the committees start up again after the election. I don't know the answer to that. But that's our timeline to have a draft bylaw ready to present to council or the committee, if that's how we're directed.

Okay, thank you. I am going to support this motion because I agree with some of my colleagues. We did have it presented at the sustainability committee, but I also believe that the Natural Areas Committee is. Is a committee that should have seen it as well.

Oh, staff.

So we did make to the chair. We did make the same presentation that was made to the Sustainability Committee to the Natural Areas Parks and Trails Committee, which is a very similar presentation to what was seen here tonight.

But by the time we get to your updated final sort of, that's what would go to the committee.

Yeah.

Okay. So I am going to support it. I do think having comments from our advisory committees are very worthwhile. And, and I've known in the past if committee doesn't approve something that gets reported in the minutes and that comes to council and it is absolutely the decision of council how to move forward. I was concerned and I'm still a little concerned about how the sequencing is going to work. But the CO has assured me a little bit that we'll all get together so that the zoning subdivision and this tree bylaw can come forward in a reasonable manner. So I am going to support the motion.

I'm going to call. You don't want to speak to. Oh no. Councillor devries, you've spoke once. He hasn't spoken. So first time speakers.

Thank you. And a question threw you to staff in the previous reply. Was alerted that presentation has gone to this committee already. I just want to confirm. Would this have. If we do pass this motion, would there be a lot of updated information or how different would another presentation to that committee be?

Staff,

thank you. Through the chairs to Councillor debries. I think what we're talking about is the nitty gritty details of the wording of the bylaw and the mechanics of how this gets operationalized. I don't foresee changes in any of the directions we've shared with Council this evening.

Okay, Councillor DeVries, thank you.

And another question just probably to our CEO in this case, with his understanding of the committee meetings and how they may be sequenced, is it reasonable to expect that there's a window in which this advisory committee would be able to review a presentation before the end of 2026

through chair? I think that'd be challenging, just speaking frankly. It all depends on, of course, the new Council, because committees do break before this upcoming election cycle. So depends on the constitution of the new group and its objectives with relation to to the committees. But I expect it likely happen into 2027. There's a potential that it could happen if Council has an interest in establishing quickly, but there'd have to be an advertising process and establishment process as well.

Right, but it's appearing unlikely because Council would be sworn in in November, appointments would have to occur probably the same month, and somehow the committee would have to meet fully formed in December. So is it, is it reasonable to conclude that this is likely to delay Council's consideration of the bylaw

through chair? I think the advice was we're planning to have it ready late 2026, but possibly even early 2027 on that time frame, as we've currently stated it, staff could be prepared to go as late as early 2027, and in that case they would to be much of a delay. But it depends on some factors that at this point are unknown.

Councillor Debris?

Yeah, no, fair enough. It's a nuanced answer where obviously it's not going to be early. It makes it harder to see it before the end of the calendar year, although there's other factors that might push us into 2027 regardless. And so I'm a little bit torn up about it because we heard from staff as well, that the report and the presentation to the committee won't be substantially different. It will be more detailed with the nitty gritty of what the bylaw looks like, that sort of thing. But in terms of broad principles and approach, it sounds like it's much, much the same. So we'll see where Council goes on this.

Councillor Plant, thank you.

I want to clarify that the advisory committee belongs to Council, it will exist unless an act of council says it doesn't. So it's not like Mr. Mayor's committees, which that. So I don't have any doubt that the committee will exist based on the history of Saanich having a natural areas committee. I don't think the one theme I've heard tonight to my council colleagues who are maybe on the fence was we'd like the chance to make sure we get it right. And so I don't think this council would probably be wise to advance a bylaw at the end of its term just before an election when there was an outcry of we want to make sure we have it right.

So that's why I'm inclined to ask the committee to say so and to give it its kind of, its stamp of approval. So that's just. I wanted to clarify about where the committee lives and the rationale as to why I still want to talk about the bylaw when once it's on the table. Thank you.

Thank you. So we're still on the amendment. Councillor Chambers on the amendment.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm just going to reiterate that after Councelor devries asked this question, it was confirmed to me that I will not be supporting this, that it will add time and yes, we don't want to add any more time. And I just wanted to, through the chair ask a question about the next vote because I'm wondering if I don't support this amendment, but I want to support the tree bylaw and the next vote will be the motion as amended. Is there a possibility to separate those votes or has this vote locked me in to a situation that I did not want to be in?

Ms. Froud, can you help us?

If the amendment is supported, it would be the main motion as amended. It would be treated as one entire motion.

Okay, well I'll vote against it and then I'll vote for it and I hope I've made my point.

Okay, next Speaker, Council, Phelps, Bonderoff. It's just on the amendment, correct?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So I really appreciate the conversation so far and the questions have been really elucidating. I think we kind of have. There's two benefits here. So on one hand we have sending the, you know, the bylaw to committees to get additional feedback and there'll be new committees so there'll be different perspectives and different inputs and that's always valuable and we do want to hear from the public on these things. On the other hand, we have seen the fact that these committees have already reviewed the presentation and the bylaw, we aren't anticipating many changes. We're mostly into the nitty gritty, into the small mycelial networks and roots, if you will. And it may delay the presentation of the bylaw. So there's a lot of different factors to weigh in here.

But I think given the fact that we may see delays in the role of the bylaw as a result, because I was doing the math myself and with, you know, with the committees meeting and then having them to amend their minutes and approve their minutes, then you're looking at at least February or March. That's really pushing into the new year of 2027, which I think will cause delays. So weighing out the different balances, I will probably vote against the amendment, but it won't impact my vote on the overall bylaw itself.

Okay, if I could through Ms. Froud, just to clarify a comment that was just made. I know in the past that minutes have not been approved by committee and come directly to Council.

There certainly are practices to which for minutes to be adopted, but there's certainly been cases where due to time urgency with an issue in particular, if there's a deadline or something like that, it has come before council without the minutes being adopted.

Okay, thank you, next Speaker, Councillor Bryce.

Thank you, Chair. And I guess just to colleagues, yes, time is important, but it's not as though we won't have tree protection, bylaw existing. Our existing protection will continue until it is replaced. We're talking about making decisions that are going to have a hundred year implications. New tree in 100 years, surely to goodness a few weeks or a month. That's not what's going to hinge on whether or not we're making a good decision. We're confident we're making good decision. Staff has more work to do. We hear from our outside body that hey, you're on the right track. The community can be confident that in fact the replacement is going to be an improvement over the existing. And I think it's worth a little bit of extra time.

It's certainly not a situation where we don't have any protection. And without this, boy, oh boy, those trees are going down. So I think, you know, let's keep it in perspective.

Mayor Murdoch online.

Thank you, Chair Brownoff. I just wanted to clarify what I thought I heard in response to the question. Just the implications in terms of timing if this were to go to the advisory committee. Just some of the discussion seems to suggest that we're pushing it out by months in asking for this. But that's not the impression I got with the answer. So I wondered if we could get that clarified.

Mr. Reams, I think it's a bit difficult at this point in time to speak with certainty about what that time frame may be. So I'm a little hesitant to provide what would appear to be a firm time frame when there's so many variables between now and then. I think what we do know is that staff have committed to bring the bylaw back at the end of 2026 or early 2027. And so that is largely going to frame the time frame at which this bylaw is ready to return to council chambers. At that time there may be committees ready to go. There's an advertising process that will have to happen to repopulate those committees because the terms end at the end of 2026 to re establish them and then have the item considered.

So I think council is, I think, has experience with committees and their process and what it takes to get something on an agenda. So I think we can all estimate that it could be a couple of weeks, it could be a couple of months depending on that process and the state of our committees at the time and by the time it comes back to council. So I think that's probably the range that we're dealing with here. Bylaw coming back in early 2027, from two weeks to three months before it gets to a committee and then back up to council. But it depends on several factors.

Okay, thank you. Nothing in Mr. Reeden's response gave me any reason to be concerned about the timing by asking for this to go to the advisory committees. I think whether that happens in December, January, February or even March next year, that's. I don't see that as a profound impact on the adoption of the bylaw. I don't think I could say it better than Councillor Bryce. We have a tree protection bylaw. This would be something that updates it. These trees are not vulnerable by virtue of further discussion and review. The only thing that changes is perhaps some strengthening in the wording. But no trees will be lost as a result of some process time to ensure that, that what we're landing on here is the right thing to do. So I'll be supporting the amendment.

Thank you. I don't see any other lights on. So I'm going to call the motion on the amendment. All those in favor? All those opposed? Councillor Chambers? Opposed. That's the only person opposed. Thank you. So I.

Councillor Plant, if I may

have the floor still to speak to the main amended motion.

Yes.

So question through you. Can staff make the presentation that was given by the consultant today available to be seen? That's the first question by the public

staff

through the chair to Councillor Plant. Do you mean other than the webcasting, where that will live and be available for people to watch after this broadcast?

No, the PDF PowerPoint. A PDF of the PowerPoint is presented.

I would look to our corporate officer for an answer to that.

I'm able to answer that question. Our standard practice is if we have a PDF available, we will post it generally actually in advance, if we have it in advance with the agenda and we can certainly, if it sounds like that's. I wish a council, we can make that available with the agenda.

Thank you on the website.

I'm happy to hear that because to me that was very, very helpful. Yes, it was incredibly helpful to understand what is actually happening in images as opposed to just language. Because if you say you're only going to go with a tree replacement of one to one, on the surface that sounds terrible, but when you see what we're talking about is saying we don't want little trees anymore, we want big. Thank you Councillor. I'm glad you're in agreement. I think that's what we need to excuse the expression, hammer away to the public that the 3 to 1 replacement that is envisioned with this being taken out with a one to one is that we're talking about significant trees.

I'm going to cut into my time but the presentation by the consultant showed large trees are 75ft, is that correct? I mean if you need to refer back to the slide because I'm not sure that I know of many tree nurseries that have large trees of that size and maybe I'm just not informed based on my limited activity on tree

nurseries staff through the chair to Councillor Plant. The intent is that those trees would be that size at maturity. So no, we're not planting 75 foot tall trees. The intent was that those trees would be planted, you know, at the typical size requirements of the current bylaw, which is, you know, 4cm in diameter for the most part. Those trees would then grow to be those 75 foot tall trees.

Okay, well I was optimistic but ignorant obviously that trees don't get transplanted to that size. The ones that the nursery that took over my family's dairy farm, sometimes about 25ft. That's why I didn't think they were, but hoped. I am in support of the direction of it going to the 30cm too. I want to Say that out loud. I do want to ask a question about the understanding of rural Saanich folks and what is the practice currently for rural Saanich folks? If they wanted to cut down a tree, can they cut down as many as needed as they determine? Because what I'm understanding in the bylaw is that it's actually going to change and they are actually going to have to limit how many trees they can take down.

Staff through the chair to Councillor Plant, the rural Sanich, we call it clause 19G in the bylaw. That's what we call allows for outside the urban containment boundary, one tree to be removed per acre of property per year.

Is that what it is currently or that's what's proposed?

That's what it is currently. We're proposing to eliminate that clause. There's lots of other clauses in the bylaw that allow for tree removal. They all have logic to them in terms of either the tree itself or the tree's location for building or the trees damaging infrastructure. And that 19G, our understanding of why that was in the original bylaw was for firewood. There's lots of other reasons you can, you know, you can cut down dead trees for firewood. There's lots of other rationale for tree removals in rural Saanich.

With the last 19 seconds that I have, I'd like to just ask you reference in the presentation that the idea of going one to one and having more canopies was something that came up during consultation. Was it also something that was led by staff and the consultant as a way forward?

Staff through the chair Councillor Plant yes, that was one of the questions we asked specifically in the consultation was, you know, do you, I don't remember the wording of the question exactly, but do you support the planting of larger class trees to increase our canopy similar to that?

Thank you. I may speak a second time if necessary.

Thank you. Next speaker, Councillor Harper this time, right?

Yes, thank you, Chairperson. So, yes, I do support the motion on the floor. But I do have one question. I guess really I understand we're talking about canopy, how we get the canopy to be larger and we're talking about the protection of trees and when.

But when trees do come down and when we are replacing them, so when we're replanting them. I guess my question ultimately is we talk about incentivization for some things. Have we considered incentivizing, for example, native tree replacements?

Because that.

Have I missed that somehow? Because I do think that that's something that I would be interested in knowing if not, why not? And, and I don't want us to derail this process.

But.

And if, and the ant. If the answer is no, we didn't do that right now, is, is it on the agenda to look at in the future?

Staff through the chair to Councillor Harper. The current bylaw has schedule D of the bylaw, which is a list of native species of trees that are accepted at a smaller replacement size. So not the size class of how big they'll grow, but the size of the stalk you go to the store to buy. So that's already an incentive for people to plant native trees because they're able to go out and purchase a smaller tree than a non native tree in order to plant it.

But since we're changing the model to a specific form of incentivization, does that need to be looked at more directly in terms of the proportionality if I'm understanding this bylaw? Because if they're smaller already, then would they not count as much under this

new bylaw through the chair to Councillor Harper. They're not smaller already in terms of ultimate size class of how big they grow, they're smaller planting stock. Yeah. Does that answer your question?

Okay, I still think, I'm still not clear that we have a specific form of incentivization, but we can take this

off site through the chair to Councillor Harper. The incentivization is that those trees are, when you go to buy them, they're smaller, so they're easier to move around, they're easier to plant, and they're less expensive for people than planting caliper sized stock trees.

Okay, Councillor Phelps Ponderoff, please.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Also thanks to my colleagues for their compelling arguments on the amendment. I found myself compelled and it was well put. So thank you. That was, that's why we have debate. It's helpful. Okay, so on the, on the bylaw itself, first of all, huge thanks to staff. I know there's lots of engagement and I think I was reading through the staff report and reading through the engagement and it does look like we've been very responsive to the public and stakeholder input. So thank you to the folks who are working on that. That's very evident and I think very important. I think the administrative changes make a lot of sense.

Just as I mentioned earlier, we first get brought as councillors, we get a very detailed briefing from staff on our tree bylaw and it starts with what is a tree? And ends in several hours later in us understanding the tree bylaw. And so I think making that Process more predictable and more consistent is very good. And I think that I'm seeing that in the bylaws reflected. That's very excellent when it comes to protection. I think first of all, yes, to the point on invasives. You will not see me ever defending invasives and I very much appreciate that. So yes, replacing invasives with lots of other native species is always very good. And I like the move towards a canopy cover. I think that makes a lot of sense.

The goal is always to try to make sure people are getting the many benefits from trees. And I recall some of my friends backyard in my youth was full of very tall, skinny trees that did not provide any shade. And they certainly replied to some kind of bylaw replacement requirement, but they certainly weren't providing coverage. So I think the goal is to get them any benefits of trees and street trees in particular. I think that's very useful. I'm also really glad to hear that we're testing out the bylaw. I really appreciate that process and I think I have lots of confidence in staff as they go through that, that iterative process that actually testing it where the lumber hits the bad tree, insert bad tree metaphor here.

I think that's really useful and I'm actually very much looking forward to that process. And I think we'll hopefully learn some things, but hopefully not too many things that will result in changing the bylaw. And I'm really excited about not just moving from replacement but to enhancement. That I think is really important because we're talking about replacing trees. We're not actually increasing our coverage, we're simply replacing with 1 to 1 or even 1 to 3. You're not always seeing more trees being planted. So having that canopy cover requirement I think is going to really actually help people benefit from the trees that we're planting that we have in our district. And those benefits are many.

I know folks have heard me talk about these before and I'll keep this part of the speech short, but street trees provide so many different effects. They provide shade, they provide cooling, there's a road safety element that actually reduce the speed of drivers on roads. They have a stormwater management effect, they reduce noise and air pollution and they encourage happiness and well being. Right now the Swan Lake friends next to us are having a forest bathing workshop. And I think that just goes to show the full range of things that trees benefit our community. So I'm really pleased to see the hard work that's gone into this.

I'm looking forward to seeing the final bylaw and it's really a positive thing to see all these small changes that are really building on our existing tree bylaw, working to improve it, working with stakeholders, working with the public to make sure we have a really strong tree bylaw that will help bring many trees to our community.

So thank you Councillor Chambers.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just a quick question to staff. The 3 to 1 replacement is on district lands, is that correct?

Staff through the chair to Councillor Chambers. So the current 3 to 1 replacement, so that that does apply to private lands as well. That's a clause in the bylaw that that applies for some specific reasons. You know, mostly servicing and strata roads is, you know, to paraphrase that. So it does apply to private land and public land currently.

Okay, thank you very much. So despite was still opposed to dragging this on any longer. And I do understand that there we do have an urban forest strategy. But I have been very concerned with the amount of trees that have been lost as a result of Bill 44 and we can no longer wait any longer to get with our canopy increasing to create a healthy Sanich. We have many areas which are, you know, suffering from tree equity. So I'm really happy that we talked about tree equity. I, I was very pleased to use my council money to go to the urban Forest Strategy conference in Winnipeg last year and I learned tons and

I

myself, I would like to see more trees retrained and the Saanich where we preserved and back from 2012 to 2017, we do realize that we did have environmental protections within the building envelope and Saanich council did not restore that back to private property.

And so we have been in a bit of a biodiversity and tree loss situation and it's been extremely hard for me since I was elected to be going through this. So I'm very happy with this update and I do realize that council has different ways of perceiving this information. Myself as a farmer and land steward of 27 acres of sensitive ecosystems and engaged in a 23 year restoration project restoring PCOLs from colonial agriculture into biodiversity. I do have quite a bit of experience and maybe there's the corporate colonial worldview that likes to reiterate this to make it a convenience for development, but for me this can't come fast enough for me.

Sure we have other policies, but this update is absolutely necessary to stop the massive loss of biodiversity diversity in trees and Saanich and for us to retain a sustainable Saanich. And we must remember that, you know, a sustainable Saanich is paramount for economic viability and the Saanich, we all know, which is based on trees. So I was very, very, very. I'm just going to read this part out.

I was very exceptionally inspired. It was inspiring to see the public love for our trees and the recent engagement and surveys on the tree protection bylaw. Approximately 45% of participants specifically called for stronger tree protections. Respondents consistently preferred neighborhoods with larger, well spaced trees and canopies, with climate resilience and canopy growth emerging as strong priorities through the engagement. So I was so happy and proud of this, the residents of Saanich, the stewards of Saanich and their continual work. I do have one more.

Thank you, Councillor Devries, please.

Thank you. And I just want to, to thank staff for their very thorough work on this. I look forward to, you know, helping with what I think council's intention is here with the additional referral, which is to really get the word out about why these changes are being proposed and what they mean in terms of how they're going to help us do better on our urban forest canopy.

I think there's always going to be some who will not acknowledge competing priorities. But whether it's council or staff, as leaders we have the responsibility, like all communities, to balance these competing priorities, whether it's housing or schools, access to food, healthcare facilities, the servicing of all these importantly accessibility and other factors. And, and what I think is really important about the changes that are being proposed here is it is totally focused on the results and the outcomes in terms of ensuring that we're looking to expand our canopy and hit a certain range of canopy targets that are specific to the use, so they're aimed at being contact sensitive and that is an important aspect.

And so while some may look at this and say, well, you're being flexible, that's true, but we're being flexible with a purpose, which is to say we want to maximize the tree canopy in a way that's appropriate, recognizing that there's other needs in our community around housing and healthcare services as well as other recreational opportunities, and balancing these together importantly.

And a few councillors picked up on this already and I think this is the really important component of the bylaw. We're looking at, you know, not what, just the current state of the site, but what it can contribute to our urban canopy going forward. And so as was mentioned, you know, because of historic uses in Saanich, like farming that wiped trees from the landscape in huge areas, there are a lot of brownfield sites that do not have many trees or in some cases any trees. But we know that for A healthy community and a vibrant community. Tree canopy is important. And so there's an expectation in this new bylaw that whether or not there's trees on the site, we're expecting a contribution to our urban forest canopy. And that's something that our current bylaw doesn't do.

This goes over and above that and I think that's very, very important to highlight. The other piece is, you know, that might not be captured by this bylaw, but it's something that is top of my mind right now is not all tree canopy percentage is created equal. And so I'm hoping that something we can be paying attention to and watching for, particularly in the future, if this bylaw gets passed. It's just what is the impact of that tree canopy? For example, 20% sounds, you know, great for a primary growth area. At the same time, you know, if that's not near the public realm or people can't feel that in the areas in which they're, they're living, that needs to be addressed.

And we're obviously seeing that play out in some of our engagement on the Tilcombe Burnside plan, which is that neighborhood is already a 20% tree canopy coverage. And so they've kind of met the target for primary growth area. At the same time, you can walk that neighborhood, it's hotter than other neighborhoods. You can look at the data. There's something that suggests that the placement is important and an emphasis on or near public realm is going to be increasingly important. And so I guess I'll just end this with a question. Obviously with development proposals, we're looking for this use based target. Is that something that the district would also fall into with our projects

staff

through the chair to Councillor Devries. That's the piece that we're still in discussions and collaboration and you know, brainstorming with our engineering colleagues around how do Saanich driven projects, you know, replace that three to one direction and move forward to that, to those canopy cover targets. So we're still working on that piece.

Okay, would that come back at the

same time through the chair, Councillor De Vries?

Yes, that's the intention. That that comes back with the full bylaw package.

Excellent. Thanks so much.

Thank you, Councillor Chambers.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just have a few points to make. I want to know about the enforcement of this bylaw, invasive species removal. Okay, so how is that going to fit into these trees? And also a member of the public, as we know, wrote to us about a whole list of other trees. A whole list of other trees. And I don't know if I should read them out this late at night, but are you aware of the list, the other list that we got for trees? Can you speak to that in a sec about why we haven't added those to the list? And then.

So yes, I do think it is good that in areas where there are no trees, we are growing a tree canopy. But on that regard, sometimes when trees aren't growing, there's a reason and soils need to be restored and there needs to be primary successionary trees to improve things before larger trees. So will restoration in those situations also play a part? So maybe you could please answer me those four questions, please. Oh, five. One of the things that has been really hard for me to express is the cultural landscapes here, like the continual to prevent urban sprawl we were developing inside the urban containment boundary.

But as we know, this is the Coastal Douglas for biogeoclimatics up Sac Gary Oaks. These are associated ecosystems. And I'm wondering if there is attention paid to cultural landscapes which we live in. We say a territorial acknowledgement. And are we including first nations input

staff?

I'm not sure I captured all those questions, but I will try my very best to go through them, maybe between the two of us. Okay, so through the chair to Councillor Chambers. I think your first question was enforcement. So we are looking at how when an infraction to the bylaw occurs, we currently investigate it. And then depending on the outcome or the situation, we always try and educate people first and foremost and get compliance when that's possible. Sometimes when the tree's already been removed, compliance is no longer possible. So we go to penalty or fines. One thing, the province has recently increased the ability for municipalities to charge more for bylaw infractions.

So we're working with our legal services team to see how we can implement those larger penalties. The enforcement also is in regards to a question was asked earlier on about our communication plan. So we will do outreach activities. We will make sure that we educate the various audiences that need to be educated, including consulting arborists. So that is part of enforcement in a proactive kind of way is to educate them about the changes and how that can roll out and what some of the outcomes of those might be. And to involve them sooner in the process is already discovered. So kind of a proactive enforcement, I suppose. Is there anything else about enforcement? Oh, in.

In the retained trees, collecting that security deposit, that's the other thing that we're doing. So I feel like we are enhancing enforcement as much as we can within our Powers of local government. I think your next question, or maybe one of your questions had to do with writer had written.

Oh, do I keep going?

Okay.

Was about the tree list. So some of the trees on that list, my understanding were recommendations to plant on public land. So the majority of the plantings that occur in parks, although some of those plant are planted in recreational areas, some are also planted in natural areas. And the majority of the trees that we plant somewhere in the order of 3/4 of almost the 11,000 trees we planted during council's term have been native species. So I think that's important to realize. We will continue to plant non native trees as well for several reasons. There's some aesthetic benefits to that. There's some buy in from the public when they get to choose trees that they love and appreciate in their own yards or as part of a landscape design. And not all native trees are doing that well right now.

We're seeing some of them don't adapt well to a land use change or an urban environment. The hotter, drier summers, the longer, wetter, more intense rainfall is a really tricky sweet spot for a tree to grow in both of those conditions on an annual basis. So I think it's important that we include a palette of different kinds of trees to make sure that we're planting a good species diversity and not putting all our eggs in one basket, so to speak.

Thank you.

Catch some of the other questions.

The time's up and I have another speaker. Thanks. Mayor Murdoch, please.

I think to be fair to Councillor Chambers, the timer just applies to her to her question. So I think if staff have a response, I'd be happy to hear it.

Okay, respond the chair to Councillor Chambers.

So one question I heard was around invasive species removal. So we're proposing that the invasive species list that will be updated into the bylaw comes from the Capital Regional District Invasive Species Priority List, the CRSP list for. And that that list of trees. We're proposing that those trees still would require a permit and still would require a replacement tree, but you'd be allowed to remove those trees for, for no other rationale than the fact that they're invasive. You know, they wouldn't have to be damaging infrastructure or something like that. I also heard about soil restoration in your question there. That is part of, you know would be part of the requirements under development permit or under a development site is the applicants project team would be working together to propose to us, you know, what can be planted and where it can be planted and what can be done to accommodate those trees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Mayor Murdoch, please.

Thank you. Chair Brownoff, I just wanted to take a moment before we get into the calling of the question, just to briefly remark. It's clear from the discussion this evening and the timeline provided in the report that I'm not going to be sitting at the table when this comes back for adoption or approval. So I just wanted to commend staff on the process, as well as the consultant for undertaking the effort, the considerable effort involved in updating the bylaw and being responsive to many of the concerns that have been identified since its last update, well over a decade ago. I think that we've learned a lot in that time.

We've certainly understood the shortcomings of the bylaw, and I think the constraints provided by the legislation, and I think surfacing those things as part of this discussion has been really helpful. I know it's been helpful to me, and I'm hopeful it's been helpful to council and members of the public as well. Well. But I think what's been identified as some of the solutions here are really going to be significant in the long term as we look to achieve a higher level of canopy cover and protection of our trees. So I just want to commend staff and the consultant for that excellent work. I want to thank everybody who's been a part of this process.

You know, I think to a person, people will tell you what they love about living here is the tree trees. It's the greenery and the natural spaces. And this bylaw endeavors to protect that and ultimately enhance it. And I think that that's something that we should all be very proud of. So thanks to everyone. Appreciate the commitment to keeping Saanich beautiful and green, and I think the changes to the bylaw will ultimately make that happen. And I'll be watching when the adoption occurs and look forward to that. Thank you so much.

Thanks, Mayor Murdoch. No other speakers for the second time, so I'll just say a couple of words. First of all, I want to thank staff. There's more to do, obviously, for me, putting my hand on is climate change. I would like to see trees planted around the major corridors that we're going to continue to develop on. I do like the idea that there's. I think it's very misunderstood from people about the different soils and why we don't just plant native trees, why it's always a variety. And I was going to say there were a couple of good letters that were written to us, and I'm hoping staff will respond to those people that wrote in because I do think it's an important issue.

And it's true what Mayor Murdoch says, what I hear from people they love the most is the trees and they don't like it when we. We lose a lot. And we've been losing a lot. And although we've been very successful or you've been very successful planting 11,000 trees in our term, we probably could have done more if there was the time and the. And the financial resources. So I too look forward to seeing what comes back as we. As you finalize with the rest of the committee and the society as a whole, our community members. So I'm going to call the question. So this is the question on the main motion as amended. All those in favor? All those opposed? Unopposed. The motion carries. Thank you. So, Ms. Froud, the next item.

Oh, we're going to get close to 10 o', clock, colleagues. Let's hope Councillor Phelps Bondaroff will be quick.

Okay, I will just provide the very brief. The next item is a notice of motion from Councillor Phelps Bonderoff on enabling team based primary care in British Columbia. And he will be reading in the motion shortly. No, just the.

Thank you very much. Thank you Madam Chair and thanks to staff. The motion is a draft UBCM motion entitled enabling team based primary care in British Columbia. I will read the operative clause which is therefore be it resolved that UBCM call on the problems of British Columbia to address systemic system systemic barriers to team based primary care by developing sustainable funding, governance and operational models that enable the widespread implementation of long term sustainability of team based primary care in British Columbia.

Thank you. Okay, Who seconded? Councillor Planter Harper. Oh, Councillor Plant. Stop pointing fingers.

Okay, thank you.

I'm glad there's a flu.

Okay, Councillor Phelps Bondroth speaking.

As we know, there is a primary care shortage in British Columbia and this impacts thousands of our residents. And talking to the Ministry of Health they've informed me that on the Saanich Peninsula. So Oak Bay, Saanich, the peninsula and a sliver of Victoria. There's over. There's including 133,000 people. 98,000 of those people are attached to primary care. That's a family doctor or Nurse Practitioner. 19,000 are on the HealthConnect registry but 20. 22. 9000 are not on the Health Connect registry and don't have a family doctor. And responding to a question from a member of the public, which is a good question. The district is already doing quite a lot to help in the situation. We had a motion come forward a couple of months ago on permissive tax exemptions for family, for public, for not for profit clinics, that is.

And we had a density bonusing and other incentive motion that we recently explored. When it comes to incentivizing new clinics, when it comes to the role of municipality in issues like this, advocacy is one of those other things that we can do to help move the dial. And this motion stems from conversations with local healthcare providers, specifically a colleague of ours who is now also the executive director of Shoreline Medical, Sarah Riddell from Central Sanit. She and I worked on this resolution and we've been collaborating and in conversation from our friends from Shoreline to develop it. As folks will recall, we did have a presentation from Shoreline recently.

This responds to the needs that have been identified by healthcare providers in our district that are providing team based care. As folks will recall, Shoreline has a team based care model. It's coordinated, patient centered, it helps improve access and improves continuity. It strengthens health outcomes, it increases capacity and it makes healthcare delivery more sustainable. From the perspective of the people delivering health care and effectively, how it works is you have a team of allied health professionals and including includes family doctors, nurse practitioners, dietitians, pharmacists, psychiatrists, counselors and nurses all working in a space so that when a patient arrives with a specific need, they can speak to the healthcare practitioner that meets that need rather than say just a family doctor.

And this is really an important form of health. It's been one that's been identified by the provincial government as a primary core strategy for delivering primary care. But there are some barriers. So very briefly they include the funding model that are historically designed around physicians, around physician centric care. There are the need for sustainable funding for nurse practitioners which isn't always available, or more funding rather and stable for nurse practitioners. We need some flexibility in recruitment, integration and sustainability for interdisciplinary practices. Which means that these team based care practices can recruit primary doctors, but they often struggle to recruit other allied medical professionals. And there's just been inadequate funding when it comes to operational infrastructure, operations and infrastructure that is.

And so we need to have support for clinic spaces, administration and the cost of coordination. So all this makes it hard to implement team based care. And this resolution goes to UBCM and it asks UBCM to ask the province to step in and address some of these small barriers that's making it harder to deliver team based care. Why this matters to Saanich residents? Well, more Saanh residents will get a access to primary care. If we have effective team based care models in Our district. That's very important. And this resolution is going to ubcm. It is one that is slightly adjacent to the role of municipal government, but it's still a very important advocacy resolution.

And these advocacy resolutions do not exist in a vacuum, but rather they add to the growing call for this kind of change across the province. And so my hope is that this will help signal to the provincial government that there are a growing number of municipalities that are looking to see team based care in their jurisdictions that will help deliver. Deliver more care to people. It's a straightforward advocacy motion and I hope we can send it to UBCM and move the dial a small way into getting more team based care here in Saanich.

Thank you, Councillor Plant.

Thank you. I'd like to try and keep it to under 30 seconds. I'm in support of this. Oh, you.

Yeah, no, I'm watching the clock.

I am in support of this. I recognize a member of the public said it was outside of our lane. I actually think it's exactly how we need to be in our lane. We call on the province to do more because I, unlike some of our neighboring municipalities, am not interested in seeing Saanich get into the healthcare business. It's not a model that I am confident is going to be long term sustainable. So calling for something like this is reasonable. And I do think it is something I hear probably every week from somebody, what is Saanich doing to help with health care? And I always have to explain, our role is not to address health care.

Our role is to advocate for our citizens. And so I do see this as quite different as others that I haven't supported in the past. So I'm hopeful that we on the south island, several of the municipalities, will send this forward and it is a message to the province. Let's work together.

Thank you, Councillor Bryce.

Thank you, Chair. I have not supported motions that have come to this council relating to methods and means of getting the municipality involved in providing health care services. But I do support this motion because as has been explained by Councillor Platt, it is an advocacy motion imploring the province to deal with the issue which is their mandated responsibility, which is provide health care for our citizens. So I'm prepared to support this motion and I see it quite separate from the variety of other motions that have come before us, attempting to draw the municipality into providing a service where the province is failing.

Councillor Harper.

Thank you, Chairperson. Yes, I'll keep mine brief as well.

So, yes, this is.

I'm also supporting it because it is advocacy to the province, which is indeed one of our roles. And as I talk to members of the public, I hear about this a lot more often even than once per week.

And we're only going to hear about it more.

And it is part of Saanich's mandate in many ways. Ways we had healthy savage. We talk about the need to make sure that our population can thrive, but it's the province that is in charge of health care. And we will be having more of this until we get some sort of solution. With an aging population, aside from actual access, it's going to put ever more pressure on the system. So this is something that we need to start pushing the province on because they're the ones that have the levers that could possibly help. Thank you.

Councillor devries, trying to get this through before you move a motion.

I think we'll make it there without going past 10. I'm in full support for the reasons my colleagues have stated. Advocacy is totally within our lane. When we hear something from residents every day of all ages background, it's incumbent on us to raise that with the province. And this is probably one of the most prevalent challenges that a lot of residents face. And what I like about this advocacy is it's really solution focused. It's called an emphasis on, you know, how can we ensure that there's more capacity in the system and greater throughput so that people are getting the care that they need.

Need.

This does appear to have fallen off the radar a bit of the province in terms of the priority that it is and needs to be. And bringing this to ubcm, I think, and we'll be doing that with many other municipalities across the province is important to get momentum back on this file because it's one that, you know, is an issue 10 years ago. It's going to be an issue for the next 10 years and beyond unless there's significant changes made. And this outlines a best practice that has been successful.

Perfect. All those. I have a motion. I don't see any more lights. All those in favor? Opposed. None opposed. Motion carries. Next item is motion to adjourn. Councillor devries. Councillor Harper. All those in favor?

Opposed.

Non. Opposed. Thank you.