Transcript: Special Council Meeting - Public Hearing - 2026-06-16

All right. Good evening, everybody. Welcome to your Council Chamber. I'll call tonight's meeting to order. We're gathered this evening, Tuesday, June 16th, for the purpose of a public hearing specifically on an OCP amendment to adopt the Quadra McKenzie plan. We're going to start in a good way, as we always do, with a territorial acknowledgement and inclusivity statement. And to deliver that this evening, I'm going to turn it over to Councillor devries. It's appropriate that we begin by acknowledging that the district of Saanich lies within the territories of the Lokwungan peoples represented by the Songhees and Esquimalt nations, and the Westanich people represented by the Chartlop, Pocin, Saot Sicom and Malahat Nations.

We are committed to celebrating the rich diversity of people in our community. We are guided by the principle that embracing diversity enriches the lives of all people. We all share the responsibility for creating an equitable and inclusive community and for addressing discrimination in all forms. Thank you, Councillor devries. Next, I'm going to turn it over to Councillor Brownhoff who is going to go through the order of proceedings this evening.

Councillor Brownhoff, thanks very much, Mr. Mayor. Public input has always been an important item on our Council meeting agendas and is welcome in person by via email or written submission or by video on Ms. Teams. For those wishing to address counsel via Ms. Teams, the link is available at www. saanich. ca agendas. This information is also displayed on the screen for your convenience. The Senior Committee Clerk will provide further details on providing input to Council shortly. To allow Council the opportunity to hear from all members of the public in a timely manner. Each speaker, individuals or community association will be allowed up to five minutes to address counsel regarding the application under consideration. Any speaker may address Council a second time for up to five minutes with new information.

Once all first time speakers have had opportunity to speak, the Mayor will call a total of three times for public input before closing. Public input. The meeting is being live webcast and by participating in this webcast, you are consenting to being recorded. Personal information, including your image and personal opinions may be collected and disclosed as part of the Council proceedings on the video. The recording will be available on the District's website for future access. When presenting to Council, please do not provide any third party information. For example, talk about others as you may be disclosing other people's personal information without their consent. The order of business at a public hearing is as introduction of the bylaw, permit or application by the Clerk Staff will provide a presentation to counsel.

Members of the public are invited to provide comment on the bylaw permit or application being considered. Once the call for public input has been given three times consecutively, no further representation from the public can be considered. Staff will be invited to respond to new information on factual matters raised by the speakers or council. Public hearing will be closed. Council can receive no new information once the hearing is closed.

Thank you very much, Councillor Brownhoff. So this evening we're here, as I'm sure comes as no surprise to anyone in the room to talk about the Quadrant Mackenzie plan. This evening's intent is to consider an official community plan amendment in order to adopt the Quadra McKenzie plan. That means that all of the. We welcome the benefit of your presentation and as Councillor Brownhoff mentioned, you'll have up to 5 minutes to share your views with council. And if you have additional information that you did not share the first time and you wish to have a second opportunity, once all the first time speakers have had the opportunity to address Council, you'll have a second opportunity with new information, meaning please don't come back and repeat exactly what you'd already said for up to five minutes.

The content of that presentation. As this is a legal process, we can only focus on the official community plan amendment to adopt the Quadra McKenzie plan and the content therein. And so specific land use applications that may even fall within the corridor are not subject of tonight's discussion and therefore are not germane to the public hearing. So if we do focus on participating particular land use applications that are not content of the ocp, I'll just ask you to please reframe your comments so that they relate specifically to the Quadra McKenzie plan and its eventual adoption as part of the OCP. We're all here to have our say and we look forward to the benefit of your insights and perspective this evening. We ask that we please keep the content specific to what we're here to discuss.

Not going to talk about other people, we're not going to try and characterize other forms of input that has been received. We're just going to listen carefully and respectfully and we'll each have an opportunity to share. As I often like to say, we're going to treat each other with kindness and respect and we'll all get through this together. Finally, you may hear things this evening that you don't agree with and that's entirely fine, but we ask that you please don't react as it may make folks feel like they're not welcome to share a perspective that might be different from those in the crowd. So whether or not you agree or disagree with a particular perspective, we ask that you please just keep your comments to yourself and allow the presenter to say what they're going to say.

And I'll do my best to ensure that those presenters stay on topic and don't stray into characterizing other kinds of input that we may have received this evening. But I think most of the folks in this room have had at least an opportunity in the past, one opportunity and probably more to present to Council. And so I know that you're all well prepared for tonight's meeting and we look forward to what you have to share with us. And as I said, we're going to do our best to make this smooth and easy and comfortable for everybody and we look forward to getting through this evening's discussion.

I don't think there's much more than that than I can add. I am going to turn it over now to our Senior Committee Clerk who will introduce the item for us. We have a number of speakers identified who have pre registered to speak. They'll have an opportunity to do so after we've received the presentation from our staff. We will be holding any questions from Council to staff until after the public input. And so that gives us an opportunity to capture any of the questions that may come up as part of the commentary to put to our staff to clarify anything that you may wish to seek clarity on.

Okay, now I really am done, so I'm going to turn it over to you, Ms. Da Silva, if you could take us into the. Well, the item for Council's consideration tonight.

Actually it's going to be Ms. Chagger that is reading it.

I'm sorry Preet, I didn't realize you were doing the intro. Over to you.

For those of you wishing to address council via Ms. Teams, the meeting link is located at www. standish. ca. forward agendas. This information is also displayed on the screen for your convenience. For those participating through the Ms. Teams link, please leave your video display off and microphone muted except for when addressing Council, if you wish to speak, you must use the raise your hand function to join the speaking queue. We will start with pre registered speakers followed by unregistered speakers in person and on teams. For tonight's agenda item, it is the official community plan bylaw 2023amendment. Bylaw 2026 number 10298 proposed adoption of the Quadra McKenzie plan.

The intent of this proposed official community plan OCP bylaw amendment is to incorporate the Quadra McKenzie plan and update the OCP land use framework to align with the QMP. The bylaw amendment also includes administrative amendments to reflect revised mapping, numbering and formatting.

Okay, thank you so much. I think that means I'm going to turn it over to you. So appreciate you taking taking the wheel for the presentation and we look forward to what you have to share with. There we go. And you're off and running. Can you hear me? Are we okay here? Mr. Smith, the floor is yours. Good evening, Mayor, Council. Hello. My name is Adam Smith, lead planner for the Quarter mackenzie Plan, and I will be presenting an overview of the proposed Quadra McKenzie plan tonight.

Can you speak up a little bit, please?

It's hard to hear.

Sorry.

Yes. Maybe if you just pull the mics a little bit closer to you. Bring it closer there. And Gareth has them both lit up so you'll be like the President during a press conference tonight. There you go. Can everyone hear me? Okay, There we go. Apologies. I will be starting off with some background information on the project overview, planning framework and planning process that brings us here today. Why this Plan matters the Quadra McKenzie plan builds off the strategic direction from the official Community Plan As a center, corridor and village plan, the QMP will guide land use, future development and infrastructure investments over the next 20 years and beyond.

The QMP connects multiple regionally significant destinations and corridors, including the Patricia Bay Highway, University of Victoria, and current and future major transit routes. The quadrant MacKenzie plan is defined by multiple center, corridor and village areas, including the Quadra McKenzie Centre, Shelburne McKenzie Center, Gordon Head, McKenzie Centre, Mackenzie Corridor, Quadra Corridor 4, Corner Village and several strategically located corridor hubs. There are many district signage, plans and strategies that help to develop and work together with the key plan goals, directions, objectives and policies within the qmp, including the official Community Plan, Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, Active Transportation Plan and multiple others. While many of these plans and strategies provide broader direction for climate action, housing diversity and supply, economic vitality, environmental sustainability and public health, social well being and accessibility, the Quadra mackenzie Plan takes that broader direction and applies it in a more direct manner.

The official Community Plan and its four strategic land use directions were the primary guidance for the development of the Quadra McKenzie plan. Together, these directions support efficient use of land and resources to create livable communities close to services, amenities and jobs supported by transit and active transportation options. The planning process for the Quadrant Mackenzie Plan began in February 2023 and has gone through six phases including plan development, refinement and multiple phases of consultation. Over this time Public input was received and incorporated through three online surveys receiving nearly 3,300 responses, eight in person workshops and open houses with over 1400 attendees, nine online sessions with over 550 attendees, and two postcard mailers sent out to 17,000 and 19,000 homes.

Across all of this community input staff received over 17,700 comments in the form of survey responses, emails, post it notes and webinar questions. The plan development process itself has resulted in five separate iterations of the Quadra Mackenzie Plan based on public feedback and council direction. The first draft plan was developed in October 2024 and was followed by an online survey, webinars, open houses and pop ups. Based on the public feedback received, revisions were made to the plan. In July 2025, the second draft plan was presented to Council. This was followed again by an online survey, webinars, open houses and pop ups. In January of 2026, the first proposed plan was brought to Council where Council directed specific amendments to the Quadra Mackenzie Plan including the removal of lane reduction conc, the removal of Beckwith and Chatterton Hubs and various other land use designation changes.

In April of 2026, the revised proposed plan was brought back to Council where Council directed further specific amendments to the Quadra McKenzie plan in Quadra north and Quadra south sub areas. All of these iterations of the Plan have resulted in the final proposed Quadra Mackenzie Plan in front of you today. I'll now go into some of the finer details of the plan. The Quadra McKenzie plan covers approximately 40% of sandwiches total primary growth area. The plan boundaries are generally within 300 to 500 meters of Mackenzie Avenue or Quadra street, the two main corridors contained within the plan. It should also be noted that the Quadra Mackenzie Plan is located adjacent to the Uptown Douglas Plan and Shelburne Valley Plan, emphasizing the connectedness of this plan with other CVS in the District of Saanich.

The four Key Plan goals build on the vision of Saanich's official Community Plan around land use, housing, transportation and the public realm. Together, these goals aim to address the climate and housing crises and build equitable, diverse and inclusive communities. Aligning with the 15 minute community approach, these goals will assist the Quadra McKenzie area in achieving walkable access to key amenities and support community resiliency. The Key Plan directions build off of the Key Plan goals and provide further direction to specific features of the Quadra Mackenzie area, specifically around housing, transportation and employment opportunities. With multiple major transportation corridors and existing commercial and institutional uses, the Quadra Mackenzie area is well positioned to sit support a broader range of housing and employment options.

As you can see on this map here, the proposed future land use designations are identified by a variety of colours. The red areas signify centres which are meant to serve as high density mixed use cores providing high levels of commercial services supported by connections to active transportation and high frequency transit. The blue areas signify corridors which are meant to act as transition zones providing a lower level of density and a mix of housing forms supported by local serving commercial uses, all connected by high frequency transit and active transportation. The orange and blue areas represent apartment and urban town homes which provide the lowest levels of density with building forms reaching a maximum of four stories altogether.

The proposed land use designations enable a mix of housing forms, unit sizes, tenures and on site amenities in proximity to commercial services and recreational assets that help to improve the livability in the Quarter Mackenzie area. For the sub areas I will be addressing the McKenzie corridor first from east to west followed by the Quadra Corridor north to south, highlighting the proposed future land use designations and unique characteristics of each sub area. This map here shows each of the eight sub areas identified by the Quadra McKenzie Plan. Each sub area in the QMP area has unique characteristics and features with policies that provide direction for the future vision of their respective area.

Other documents such as the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Urban Forest Strategy also help to influence the policy direction in each sub area, ensuring that the future vision supports and protects existing natural features. The McKenzie west sub area serves as an important gateway into the Quadra Mackenzie Plan area, marking the transition from a more highway oriented environment to an urban corridor. It is anchored by key community assets including St. Andrews Regional High School and Rainbow park as well as its adjacency to the Christmas Hill and Swan Lake Nature Sanctuaries. A special site identified through the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy covers much of the northern border of this plan area, ensuring special consideration during redevelopment to protect natural areas.

The plan also identifies a future Saanich Road hub at the intersection of Mackenzie Avenue and Saanich Road which aims to add additional community and commercial services to the area. Quadra McKenzie Centre is a focal point of the plan area centered on Quadra Street, Mackenzie Avenue and the Lochside Regional Trail. As a regionally significant centre, the primary focus is on employment and housing growth. Combined with the evolution of the Saanich Operations Centre, this region aims to add vibrancy and significant jobs. Many large sites exist within this sub area that have the potential to deliver many more urban amenities, improving livability. As mentioned, the Lochside Regional Trail is a key feature of this sub area and will continue to be a key asset and regional connection for active transportation supported by strategic investments to improve its role.

There are also a range of land use transitions depending on surrounding context that exist within the Quadrant Mackenzie Centre providing a variety of housing options and mixed use opportunities. A special site is also identified in the southern portion of this sub area which will have stronger biodiversity considerations during redevelopment. The Brayfoot sub area acts as an important connection between the two major centres of Quadrant Mackenzie and Shelburne Mackenzie Future land use designations identify the Blenkinsop Brayfoot Hub which is meant to evolve around the existing assets of Brayfoot Park, Brayfoot elementary and the Root Cellar. The areas around the future Mackenzie Avenue Rapid Transit Stop and future frequent transit routes along Cedar Hill Crossroad and Blankens Upper Road are targeted for additional housing.

Housing forms across this sub area are guided by topography, street patterns and the adjacent context. Over time this area will evolve to build upon its existing role in Saanich and its adjacency to the Blenkinsop area. Shelburne McKenzie Centre is a prominent node at the intersection of two major transportation corridors and transit routes. With strong access to transit, active transportation and walkable services, this centre is well positioned to support car light living. Significant development has already been catalyzed in the area by the Shelburne Valley Plan and the two plans seek to work together for the future of development in the area. A priority of this sub area will be to obtain new park public open space as identified by the Parks Network Gap Analysis match which I will be discussing for later.

Gordon Head McKenzie Centre is identified as a new centre with an important strategic role in strengthening the connection between the University of Victoria and Urban Saanich. The area is already supported by a range of education, recreation and civic uses which provide a strong foundation for future growth. The vision supports providing additional shops and services for Gordon Head and University of Victoria residents. The Ian Stewart redevelopment will also help to form the nucleus of this centre as it evolves over time. The Quadrant north sub area has seen the greatest level of revisions to proposed land use designations based on public feedback and Council direction. This sub area will be exclusively low rise development having impacts on the likelihood of purpose built, rental, affordable housing and limited commercial or community services.

The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy identifies multiple habitat sites within this sub area as identified by special sites on the map here which will have stronger considerations for biodiversity and site design to ensure retention and protection of these natural features. Quadra south is one of the largest areas within the plan and plays an important role in linking surrounding neighbourhoods to the uptown core through a network of key collector roads. The area is also supported by an extensive network of parks and open spaces that contributes to its livability and neighbourhood character. The future vision builds on the established apartment land use patterns around Quadra Street, Cloverdale Avenue and Rutledge park, identifying multiple new opportunities for multi use paths.

Habitat sites have also been identified in this sub area, ensuring retention and protection of natural features. Additionally, the Ptolemy hub looks to build on the connection with the City of Victoria through a shared hub. Four Corners Village is a well established village with existing commercial and community services. The vision for this sub area is to maintain and expand upon those existing commercial services while adding a diversity of housing options primarily in mixed use developments. It should also be noted that there are future plans to redesign the Four Corners intersection to improve safety and enhance the public realm. Now I'll move on to discuss some of the transportation and mobility concepts in the plan.

As the QMP area grows, there's an opportunity to improve how people move through and within the corridor by strengthening transit access, supporting safer and more reliable travel on major roads, and carefully managing transit transportation impacts over time. Key elements of the mobility network include the identification of proposed rapid transit stops and the future processes to determine the future of Mackenzie Avenue and Quadra Street. Council has directed specific revisions to the plan to remove any lane reduction concepts, allowing detailed cross sections and any lane configuration changes to be developed and evaluated through a future transportation planning and design process supported by technical analysis, stakeholder engagement and Council consideration.

In its place, detailed cross sections have been replaced with street design elements that support the long term division for Mackenzie Avenue and Quadra Street. These images portray elements of a multimodal corridor that prioritizes safe and comfortable travel for all mobility modes. As previously mentioned, these images are intended to communicate the desired corridor impacts over time rather than prescribe a final detailed design. Implementation may occur incrementally over time as redevelopment occurs and in coordination with that future transportation planning process. A safer and more connected active transportation network is a big part of the future of the Quadra Mackenzie area. By improving crossings, strengthening neighborhood connections and expanding cycling and micro mobility routes, there's an opportunity to make everyday travel safer, easier and more comfortable for more people over time.

The Lochside Regional Trail will play a critical role in the future of the Quadra Mackenzie area and Saanich will continue to work along the Capital Regional District in ensuring that role is protected and enhanced. Now I'll dive into some of the details of the parks, trails, open spaces and community facilities. The policies within this plan aim to enable all community members to have safe and equitable access to parks and natural areas. Acquisition of parkland will be prioritized in locations where gaps exist as identified by the white areas on the map. Another key component of the plan is focused on the prioritization of tree retention, tree planting and natural area restoration in conjunction with the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Urban Forest Strategy.

Habitat sites that have been identified by the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy played a key role in guiding the proposed future land use designations. As discussed in the sub areas, special sites have been identified to ensure the retention and protection of these sensitive ecosystems through strategic site design on parcels within and adjacent to these habitat sites. The quadrant McKenzie plan will be used in a variety of ways, including to help guide Council decision making, determining budget and capital project priorities, evaluating development applications, and building out the parks and recreation amenities throughout the district. In the Quadra McKinsey area, implementation will be shared across Saanich developers, partner agencies and community organizations.

The Quadrant McKenzie plan provides policy framework for growth over the next 20 years and beyond, but it does not rezone properties through adoption. Change will happen over time through private redevelopment, district capital projects and coordinated investment in infrastructure and services. The pace of development will depend on market conditions, landowner decisions, transit improvements and infrastructure capacity. Any redevelopment proposal will still require a future application, full review and Council approval. An implementation strategy and regular plan reviews will help guide delivery and adaptation over time. Implementation will also be dependent on other initiatives such as the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, Urban Forest Strategy, active transportation strategy, and ongoing engagement with community partners, including local First Nations. That is the end of my presentation.

Thank you very much. Okay, thank you, Mr. Smith. At this time, Council is not, as you know, going to put questions to you, but I'll be taking note, as I'm sure my colleagues will, of any comments or questions that come up during the public input. And so, and once that's concluded, we'll be asking you to come back up to respond to any questions or clarify anything that may have been misunderstood as part of the development of the plan. So in that case, if you don't mind shifting over, I'll create some space for members of the public and I'm going to turn it over to to me this time, Ms.

Da Silva, who I think is going to call upon the first of our registered speakers.

The first speaker tonight is Cheryl Bryce. Cheryl, if you'd like to unmute yourself, you have five minutes to speak. If you could please state your name and address. Cheryl Bryce Lekwungen Territories from the Songes

Nation

I squale everyone. My name is Cheryl Bryce. I am a member of the Songhees Nation traditionally known as Lekwungen. I want to welcome you all on our traditional territories. You're in the area known as the Kosemsen and the Jaconin family group. You're in an area that's part of my family connections and just wanted to talk a bit tonight about making some recommendations and following up on our chief's letter back in February 2026 and the referrals letter on May 2026. And there included some respectful requests that council and staff postpone the adoption of the Quadra Mackenzie Plan pending meaningful consultation with Song East Nation regarding the garrioke ecosystems.

Analyzing the cumulative event impacts and the long term stewardship planning to include clear garry oak, also known as Kwatlal food systems or Kwatlalanuk is a long term goal that is needing to be taking place within the quadrant McKinsey plan supported by measurable targets and accountability mechanisms recognizing these ecosystems as integral to our nation and as indigenous our indigenous rights and cultural continuity and to develop and implement a responsive management framework outlining mitigation, restoration and stewardship measures where ecosystem thresholds and stewardship goals are not met due to development pressures.

We look at the urban forest plan and biodiversity strategies and that really doesn't include our voice and our planning for the future and looking at this in a long term way. As you know, we're a small nation and we have limited capacity and there needs to be some address to how we are being a part of this process, how we are consulting and planning within our territories. And we ask that we have the opportunity to have those meetings both for council and our staff to have these meetings to talk about the importance of these very significant food systems that go back long in our history.

And we connect in so many ways. We have stories that link to these areas. We have a history that's long and deep rooted that go beyond the cement in the buildings that you're seeing on your on the lands in our territory today. There's a lot more connection that continues today with us as Lekwangen people. And we have to continue this for our future generations to ensure that that's there for people that have are members to come that haven't been born yet. To ensure that they have the ability to know what camas tastes like and that they know what these Kwatlow food systems are mean to who we are and continue to connect.

I mean we can continue connecting our territories in so many way. And there's so much that is being impacted in our traditional food systems. As we look at the Kwetlal and the Kohtlao food systems, there's 1 to 3% left in our traditional territory, otherwise known in this capital regional district. And it's really important that we are a part of these decisions and conversations and protecting our traditional territories. Songhee's nation connects so deeply into these areas and it's part of our ancestral connection and part of our practice. Today. I still harvest, I actively protect these ecosystems and continue to contribute to these important food systems with invasive species removal, reinstatement, restoration work within our territory and our community.

And I feel it's really important that this is a large area that's going to be impacted. And I think it really needs the time to have that conversation. There needs to be a pause to take that time to have that conversation so that we can talk about this. And it means to us, because the Koht Lao food system is a living artifact to my ancestors. They exist because of my ancestors. They continue to be here because we have a role and a responsibility to these food system to ensure that they continue, that they continue for our future generation. And the Quadra Mackenzie Plan fails to adequately recognize the Lekwungen aboriginal rights and does not provide meaningful protection to the Kwetlao food systems.

And the ongoing development pressures that continue to happen in our territory, including what's happening at the Quadra Mackenzie Plan. The proposed land use and framework continue continues patterns of fragmentation and loss affecting the critically endangered ecosystems that is integral to the Songhees nation and continuously protect our rights and cultural practices. Saanich Urban Forest Strategy identifies exceptional trees requiring prioritizing and protecting and retention as trees. But we see this as a whole ecosystem, as a whole part of who we are. And we connect in so many ways to these food systems. We consider them part of who we are as Lekwangen and part of our family. We have so many stories that can further this and connect to it.

So it goes beyond that, it's cultural significance, its historical connections and ongoing connections, future connections. It's supporting what you might refer to as biodiversity.

Thank you, Ms. Bryce. We've now surpassed the five minute mark. So if I could just ask you to sum up your remarks.

Yes, I thank you very much for the time and providing me the opportunity to speak tonight and I really look forward to us making some action plans to meeting and discussing this, then talking about the capacity that we have and potentially even some capacity funding. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next speaker on tonight's list is Donna Collette. Donna, if you'd like to come up to the mic and state your name and address, you have five minutes.

Good evening.

Good evening. Is this right?

Yep. You're good to go.

Two microphones. My name is Donna Collette. I live at 3741 Craigmiller, and I'm proud to say that I have lived in Saanich my whole life, which is pretty special, I think. So I wanted to come here today to just give my feedback and thoughts and concerns about the Quadra McKenzie plan, most specifically about my neighborhood. And first of all, I'm just going to be very vulnerable and say the whole process has been. The document is so dense and going through it on the website and trying to keep up with the many input opportunities we had was daunting. At some point, at some point, I decided that I would read the 150 pages and then I kind of got, oh wow, it's like my backyard and my neighbor's backyard.

So I got to a place where I was quite concerned about the corridor and specifically our neighborhood. I have some concerns about if you've ever walked our neighborhood. We have the Garry Oaks that were just spoken about. We have many heritage buildings, buildings and structures, not all buildings. Some of the houses on our street are designated and are listed in the heritage walking tours for Saanich. And we have a really narrow winding road that already is challenged by access. And we were especially aware of that when Tattersall was being worked on and that area was all being fixed up. So my concern moving forward is that looking at having six stories in the place on the west side of Craigmiller would really impact that thoroughfare. And my fear would be the safety of people walking to Playfair Park.

The beauty of the Garry Oaks at that end on Rock Street, Tattersall would be changed forever. Now I'm just have to look at my notes and I was quite. It was confusing to me from the first plan to the draft that I think you're looking at today. Kathleen was exempted from the plan and the other side of Savannah and Elliston was also changed. And then there's one side of Craig Miller that is three to six corridor and then the other side is three story townhomes. So I feel that having the contrast on either side of the street, in addition to the safety concerns and the changing of our heritage area would really make it look really even more odd than it possibly could.

And so I came here initially in my mind Saying I would really like our side of the street to be considered, to be reduced to three story, which I could see being problematic even with that because of the traffic corridor. And I do invite any of you to come and walk our street because it is. You can barely get a dog and a bike through at one end, let alone a car and people walking. And we have a lot of transit down to Playfair, which is like the best park in Saanich. So I come here asking that that be considered. And I know I'm kind of late to the party, so that's my one concern.

Just go back to my notes and I realize I'm not against density and I know we're growing and I know we want to invite people, but I think we need to do it in a subtle way in those special places in Saanich that are so different and that that's one of the reasons I moved to my house, was that it was single family, near a park, close to amenities and close to the highway and transportation.

So I just would urge council to again to look at that piece of the plan that somehow, I don't know, got one little line on it. I'm looking at your notes, your picture, one little line that is a little bit different. And I just think that maybe that whole area should be orange. So anyhow, thank you for listening to me and I appreciate the time.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Gary Ramsey. After Gary, we'll have Mayran Goharian. Gary, if you'd like to come up to the mic or unmute yourself, you have five minutes. Mayran Goharian, if you're available and you'd like to come up to the mic. And after Mehran, we'll have Mrs. Burnett.

Good evening. Good evening, Mayor and Councillor. My name is Mehran Goharian and I live in Broadmead Signage area. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to regarding the quadrant McKinsey plan. Tonight I respectfully ask council to remove business encouragement language from the final QMP plan as it applies to the Chatterton Way site. This request reflects not only my concerns, but also raised by residents in the surrounding neighborhood.

My comments focus on two process and community impact. First, with respect to the process, my understanding is that Council's January February decisions did not direct staff to introduce a business or commercial component for this site. The business encouragement language appears to have been added during the planning process rather than through a specific direction from council. Second, regarding the community impact, Chatterton Way is an established residential neighborhood. Residents value its quiet residential character and we believe this that encouraging business uses at this location would be inconsistent with the area primary function. Maintaining an appropriate transition between commercial and residential area is a fundamental planning principle.

Preserving that distinction helps protect neighborhood livability while still supporting growth and economic activity in location better suited for those use. Residents are concerned that introducing business use could introduce traffic service vehicles, parking pressure and noise. To be clear, my request to remove additional business encouragement, especially Item 7. 2. 12 on page 116 of the QMP plan. It does not seek to change the land use designation or residential planning for the site as such.

My understanding is that this is limited. Amitment would not engage the land use consideration under the section 470 of the Local Government act, but simply removing policy language that was not part of the council original direction. This is not a position to change growth or new housing. Rather, it is just a request for clarity and planning that respect both council previous direction and established character of the community. For these reasons, I respectfully asked council to keep the Chatterton Wayside designated for residential use and to remove business encouragement language from the QMP plan. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you,

Mrs. Burnett. If you'd like to come up to the mic, you have five minutes. If you could please state your name and address for the record.

Good evening. Good evening.

Good evening. My name is Carol Burnett. My husband David and I have lived at 3730 Craigmiller Avenue for almost 25 years now. I do have some notes, but I was quite struck by the plan. Having talked about corridors, walkability, habitat, biodiversity, really, Craig Miller has all of that. I go back to my notes now, but I'm here. I'm concerned because as I understand it, Kathleen was exempted and I believe in myself that Craig Miller should also be. It's a wonderful place. Our street is a quiet, peaceful, family friendly street. If you came off of Tattersall, you would go right past. In the spring, the most beautiful display of camas lilies, which I believe should be protected. There's Gary Oaks there.

It's really a wonderful place for children learning to ride their bike on that street. There's. It just comes alive with walkers, joggers, cyclists. We see cyclists all the time using that as a safe way to go through the neighborhood because they go in through Playfair park and out the other side and they don't have to worry about traffic very much.

The most charming thing you could ever see is the little kids from the elementary school who come on field trips. You can hear them a Block away. Just so excited and walking safely through there to Play Fair Park.

And in the summer they go quite. Or before the summer, they go quite regularly whenever the weather's good. So I just feel that it's such a special corridor for people. It's not just for us, people that are lucky enough to live on that street, but it's very important to the neighborhood. If you'd like to come to our house and stay there and watch, you can see people just that don't have any connection to the neighborhood just go whipping through safely. As Donna said, because of the rocks that are.

When you first get off of Tattersall, there's huge, big rocks and so it slows down the traffic. It's like a speed bump, but vertical, but vertically. So I just. We see. I had to make a note of it because we see so many in that neighborhood.

Owls.

There was an owl in our front tree. Hawks, woodpeckers. The same tree had a family of woodpeckers raised there this year. Flickers, bush tits and a lot of types of wildlife as well. And I just don't feel my own opinion that. Too much. I'm not against development as such, but too much high rises and blowing up rocks and trying to fit in townhouses and apartment buildings. I just don't feel our street is really suitable for it. That's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Christine Assel. Christine, if you could please state your name and address for the record. You have five minutes. After Christine, we'll have Samuel Holland. Sorry, just trying to get the camera on. Yes, my name is Christine Astell. I live near the corner of Shelburne and Mackenzie. Thank you, mayor and council. I am here to urge council to vote in favor of the plan. I don't have much more to say given that I have been here to speak at least twice, maybe thrice in favor of the plan. My opinions have not changed. I wish it was the original plan. It was.

I was so excited when I saw that and it gave me so much hope for Saanich. And now I'm just tired. But I would like us to move forward with what we have and build from here. One thing I will add is that this plan will not cause sweeping, sudden changes across Saanich. We're currently living with the consequences of decisions made in the 70s, in the 80s and the 90s. And the decision you're making tonight is the Sandich you want to see in 20 or 30 years, not in the next five years. And I know, for me, the Saanich that I want, even if I'm in my 70s by the time I see it, I want to see a Saanich where young people can afford to live, where people can afford to start families, where people can afford to age in place, and where people can open local businesses.

And I don't have to drive to get to those businesses because I'll be 70 by the time this happens. And, you know, if we want to see that future or for whatever future we want to see, we need to start laying that groundwork tonight because, you know, It'll be that 20 or 30 years before we really see any of these changes come to fruition. Yes, there will be development here and there throughout Saanich, but it won't be this rapid. High rises everywhere. So that's basically it. I urge you once again to support this plan, to vote in favor. I know that this is a big issue for me, and I will be considering who I vote for in the fall, whether they've voted in favor of this plan or not. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Samuel Holland. Samuel. If you'd like to state your name and address for the record, you have five minutes. After Samuel, we'll have Mark Edwardson.

Hi, Council, and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Samuel Holland, and today I'm speaking as the chair of Better Transit yyj. Better Transit YYJ organizes transit riders and advocates for more and better transit in the capital region. Today I want to share the story of one of my friends who was, until recently an engineering student at the University of Victoria. For much of his degree, he lived adjacent to the university, close to the to the Mackenzie corridor. He had multiple options to get to school, including transit, walking and cycling. However, after the pandemic, rent and unstable housing, or the cost of rent and unstable housing pushed him to move back in with his family in Colwood.

Unfortunately, my friend still had several years left of school and now had to commute to school from the West Shore along with thousands of other students and staff. Every year since the pandemic, bus travel along Mackenzie has gotten significantly worse. In 2019, my friend's commute took as much as 90 minutes. That's from the West Shore to UVic. Last year, his commute had increased to a full two hours, and now at rush hour, it now takes as much as a full hour to travel from UVIC to Uptown alone, a distance of 8 km. Frankly, I could probably jog faster. And if you've seen our race, the Bus on Douglas from last week, you'll know that Better Transit isn't afraid to prove that that the cost of a car was out of reach for my friend.

So he had a choice. Every day, commit to a daily slog of a multi hour commute or cycle more than 45km round trip on a regular bike, which at least brought the benefit of daily cardio and was made possible by the quick build cycling lanes that council support on McKenzie. The reason I bring this up is that the Quadra McKenzie plan is the key barrier in the implementation of improvements for transit along Mackenzie, including the McKenzie rapid bus. We've heard repeatedly from BC Transit that until Saanich speeds up transit along Mackenzie, they cannot improve service. My friend isn't alone. More than 10,000 people travel by transit on Mackenzie every day and at rush hour they make up the clear majority of road users.

The corridor between Uptown and UVIC is our second or third biggest transit corridor, depending on how you count it. We need to see changes on this corridor. My friend no longer lives in Saanich. In fact, he no longer lives in the crd. While he didn't want to leave, he could not afford to stay here with the jobs available, with a shortage of housing and with a lack of options. For him, Better Transit advocates for better transit. But better transit also requires good land use which would make housing more attainable and accessible, make transit a better option for many, and would create more space for businesses and other employers.

The Quadra McKenzie plan attempts to do all of those things. While I regret the cutbacks to the plan that council has brought several times, until we pass the Quadra McKenzie plan, transit in Saanich is frozen. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and as you vote on the plan, I hope that you consider transit riders.

Vote to.

Thank you. Thank you.

The next speaker is Mark Edwardson. Mark, if you'd like to come to the mic, state your name and address. You have five minutes. After Mark, we'll have Marian Jensen. Marian Jensen, if you'd like to state your name and address for the record. You have five minutes.

Good evening.

Oh, hi. Good evening, Mayor and council. I'm Marion Jensen, I live in Saanich. Do you need my address?

No. Oh no.

A lot of thought went into this revised qmp, but it's still an example of transit oriented urban design. Unfortunately, the QMP will be the template for Saanich's future. Even though Saanich has problems with transit and with the concept of centers. Let's look at one center, the Shelburne McKenzie center was already densified before the QMP. And yet the former home of the University Heights Mall continues to be densified. How much density is enough? Who wants to live in a tiny apartment, in a tower next to a bus stop, in a transit center?

The revised QMP says our Shelburne McKenzie center is lacking. It says our center is deficient in public spaces, parks, green space and all kinds of local amenities. It's also deficient in urban forest, tree coverage, walkability and playgrounds.

The revised QMP urges Saanich to prioritize green space in this center. The success of this center may depend upon it. Transit oriented design is utilitarian, but residents also need human oriented design, nature oriented design and family friendly design.

Senate should build for these real needs. What is the human cost of the qmp? Imposing density on an already dense center condemns center residents and neighbors to inhuman living conditions of construction for years.

The Shelburne McKenzie center is in danger. There's nothing human or family or nature oriented in our center's design. Right now, the most beautiful thing in our center is the Home Depot building.

Our once vibrant community could become a dead zone, a wasteland, a failed ideological experiment. Unless Saanich acts now. Saanich should downsize the ambitious qmp. Saanich should plan for gentle densification. Prioritize green space in its centers.

Make them reflect Saanich's unique character. Create centers with a personality. Create centers with a heart. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Michael Reifman. Michael, if you'd like to come up to the mic, state your name and address. For the record, you have five minutes. After Michael, we'll have Judy Penner.

Good evening. Good evening, mayor and council. I won't take five minutes because I probably spent at least that much speaking in front of you at past meetings. So I'll keep it brief. And I've decided to focus on something a little different. You know your own neighborhoods better than I do, right? Well, I could say the same thing about our neighborhood. Unfortunately, the planning department has made no effort to characterize these neighborhoods other than their demographics. They never delve into affordability. We are just colored patches of land to be exploited by developers. Sorry about the strong language.

I live in Mount Tomi. It is typical of nearby communities near the University of Victoria. These homes relative other districts in Saanich are more affordable to buy for families. With the exception of some exclusive areas.

This has been the trend in recent years. Oops, sorry, I bounced. No, that's right. Now most of these homes have additional mortgage helping suites primarily occupied by students. In addition, there are many houses affordably shared by students.

I have through my research of others jurisdictions found that suites often with additional services are more affordable than apartments. Many of my neighbors are charging below market rates to keep good tenants while living under the same roof.

They're not as inclined to gouge their tenants and it makes a difference in affordability for themselves. Their nearby new construction at Shelburne and Mackenzie has illustrated how expensive new builds with small suites have become.

And don't be fooled about how apartments have become cheaper based on vacancy rental rates. There has been no evidence that the overall rental market rates have declined. It would be absurd to think that landlords have rolled back their rents in occupied units. So the question

when council is undertaking

laudable steps to build affordable homes subsidized by taxpayers, why is council so keen to place vast swaths of affordable housing at the expense of Saanich tax paying residents? Thank you. Thank you.

Judy Penner. If you'd like to come up to the mic and state your name and address for the record. After Judy we'll have Paula Man Good evening.

Good evening

mayor and council. My name is Judy Penner and I live at 3740 Craigmiller. 40 years ago we purchased our home on Craigmiller as it checked a lot of the boxes. It's quiet street character homes close to Playfair park and most importantly it had a rear yard with an afternoon evening sun. Very important for us. Although we are not against density, we are definitely not in favor of a multi story building abutting our backyard leaving us with little or no light or privacy. We have worked hard to beautify our garden and we wish to continue to enjoy it. I understand that one side of Craigmiller is zoned three story townhome where my

side is three to six stories.

Was this an oversight or is that the way it's gonna be? Because you know like I'd like to see both sides of the street sit the same. As far as being a corridor, Craigmiller is more of a laneway than a it winds through a garriotte ecosystem. There are two sections where if you meet a head on car somebody's got

to pull over because there's no room

for two vehicles to pass each other. So you have to somebody's got to pull into someone's driveway. But we like that part. You know we're fine with that. We like to keep it like that. But anyway so certainly makes Craig Miller a traffic as a traffic or Not a very safe idea by any means.

Plus there's the heritage factor.

As you are all aware, our street is on the Saanich Heritage Walking tour. Some homes and structures are registered, some are not, but still worthy of mention. Craigmiller Avenue should remain a safe walking tour, not a busy thoroughfare.

Please consider the long term residents of Craig Miller in particular and the immediate area in general and I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Paula Manning. If you'd like to unmute your mic and state your name and address for the record, you have five minutes. After Paula we'll have Donna Van Dyke. Sorry, I'm actually I'm Paula Manning. I live at the corner of Corners Place and Cedar Hill Crossroad. And today I want to sort of touch on a couple things. One, just to set some context, I came from Ontario in my teenage years and I remember being astounded at the number of trees but not really understanding how important that was. And over the years I've really come to love the ecosystem that we're in. How even though I live only four blocks from Quadrant MacKenzie, the variety of owls and birds is exceptional.

And next to me I have someone who grows a garden in their front side and backyard and across the street someone who has metal go natural. And I worry about all those things being lost by the Quadra McKenzie plan, especially since we have no real parks near us. We don't have a Playfair park, we don't have green space. And I think perhaps when I walk from places like Broadmead where there are so many trees and it's so beautiful and I walked there the other night back home and there was a real change in heat. It was that Sunday evening, it was really hot and I came to realize just how important tree canopy is. And I worry for my neighborhood.

I worry that with this idea that 80% of Saanich is protected, those of us who have the misfortune to live in this Quadrant Mackenzie corridor area will get to a point where we're going to have to get in our cars and drive somewhere else to Mount Work or Mount Doug to enjoy nature. And that not only is that not equitable, it gets rid of nature corridors which are so important. So I'm asking council to look at things like tree canopy, to look at how can we create new parks if we're going to do this densification. And then most of all to consider single use multi, sorry, single, I can't remember what the acronym is now.

SSMUH to consider those when you're also considering densification because the two instances we have in our neighborhood are basically concrete to concrete now. And that happened regardless of the designation. And that has me worried that my area is just going to become kind of a concrete heat trap. So it's time for council to say we're going to not give so many variances. We're going to require you to respect height limits. We're going to require you to consider your neighbors and the sunlight for the growing of their own food. And those things are extremely important because we're not talking about building affordable homes. Many of us thought that when the townhouses went in we would see price ranges of 700,000 and were shocked to find out that the price range was 1 million, which was more expensive than the home that was there and had a usable suite and a ton of green space.

So if we're not talking about affordable housing, then we're talking about someone who just prefers something new. And in that case, why did their rights supersede the rights of their neighbor? For sunlight, for green space. So I guess in closing just to say that we have a chance right now with the highest vacancy I've seen since 1990, we have a chance right now to slow down a little bit to be a little more thoughtful in our planning and to make sure that we don't lose those green spaces and to make sure that neighbors have more access to sunlight and privacy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Donna Van Dyke. Donna, if you could please state your name and address for the record. After Donna, we'll have Kyla Berry.

Good evening.

My name is Donna Van Dyke. I wrote to you on behalf of Save our Savage Neighborhood Society ahead of this QMP public hearing to express concern about displacement sequencing implication of the 1800 Mackenzie Boulevard development permit application.

Before this permit is approved, the issue CRHC is advancing a development permit for the redevelopment of Rosewood Apartments and Willowdene at 1821-1827 Mackenzie Ave. As of May 21, the application reached file manager Rev intake at Saanich Planning.

These specific units provide 59 units of social housing and when demolition proceeds combined with campus view, this brings 71 units of Gordon Head housing offline. Simultaneously, the replacement building is not expected to be completed until 2030.

In doing this, the neighborhood will lose 16 of non market housing capacity. These 60% are seniors and people with disabilities, including power wheelchair users for whom there is no social housing available in greater Saanich. The disability rights principle Nothing about Us without us holds that decisions affecting people's lives should involve Those people and they were not meaningfully consulted during this planning stage, not directly. And if you think now or in the future, burying some survey or announcement of your intentions in the bowels of a municipal website is adequate, it is not their displacement. And four year gap in social housing is a community issue, not a tenant issue. This is a stain on our municipality and a reflection of your choices.

The fact that you never consulted your constituents, that you are developing too much at one time rather than in stages, leaving many of our most vulnerable with the fear of unknown upending their lives and their social networks is shocking.

Many of these people who have lived in the same complex and supported one another for 20 to 30 years are like family. They help one another, they look after one another. Some have strengths that support others weaknesses.

You have separated them, causing them great pain.

I'm gonna stop you. Ms. Dyke, you may recall at the start of the meeting I mentioned that we're not going to talk about specific land use applications. Bill 44, sorry, I'm actually making a point of order and if you're not going to let me finish, I'll have to ask you to take your seat. My comment and my advice to you is to keep your commentary relevant to the content of the Quadra McKenzie plan rather than the specific land use application that you're currently discussing.

Is this not part of the Quadra McKenzie plan?

If you could point to the section of the plan that refers to that specific property, then you'd be welcome to speak to it. But as you know, this is not a public hearing on land use application. This is a public hearing on the draft Quadrant mackenzie plan.

Okay, well, I'm going to take the last of my 1 minute and 13 seconds and switch this.

I live on Shorncliffe Road North.

My house is in a blue zone. The other side of the street isn't. I have seven Garry Oaks on my property. I have animals buried in the ground that have been precious to me over the years. I have lived in my home for 35 years and it is shocking to me to think that my house will have pencil townhouses on it one day. My property, where I grow food, I have fruit trees and I grow vegetables. I can't cut down a Garry oak for an addition. I can't even cut down a cedar hedge because it's protected. Yet I know that that grace would be given to a developer in a minute because it's in the plan. I've heard a lot of people speak tonight and I have to say I

agree with a lot of them.

And I was trying to advocate for the disabled and gave it my best shot.

Okay, thank you. So just as a general reminder for folks that as I said at the beginning, this evening we welcome any and all comments relevant to the draft quadrant McKenzie plan and its eventual adoption as part of the official community plan. But we're not here to discuss specific land use applications as those will have their own process for adjudication and that will be an opportunity to provide input as part of that adjudication. That is not this evening's purpose.

The next speaker is Kyla Berry. After Kyla, we'll have Philip Monnier.

Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor, Councillors. This is probably the third or fourth time I've come to see you. My name is Kyla Berry and I live right smack damn in the middle, middle of the Mackenzie corridor and I live in the housing complex that was just being advocated for. So you're probably going to call me out of order, but I have to say I am here tonight trying to use the only avenue I could find to advocate for myself, my neighbor there in the wheelchair and the neighbors who couldn't be here tonight because they've already been relocated.

I know I'm getting on thin ice here, but with the confluence of the OCP, the QMP, Bill 44 and the exemptions for non market housing tenants to Sanich's most comprehensive tenant protection bylaw, that's what's bringing me here, to try to find another doorway.

All my other ones are closed. So I ask you tonight, people are watching. I'm watching. I may not actually be able to vote for any of you. This will probably be my last time addressing you as a Saanich citizen. I've been on a crazy train that started off slow. I boarded under duress on March 1, 2024. And you know, we've gone up some hills, we've had some stops to try to get information. That was a very difficult process. But the pace of the train is picking up. It's accelerating towards out of Saanich, towards across the municipality line. That's a stop that I didn't want to get off on. I'm trying to find an emergency brake.

Every avenue that I could have had before Bill 44, before the Rapid Deployment Plan. Mr. Mayor, I realized that that was meant in good faith to bring more housing with less red tape, but it's created some very unintended consequences and I've been caught in the middle of it. Every file that has gone through Saanich planning to do with non market housing in Gordon Head has probably been looked at on an individual basis and not as a community wide system of non market housing without the. I've tried and tried to find an avenue to show my impact of the crisis we're heading towards in the loss of non market housing that's going to take place place from the end of 2026-2030.

But there's no avenue for me. So that's why I'm forced to use a planning meeting, a meeting that I don't want to have to be here speaking about again. But I'm very passionate about this and we haven't hit the end of the tracks yet. I haven't quite fallen off a cliff, as I said. The emergency brake that I've been looking for on this accelerating train, I can't find it, the one that should have been there seems to be broken. I'm trying to MacGyver myself another one with your help. That's all I have to say. I don't think, think that I'm going to be able to stay in Gordon Head. I'm not going to be able to stay in Greater Saanich.

So unfortunately, I bid adieu to you as a sitting council and a citizen, a former, I'll be a former citizen of Saanich by the next time I get to probably address you or the new council. So I tried to stand up for the disabled people. Natalie Chambers last night brought the motion

that spoke about not so that again is not related to the quadrant McKenzie plan.

I'm sorry, it is related.

If you could point to the specific aspect of the plan that you're referring to, you'd be willing to.

Well, it's the consultation process actually. I'm sorry, it's the consultation process and how it didn't include persons with disabilities directly. I would say that in Canadian jurisprudence, the nothing without us clause, you can look it all up. It is enshrined in our accessibility legislation. Everything that has been done concerning my home has been done without proper consultation. And so I'm pushing back on that. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

I can certainly ask staff about consultation as that is relevant to the plan.

Philip Monnier, if you'd like to state your name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes. After Philip, we'll have Pierrette Miranda.

I'm Philippe Monnier. Good morning.

Good evening.

I should say. I'm sorry and I live in Saanich. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views on the latest draft of the qmp. I'M opposed to the extreme densification of signage that the QMP proposes, which is not something that the population of signage wants. Higher density means more congestion, more traffic, more disruption of the environment. The Vancouverization of Sanich is not what people want. Higher density would result in a degradation of the attractiveness of Sanich. So growing demographics of Saanich is retirees and a dense environment is contrary to a liveable place where the desire to live. Thank you. Thank you.

Pierrette Miranda. If you'd like to come up to the mic please and state your name and address for the record. You have five minutes. After Pierrette, we'll have Kevin Nuri.

Good evening. Good evening.

Good morning. My name is Pierrette Marada and I live in Saanich. I would like to speak about Quadra Suite, but before that I want to thank you mayor and council and staff for having made available the latest version of the plan on June 4th instead of June 11th. So more time is really appreciated. So thank you. Now, regarding Quadra, in the latest revised qmp, there is a vision about the future of Quadrant Street. The QMP proposes to transform Quadra into a complete street to accommodate all modes and uses. This would reduce Quadra to single lanes on either side of Quadra. It would be a disaster in terms of traffic jams, commuting, delays, increasing risk in case of emergencies and increasing the number of accidents with other users.

Bike lanes may be a nice idea in some places, no question about that. But when they take away the free flow of traffic where it matters, it's not a good idea. What is obvious is that Quadra street north of Mackenzie is crucial to the flow of traffic and signage. The draft QMP says that now bikeways should be on streets with low traffic and speed where people cycling and driving can share the road. This is a foundation of Saanich Neighborhood Bikeways project. It is clearly stated there, black on white. So Quadra street is not a low traffic and a low speed street. So it's not really a place where bike lanes belong.

With low traffic and volumes, bike routes can supplement major arteries like Quad. And again, this is a foundation stated in the Sandich neighborhood by Quays project. So in other words, bike lanes should not be on Quadra. In conclusion, please keep Quadra as it is and not narrower. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kevin Ury. If you'd like to come up to the mic and state your name and address for the record, you have five minutes. After Kevin, we'll have Catherine. Brad Rich.

Hi, good evening. Kevin Neri Rogers Ridge Saanich I'm addressing Mayor and Council on an issue of significant importance related to Quadro McKenzie plan. I live in Saanich and have for 30 years operated consulting business conducting cultural heritage research with and for first nations, and I've been involved in many research projects with several first nations on Vancouver island, but not for the Songhees Nation. I'm only presenting here for myself, but I am expressing my personal and unconditional support for the Song Use Nation and the position they put forward. As you heard earlier in their May 22, 2026 letter to Saanich Council, which identifies the keystone nature of the Kamas food systems and garry oak ecosystems which are deeply rooted in Songhee ancestry excuse me, and cultural practices.

The letter states that sadly, only 1 to 3% of the Kamaskiri ecosystem remains. The letter also states that the QMP fails to recognize Lekwungen Aboriginal rights and fails to provide meaningful protection and that the QMP continues patterns of fragmentation and loss. The Nation respectfully requested that Council postpone adoption of the QMP pending meaningful consultation and anticipates working collaboratively with Saanich Council and staff to respect responsibilities and protection of the ecosystem. I'd like to remind Council that in April and May of 1850, Governor James Douglas of the Crown Colony of Vancouver island, with the authority to do so, made agreements with six extended families of the Songhees Nation covering the areas included in the quadra MacKenzie plan.

One such agreement specifically refers to the area lying between Gonzales Point and Mount Douglas. A condition of this agreement was that the Songhees villages and enclosed fields would be kept by the Songhees and that the rest of the land would be transferred to the white people. But the Songhis were at liberty to hunt over the unoccupied lands and to carry on their fisheries as formerly. For signing this agreement, The Tsonghis received 79 pounds 10 shillings sterling or based on a bit of online research that I did Today, that's about $26,000 in today's money. I will leave it to you to judge the fairness and context of the Douglas Treaty arrangement.

My view is that it requires an imaginative stretch to be convinced that anyone would relinquish ownership rights over the region between Gonzales Point, that's the Victoria Golf Club and Mount Douglas for $26,000. The phrase beads and trinkets comes to my mind, at least in response to the Sanghi's letter to council about the QMP's Saanich planning provided a staff response. While recognizing Songhee's concerns, the response states that the QMP incorporates Songhee's issues at a strategic level and provides higher level direction through broad land use and environmental objectives and policies in general. The communication suggests that many of the Songhee's more detailed matters are best advanced through a number of existing Saanich plans and strategies.

However, and significantly, there is no offer to engage directly with the Songhis on a collaborative basis as the Songhis requested. I'm also referring to a February 24 news article which quoted a senior Saanich administrator as saying in connection with Saanich's Indigenous reconciliation efforts that we're taking steps to learn from our indigenous neighbors in terms of how they would like to be consulted. I will conclude by noting that Saanich's Indigenous relations statement ends as Saanich Council is committed to taking a leadership role in the process of healing wounds of the past and becoming a more just, fair and caring society. I suggest that Saanich Council might want to live up to those words and agree to meaningful consultations with the Songhees with respect to the QMP impacts on their traditional territory and cultural history and on the terms that the Songhees have requested.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Katherine Bridge if you'd like to come up to the mic, you have five minutes. If you could please state your name and address. After Catherine, we'll have Emmett Samoil Good evening. Good evening. Despite hundreds of letters and protests to several iterations of the qmp, citizen presentations at Council meetings, letters to editors and media commentary enumerating the ecological harms, the ruining of safe, functioning neighborhoods and the unyielding privileging of bike lanes and the irreversible resolve by Saanich to pursue flawed ideology at all costs.

It is clear to me that this Council remains firm in pursuing the project, a project that in itself stems from a belief that centres, corridors and villages is the best framework for our municipality. And to me this is a deeply sad situation for Saanich today and for our collective future. Recent Council decisions allowed developers to destroy Garry Oaks for the sake of maximizing density and the willingness by staff to facilitate and Council to allow seemingly endless variances on development applications which further deprivate or eliminate remnant natural features provides evidence Council appears unwilling to challenge staff recommendations to stand up for environmental preservation as the first priority.

This to me, is the biggest flaw of the QMP that in its cookie cutter approach to density allocations, it does not acknowledge that some properties are more suited to development and density than others. Why has Council not insisted that recognition and protection be extended to properties holding garry oaks, mature Douglas fir, rocky outcroppings, wildflowers and riparian qualities and remove them from the plan or else begin steps to protect the them in advance of a development application.

Instead, we go through this horrible situation whereby tiny compromises are heralded as wins, but the end result is an environmental negative. We only have one natural world and it is in severe jeopardy. I've lived with the hope over these last many months that enough strong voices at council would insist on fundamental change to the QMP that would place environmental values ahead of the potential tax base offered with density zoning. On top of my own anguish now recently revealed on social media is a very overt evidence that Saanich has not consulted at all with the Indigenous peoples about the qmp. I speak about the letter received in May referencing one from February from the Songhees Nation rebuking the QMP for its failure to protect garrioke ecosystems from ongoing development pressures or to adequately recognize Aboriginal rights.

The Songhees request meaningful consultation, a request seemingly ignored by staff Response to the Nation as it was only sent last week. Instead of addressing or even acknowledging this request, the letter instead details the various plans and strategies, all created without indigenous input or awareness that have input within the qmp. I find that this is a poor defense and so revealing about what takes priority in Saanich ideology and bureaucracy. The QMP is a product of 100% settler construct crafted. It appears deliberately, without true consultation from residential, indigenous or otherwise. As it stands. For me, it will enable forward altering change that is driven not by the people who live in love Saanich, but by a flawed ideology, one that might work elsewhere but is not suited at all to our municipality.

The time is now. Please do not give the green light to the qmp. Pause, embrace and understate meaningful consultation with Songhees Nation and be prepared to make key alterations, not just window dressing. Please get it right politically and ethically. Thank you.

Thank you.

Emmett Samuel. If you'd like to state your name and address for the record please. You have five minutes. After Emmett, we'll have Don Gun.

Good evening.

Hello.

My name is Emmett Samo. I live right by Quadra and Mackenzie, the intersection there. I just want to say I'm really impressed with all the consultation, the research, the work that has gone into the Quadra McKenzie plan. I see it not just just with the planners here in Saanich, but with council listening to the community and all of the public giving all their input and I'm really excited for the future of Saanich with the Quadra McKenzie plan. And I hope that you guys adopt it. Thank you. Thank you. Dawn Gunn.

If you'd like to state your name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.

Minutes. Good evening. Don Gunn, 4449 Tromble Drive. I'm assuming you can hear that.

Yes, we can. Go ahead.

Good.

Thank you.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Gordon Head Community association and I will address my remarks this evening regarding the whole of Gordon Head because. Because the whole of Gordon Head will be affected by the proposed QMP.

I'd also like to refer to our response of February 1, 2025 and today's letter that was delivered by our president, Sean Steele. Gordon Head is probably the fastest growing area in Saanich. Our 2025 statement noted recent residential land use decisions arising from existing plans are bringing 2,500 new multi residential units into Gordon Head in the past 17 months. Since that, we have seen a substantial increase in those numbers.

There are going to be big changes in Gordon Head. Changes that will require a realistic look at the needs of our residents and a timely and considered response on the part of our municipal government regarding traffic mobility.

We anticipate that the very significant increase in population, not only in our area, but in all areas affected by the QMP will result in a corresponding increase in vehicular traffic, traffic of all types, and an increasing demand for effective movement of people, goods and services throughout Saanich.

Now, even if Saanich can achieve the targeted personal vehicle mobility rate of less than 60%, the increase in the number of residential units in the area will result in an increased demand for efficient and effective transportation.

While the inverted pyramid that's shown in Figure 4. 1 on the report is laudable, it does not represent the reality for many of our residents. Road infrastructure has not been upgraded to accommodate current developments and in fact we have seen a decrease in road capacity. Our concern is that the implementation of the QMP will see a further increase in congestion on our roads.

Our major transportation routes must be maintained and developed to accommodate the rapid pace of development in our area that is envisioned by the qmp. Community amenities. Our community amenities also need to catch up with the current rapid pace of development. Upstoning parcels of land within the area will only compound this issue. The Gordon Head Restoration center is now already over capacity.

The Lambert park campus redevelopment plan needs to be accelerated and financed to meet the needs of our present increased population. And the increases that will result of the QMP consideration should also be given to additional development related charges that can be used to acquire and develop the amenities that are mentioned in the plan. You've heard tonight about environmental concerns. We too are concerned that in conjunction with the rapid development, there will be a loss of tree canopy and green space. We have already seen the loss of mature trees as a result of development proposals for multi unit housing. We are concerned that the accelerated densification and in turn a reduction of our tree canopy and green space will adversely affect us achieving our climate change goals.

We encourage the implementation of Goal c on page 76 to reinforce our commitment to environmental stewardship. In conclusion, we realize that the QMP is an aspirational document that will likely evolve as social, political and economic conditions change.

However, we cannot help but notice that the present document seems to be based on ideological foundations that may not be shared by or practical for many of our residents. Thank you. Thank you.

The next speaker is Andrew Gardner. Andrew, if you'd like to unmute your mic and state your name and address for the record, you have five minutes.

I'm not seeing Andrew Gardner online.

He has disappeared on us. That is the last of my registered speakers.

Okay, thank you. So at this time, anyone who's not had the opportunity to address council who wishes to do so is welcome to come forward. If you're online, please raise your virtual hand and we will call on you when the the moment presents itself. So I'll just invite the first speaker in the room to come up and then we'll alternate with those who are on teams. Thank you. I'm Stuart Stark. I live in North Quadra. I wanted to talk about two things about the Quadra McKenzie plan. When I was at architecture school some years ago, we were taught about context and taught about asset driven planning.

And you start with your existing assets in the area that you're developing. Good neighborhoods, parks, areas of rare oak trees, significant natural nature, sanctuaries. And you plan around the them. You recognize those assets in your community and you plan around them. And the plan should recognize those assets and protect those assets and build on them. The Quadra McKenzie plan has not done that. It was concerned entirely with density and transportation. Large swaths of things were put in place without any looking at the context. The existing context, one of those existing context. And I could say I could follow up any of those things about neighborhoods, parks or oak trees or whatever.

But I'm going to take the focus on park buffer zones, which although is now in the latest iteration, getting some lips service, it's not getting any indication of how that might be implemented. As an example, you look at Swan Lake and the catchment basin that keeps the water in Swan Lake. The plan has red and blue zoning around Swan Lake on the slopes. A buffer zone takes existing zoning which we already have in place and densifies it while keeping trees the important linking tree canopy and rainwater adding to the water table. Example the Saanich and Mackenzie application that we'd heard about and it's been passed at the corner of Saanich and McKenzie for a six story building.

As an example, the foundation which goes to from two story underground parking goes from property line to property line, disrupts the drainage into the water table and it sends it all out in storm sewers. Townhouses on that same property could have saved the trees and also densified the property. Architecture has a lot of solutions for things and they have things like, like screw pilings for foundations that you don't have to put in a big concrete box. There are ways of doing things that we have not been presented with so we shouldn't have in for instance around Swan Lake, underground parking that sends rainwater into storm sewers and storm drains rather than into Swan Lakes watertail.

Lower density around Swan Lake whilst densifying from single family homes to townhouses can add to housing. Keep the tree canopy, keep the trees and provide a no cost to sandwich buffer zone around the asset that we have. That principle should be applied to the existing assets that we have throughout the municipality, especially in the Quadra Mackenzie plan. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm going to go now to one of the speakers with a raised hand online and I see Elizabeth, if you wish to address council on the draft plan we'll just need your name and address and you'll have up five minutes.

Hi, thank you. My name is Elizabeth Hilton, I live on Nicholson street in Saanich. Please know I do support responsible densification. I support responsible builds as well, specifically along main corridors. I do have two points that I'm just asking council to consider. The first is to reconsider the decision to put buildings in our backstreet communities. Many streets in my neighborhood do not have sidewalks. We have citizens that are cycling, kids playing. We have runners and walkers on these back roads. I know Saanich council wants to maintain and cares about an active community. I have concerns around buildings with inadequate parking affecting our active community. As a homeowner in Saanich with a dog, I walk on these back roads every day.

We are already having street parking increasing with obviously garden suites and townhomes that have inadequate parking already and it's causing congestion on the streets. And every day I see kids trying to get to school and having issues with vehicles on these back roads. So please do not add these buildings on our back roads. But further, if you are going to support that, if you are going to move forward with qmp, I'm sorry, I'm nervous. And these developments, I ask you to, to please, please consider and reconsider minimum parking requirements and for buildings that will and should be built on main corridors, please also consider better parking requirements for those developments and those like requiring developers to put that into play.

An example in our neighborhood is a single home family home that had a suite which was a mortgage helper sold for 900, which actually is pretty good in these this day and age. And especially with a mortgage help, it was replaced with four townhomes and each townhomes now selling for 1. 1 million each. So clearly this isn't benefiting affordable housing at all. In fact, that mortgage helper, that suite had students in it. And this is a, that's had a lot of trees and now there is zero green space. And like I said, inadequate parking, that's just causing congestions on our back roads and affecting our community.

The last thing I'll say is, I guess I do have a third point is that I do strongly believe that Quadra should not be altered. Quadra should not have bike lanes. As someone who actually is a cyclist and until I started working from home in 2020, I actually did bike to work downtown using our corridors that already exist. I support smartly placed bike lanes, but not all roads need bike lanes. Some roads need to be kept for car. There are alternative routes for bikes. I know, I use them other than Quadra. And thank you so much for letting me speak. And for this time, please reconsider qmp.

Okay, thank you. We'll go to the next speaker in line if you wish to come forward. You'll have the opportunity to address council on the draft plan. Well, hello mayor and council. My name is Alex Cook. I live in Saanich and I'm here to talk about the gift that keeps on giving. The qmp. So I am born and raised in Saanich. I'm fourth generation. My daughter is fifth generation. And while that certainly doesn't give me any privilege, it definitely gives me an open door into history. I have in front of me several distinctive areas that are part of the qmp. Christmas Hill, Rogers Farm, Chatterton Way, Man Avenue, Wilkinson Road, Mount Doug Crossroad and Sunnymead. What do all these have in common? Well, these are all active farms that are gone. They're gone forever.

So when I look at something like this development, we have to realize that once we change something, something, it's gone and it's not coming back. So I find it interesting. We always talk about sustainability, yet we had sustainability and we removed it. We instead put up homes, nice homes, and replaced them. Now I heard one speaker come up and talked about a commute from Colwood to the university being up to two hours. And maybe it's not strictly because of of the infrastructure, but maybe it's because of the way it's been built. Have we taken a look at how the road's been built lately? I took a small trip, which I've taken a hundred times. 25 minute trip normally from Royal Oak to Oak Bay late. This time it took me 45 minutes.

And the reason why is because I took Cook street, normally an easy access two lane street. They would go right through into Fernwood and right into Cook Street Village. Now we're going from two lanes to one lane and I sat at an intersection. So as we're also talking sustainability, we're also discussing the environment. Yet I sat four lights to get through an intersection. Because you removed the right hand turn lane and remove the left hand turn lane. So what do we get? Gridlock. So why does the bus take so long to get from Colwood or Langford? Well, maybe because we're stuck at traffic lights for God knows how long. Now I decided to take a different route back and I came through Cedar Hill Crossroad, same problem.

We sat there for four lights waiting to get through. Because you changed the movement of the vehicles to reduce right hand turn lanes, actually eliminate them. So you can't even turn until you get to a green light. And you, you took two lanes and removed them down to one. So traffic's not able to flow. Now it may be great for someone who lives in a $2,100 a month, 350 square foot apartment, like what you're going to get at the University Heights 15 Minute Villages. Great idea. I don't know who would want to live in that kind of environment. So I'm taking a look at the big picture when we're talking about affordable housing. Now this is broad, this is not mine.

I'm going to borrow someone's else's information here. But the university doesn't pay any property tax. So why isn't the university building affordable housing? So that the students are close to the university and not having to commute from Colwood or other places. Why aren't they building them? And also why are we taking a look at Quadratic Street? So Quadra all the way. I read this today or heard it on the the news from Chatterton Way to. I think it was Cloverdale. There's the talk of putting seven additional stoplights. Give me a break. Like are we trying to run businesses here and get from point A to point B at a reasonable time frame?

45 minutes to go, what normally is 25 minutes is not acceptable and not everybody can take a bike or transit. How many people out there are working that need to drive and get from point A to B? And we're talking about expenses right now. Why are we looking at companies that are. That they have a fleet of vehicles and they're charging customers additional time to get from point A to point B and that they get charged by the hour, by the way. So when someone's looking at character trying to reduce cost, they're saying, no, we're going to have to increase the cost. I do want to make one more point too is when we're taking a look at the qmp.

So far, what I see when you see these big developments, I call it Anytown USA because it's filled with nothing but franchises and big corporate businesses. What we don't see is local businesses, small to medium sized businesses that are part of our community, that are the vibrancy of what we bring. I'm sorry, but I see the QMP as destroying what we have. As far as Saanich, now a good portion of it, Royal Oak, where I live, that was rural and it's going to be gone. Thank you. Oh, just a reminder that we're going to listen respectfully, but we're not going to react whether or not we support or oppose a particular position because we want to make sure everybody feels, feels comfortable and welcome to present to council.

I see a couple of hands online. So the first that I saw was. Mr. Najiri, I'll go to you next. You'll have. If we could have your name and address. You'll have up to five minutes to address council. Mehdi Najiri, 1005 leads place. The reason we have the Quadra McKenzie plan and also the drastic change in OCP to accommodate for growth was because we were told that there is a housing crisis, a big housing crisis and the developers, their lobby, the media all help to create that image of huge housing crisis and shortage of housing.

And we have to build for the people that are waiting to get into a house. They have the money, their pockets are full of money, but they cannot get the house because there is a shortage. That was the reason for all these changes to making people accept all these huge changes that you are pushing for. The Fraser Institute was saying that B. C. home building not keeping up with population growth. Or in another opinion, peace station said B. C. is drowning in people but starving for homes. But then suddenly after you pass their new zoning and give what the developers wanted, suddenly we have housing oversupply.

In fact, we have housing oversupply even in 2021, 2023. Let me read you some, some. Some example of that in 2021. November 5, 2021 the read. Canada rank 11th for the highest proportion of empty houses. 1,340,000 houses are empty vacant in Canada in 2021. Who said that? OECD Organization of Economic and Cooperation. Cooperation and Development. That's not a big potato. That's a huge organization with lots of credibility. 1,340,000 unit empty. And then we read in another report in 2023 and this is the headline. Canada didn't have a real estate supply shortage, but its government may create one. Who said that? BMO report 2023. Canada doesn't have shortage of housing, but this government will create one because it is government puppet of the development industry which is the biggest industry in Canada. Much bigger than oil industry. That's why we have.

They wanted all these density bonuses that you are giving them for a song and destroying our neighborhood. Why are you doing that? What is the reason? There is two today. They said in some reports there is 2500 condo units empty, not sold, owned by the developers in Vancouver and now probably is much more. So why are you doing this? Why are you pushing this when there is no need? There is no need.

What's such a rush?

You're going to have an election. Let's people, let's other newer politicians, when they get elected, they come and look at it again. Why do you want to push it? Is this the last, the last favor to the developers, your parting gift to them? Why are you doing this? There is no need. There's Song. He's coming in their report and saying that. Don't do this. You haven't consulted with us. You play lip service every time you have a council meeting. You talk about the first Nation rights and so on and so forth. We are in their territory, but. We are in their territory, but we don't listen to them. We destroy that 1 to 3% of their culture or Heritage that is left, you have to destroy it.

And the reason developers want it that way, they want the density. They are not going to build now. They are going to sit on this

density and little by little, because the

money is made and what's happening as a result of this development, we are paying more taxes. Last year I paid 16. 5% more on my property tax. Thank you, Mr. Nagiri. That concludes the five minutes.

Minutes.

If there's anyone in the Chamber who wishes to address council, please come forward. We welcome the opportunity to hear from you. While we're waiting for the next person to come forward, I'll go to the next person online, Phil Bubs. If you wish to address council, you'll have five minutes to do so. We just need your name and address. Yes, hello. Hi, my name is Philip Marciniak. I live at Quadra and Tattersall on Quadra street. And yeah, I'm calling to discuss the qmp. I understand it's more of a yes or no kind of scenario tonight, so I hope that this plan gets approved. I've lived here for over 10 years on Quadra street, so I'm very familiar with the road, the block, the neighborhood. I still wait for the day when I'll get to see bike lanes on Quarter street.

Protected bike lanes, so I can get down into Quadra Village and beyond. Quadra is the main thoroughfare that services the region. Bus lanes, these are the only ways that we're going to move more people on Quadra Street. We have four lanes now. Quadra will never move more cars than it is today. That is just a fact. It's already at capacity. The only way to get more people, people, bus lanes, bicycles. It's just the reality. So I wait for that day. I hope I don't have to wait another 10 or 20 years. But I support the Quadra McKenzie plan as it is, even though it's a bit watered down for my tastes.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go now to the next speaker who's already waiting their turn. And anyone else who wishes to address Council, you're welcome to come up in anticipation of the next available opportunity. And anyone who wishes to address Council who's online, please just raise your virtual hand and we'll alternate back and forth between those in the Chamber and those online. Hi, my name is Wayne Bryson. I've been listening to the various presentations from the people here. I have a statement to make in a question. We want to build a lot of stuff along the quadrant Increase density. And a lot of it's going to be for sale at market value. A lot of it's going to be for rental at market value. And from the University heights, you know, 346 square feet and $2,100 a month.

Is that really affordable? The other thing too is a lot of development is coming on in Victoria. Victoria Formal, one of the fellows mentioned going down Cook Street. It's a single lane because of construction and those are going to be two big high rises. Do we really need it? Here is the other thing because most of the people that are going to be going into town are going to be going as slow as possible given the way that things are going to go. If you're going to have to travel into town from a right rental, why not just live downtown? Because there's going to be a lot of it there and do we really do any good by adding more to our backyard?

So take a look not just at our area, but take a look at what's going up around us. Go to the West Shore. Try to go to Costco in the afternoon after 2:30. Don't bother. You know, the traffic is so horrendous. If those people could afford to move here and live without that traffic, I'm sure they would. We should put up a sign saying if you lived here, you wouldn't have to travel. Pretty simple. But it has to be affordable to make it logical. And you have to look beyond our borders to see what is out there and what cost it can be. Like Elizabeth said, single family home sold for 900,000. Now four units, single, three stories probably single car garage, you know, 1. 1 million apiece. Is that affordable for everybody?

No, but that's density and if that's what you want, that's what you're going to get. That's all I have to say. Okay, thank you. Did you wish to come forward? You're welcome to do so. If somebody wouldn't mind moving the chair so this gentleman can use that space, please. Thank you so much. Okay, well, most people here know me by now because I can't keep talking. My name is Anthony. And the problem I see over the last few months that I've been coming here has been raising a certain level of alarmingness of anyway, rents. I keep hearing affordable rent, affordable rent here, affordable rent there.

Every time they build a building, building they say affordable rent. Well, some of the buildings around my part of Saanich are going for 5,000amonth. And I talked at like three doctors and they couldn't afford 5,000amonth. How can anybody with a normal job afford 5,000amonth? Not only that, but as someone who uses elevators all the time, the idea of going to a smaller elevator from Europe when it's temperamental and hard to work on and spends more time broken down than it does when it's working doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

Because I don't want my pregnant wife and my 2 year old sitting in an elevator 100ft up off the ground because somebody wanted to save money. That's just my opinion. Now, a lot of the problems that I keep hearing about could easily be solved if the city of Saanich spent more time lobbying the provincial government government for funding to let UVIC do what it wants to do at a more accelerated rate. Then you guys could scale back your plans. Everybody's happy, you still get what you need. And UVIC uses up space they were planning on using for that since the beginning, so.

So no harm, no foul.

I don't get pushed into a neighborhood I don't want to live in. So that's all I really had to say about that.

Thank you.

Thank you. If there's anyone else who'd like to address council either in the room or online, please come forward or raise your virtual hand. Good evening. My name is Sandy McDonald, I live on Fairburn Drive which is on the northern border of the Gordon Head McKenzie center sub area. The plan for the center contemplates radical transformation of zoning for.

Radical radical for the sub area from low single rise family dwellings to up to six story apartments.

Professed goals are the 15 minute community

and greater integration with University of Victoria.

It is hoped that a zoning conversion

to corridor and anticipated development will assist in this endeavor. I ask who benefits? Who's driving the bus? Does the bus driver have tunnel vision? Are we paying proper attention to avoiding the potholes and what accountability mechanisms are present?

I'm inspired by a woman by the name of Leanna Farrakh who served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on right to housing from 2014 to 2020. Now, as the global director of the Sheriff Shift, the international human rights organization focused on housing finance climate, some of her observations may or may not be appropriate for Saanich. You can decide. She points out, that home is everything.

It's not just buildings.

It is our most important assets. Where we live, that's where our identity is, that's where we develop our community, our affiliations. That's where we need Absolutely. It is essential. It is absolutely Essential.

It's essential to our dignity, to our security, our very existence and well being. And if you tamper with the home and create instability, you are upsetting everything. Housing is recognized as a human right.

International law calls for housing which meets criteria of being affordable, inhabitable and culturally appropriate. Unfortunately, the globing housing industry has turned housing into a commodity. That essential features of humanness and home is being lost and has been lost over many decades. An industry driven by an association of

financial firms, pension funds, private equity and

even government banks who view housing as a toy to be played with for big monetary gains. Together this alliance has turned our homes into an asset, asset class and the biggest business in the world. Financial firms approach housing the way mining companies approach ore deposits. Identifying valuable sites, moving to extract maximum value. Existing residents are seen as obstacles to profit. In all of this there has been an erosion of democracy. The alliance of actors that control the decision making drive the policy. They are the actors who have a seat at the planning table. So does the shoe fit here in Saanich? Has the big plan at the provincial and local level been shaped by investment and development for profit with lack of focus on more than physical disruption?

Also a lack of focus on the heavy psychological burden of disruption and and displacement.

Leaving the 40,000 foot view for a moment.

What is being lost? The Gordon Head Mackenzie area is a gem. We are blessed with the extraordinary urban forest. The aesthetic value of a big factor is a big factor in this highly desirable community. There is a sense of community and home in the area. The area is made up of functional neighborhoods. Overdose densification. The six story building not only decimates the urban forest on the property of the building the building occupies, it degrades trees beyond its perimeter. Who benefits? Present residents? Prospective residents? I believe it is commonly accepted that there is a tipping point where densification becomes or creates more problems than it solves. Where the cart comes before the horse. Where quality of life suffers for all.

One may argue that the whole effort of the QMP is to provide affordable housing. Reduce our reliance on private automobiles through active transportation and a much more viable transit system. Laudable goals. But on the accountability side one may ask how is that working out? Thank you. Thank you. Next. I see that we have a speaker who's raised their hand online. So I'll turn to that person next and I think that's Kathleen Burton. We just need your name and address and you'll have five minutes to address council.

Good evening everyone. Thank you. Can you hear me?

We can. Please go ahead.

Wonderful. Thanks so much. First, I just would like to Kathleen Burton and I live on Sanria Place in Saanich, so I don't live quite on Quadra McKenzie in that area, but I travel through it on a regular daily basis for work and for just life in general. First, I'd like to acknowledge and thank staff for the tremendous amount of work that's gone into the plan and developing it thus far. I'd also like to thank council for listening carefully throughout the entire process. And also tonight, your efforts to find a balanced path forward in what has become a very complex and often challenging discussion doesn't go unrecognized. The municipalities today definitely are operating in a changing environment.

Bill 44 has altered the tools that you have available and that all local governments have available. And so I appreciate the Council must work within these realities when you're planning for our future growth. But that said, I ask that you consider this in this plan that you look a little bit more toward the big picture and slow things down to ensure that environmental stewardship and protection of our natural assets are given the same level as consideration as our housing density, infrastructure and our active transportation.

Too often planning discussions can become focused on the bricks and the mortar and the bike lanes development potential. And while these elements are very much important, they're not the only part of the plan. They're just a piece of the larger system. Our healthy urban forests, our waterways, biodiversity, green spaces, ecological corridors, daylighting of creeks and protection of our water table are not amenities to be added later as funding permits. They're important to be included right from the beginning and the supports of climate, resilience, resilience, public health, community well being and long term stability. I encourage council to adopt a systems thinking approach with this plan.

And rather than viewing housing, transportation and climate adaptation, parks and environmental protections as separate topics within the plan, consider how they interact with one another and depend on one another. The decisions we make about one part of the system inevitably does affect the other. I recognize this plan is not going to be built overnight. It won't be built necessarily in five to 10 years. There's a long term aspect of this plan, but I ask you to consider when you make these deliberations, just as you're making those deliberations to consider the length of the plan as part of your considerations going forward, ensuring that growth occurs in a way that protects and enhances the natural assets and makes this community livable and resilient.

The choices made today will shape not only where our people are going to live in Saanich and how they travel, but also the quality of the environment they inherit. Decades from now, future residents of Saanich are going to judge us not only by how many housing units have been built, but whether or not we preserve the trees, protected the ecosystems and the green spaces, and as well as the function of functional ability of our roads and transportation systems to make sure that we're living in a healthy community.

I ask council to continue to seek balance to support housing and transportation objectives, but do so while ensuring environmental considerations like Swan Lake, Christmas Hill Nature Sanctuary and the other green spaces nearby all remain at the forefront of your planning decisions. Thank you again council, for this evening, for listening and thank you to everyone who's in the room tonight and online and for everyone who's participated throughout this entire process. It's important that everyone in the room has a commitment to building this community and that it's both a livable and sustainable one for generations to becoming upheld for Saanich forever. Thank you.

Thank you.

You.

We'll come back now to folks in the room if you'd like to come forward. Good evening.

Good evening. Nancy DiCastri. I'll be brief. I think you've all heard from me enough. Over the last year and a half. I was kind of struck by the woman who was talking about being 70. She hoped that when she was 70 and living in Saanich that the QMP had evolved to its fruition. Well, I'm 70 and I don't want to be living in a little box in my 15 minute city. I want to look out and see the trees. And I understand that things have to change, but I think we can somehow accomplish that without hitting everybody over the head with a hammer. So we have.

It was also mentioned that the plan has been watered down. Well, we have a copy of the plan. The first iteration to the plan, I remember bringing it into you, huge thing and it was all yellow and orange out the corridors.

And then at Reynolds School, the first

focus group after that, it was stated that there was general support to turn the orange into blue. But the general support was from the stakeholder groups, not from arguably the group that should have been the most important stakeholder, which was the residents. So I'm not here to litigate that all over again. We've, we've lived it and, you know, here we are. But I think that much of that could have been avoided if we'd had some meaningful consultation, if we'd really listened to each other, if we'd really sat down and, and I fear that we Were only listening because we got louder and louder and bigger and bigger.

But tonight, my fear is that the Songhees nation is going to be treated the same way. And I think they are an important stakeholder. So I think it's not enough for us to talk the talk. I think we really have to put our money where our mouth is, and we. We have to really listen. And it may not be something that you want to hear, because they may want things that you don't want to give, and they might have to give and you might have to give, but I think it has to be meaningful. And I think with this document, because it's a document that it's going to guide us for the next 20 years, we don't necessarily need to be in this huge hurry.

The development community has pulled back a little bit, so it's kind of almost a perfect opportunity to take a bit of time and say, let's make sure that all the important stakeholders have really had their say. And so we've got a document that really is going to guide us into the next 20 years, that we're not going to look back and today feel kind of a sense of shame because we left people out. We left people that we really should have consulted. And I wonder if the lesson from this process is not only that it's not that consultation slows things down. In fact, I think meaningful consultation in the beginning speeds things up, because I think if we'd had that meaningful consultation right at the beginning, I don't think we would have been a year and a half banging our heads together, you know, time after time at council.

I think we could have probably come to an understanding and we could have made it work. And we. I want to say we really appreciate that you did listen to us at the end. You did it, and the plan did get scaled back. And it is. I feel that our neighborhoods are going to be looking at development that is more to scale, that we're not going to be overwhelmed by this, and I think that that's workable. So all I'm asking is that you give another stakeholder the same, I guess, the same attention and the same respect that you ultimately gave us as the residents. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I'm not seeing a hand online, so we'll go to a speaker in the room.

Hello, my name is Kate Ritchie. I am the archaeology officer serving Sanghese Nation in the Lands and Environment Department, and I would like to share a few recommendations from a technical perspective. I encourage mayor and council to view the Kwet Lao system, the Camas and Garrioke ecosystem as a holistic organism rather than individual trees. While housing may be a priority and encouraged by the province, it should not be at the expense of indigenous food systems, archaeological sites or culturally significant spaces. Development may commit to replace individual trees, but this does not fully consider the loss of an ecosystem as a whole. The Nation requests concrete commitments to protect Quetla systems as part of this plan.

Council Strategic Plan 2023-2027 said it prioritizes environmental stewardship and cultural restoration alongside Le Quankan and Wasanich peoples. While initial conversations have been had and we appreciate the early conversations with Saanich planners, relationship building is a process and is a key to moving forward together. I would like to remind Council that Sanhes Nation is a rights holder and that we, all of us are guests on Lekwagan territory. An elder I used to work with would often remind me to slow down and make thoughtful decisions and that it's not a race. I encourage council to pause, meaningly engage with first nations and consider the next seven generations.

Thank you.

Thank you. So I'm going to ensure that anyone who has not addressed Council first time has the opportunity to do so and then we'll call on second time speakers if they have additional information. Good evening. Just one sec.

There we go. We're just going to get the mics on for you, but you're good to go.

Perfect.

I'll repeat myself then. I didn't plan to speak tonight, but I'll try to be brief here. I would like to recognize that, you know, we're at the end of a, hopefully near the end of a long process here that's involved a lot of communication. I wanted to bring some of my perspective as a recently returning resident to Saanich. I was a student at UVic about a decade ago. I lived in Saanich and I really appreciated the connectivity, especially the transport options. I liked walking around. I liked cycling. Cycling and taking the bus. Recently I had the opportunity to move back to the island and I chose to live in the Quadra McKenzie Plan area precisely because I saw that a lot of those values were still present.

And also I saw the improvements that have been made since the last time that I was here. A lot of the infrastructure improvements and a lot of the services showed a great sort of direction that I really appreciate. And also partially I chose because I saw what was in the Quadra McKenzie plan and I really appreciated the values that were being shown there. So yeah, I just wanted to sit down and speak my support of the plan. I think that, you know, the values that are there, you know, really speak to the strength of Saanich and give us the opportunity, I think, to make that, you know, some of those values available to more people.

So, yeah, I would really encourage Council. Council to go forward with the plan, hopefully without diluting it or delaying it much further. But that's all I had to say. Thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, we didn't catch your name. May have been that the microphone was off. Oh, sorry, yeah. Yes. Yeah, I think that was before the microphone came on. My name is Connor Bracewell. I live at 1123 Reynolds. Thank you. If there's anyone else who would like to address council for a first time who's not had the opportunity to do so, please come forward or if you're online, raise your virtual hand. Good evening.

Sasha Izard, Saanich resident. Tonight is the test. Are your land acknowledgments mere tokenism or are you serious about Saanich's relations with the Indigenous? At the very bottom of the attachments to the agenda item tonight is the manager of Community Planning. Response to Songhee's Nation QMP letter, late edition. On May 22, 2026, the Songhee's First Nation wrote a powerful rebuke of Saanich's Quadra McKenzie plan, noting that the plan does not protect the indigenous environment in the plan's area from quote, ongoing development pressures. The Songhees Nation has called upon Saanich Council to qu postpone adoption of the Quadro McKenzie plan pending meaningful consultation with Songhee's Nation regarding Garry Oak ecosystem analysis, cumulative impacts and long term stewardship planning, end quote.

Instead of engaging in meaningful consultation with the Songhees Nation on these critical issues, as the Songhees asked, the District has essentially brushed them off, instead providing a meek letter of response only a day before on June 8, the content of which in my view continues to protect the profit driven interests of developers over the natural and cultural environment.

Nothing could provide a better encapsulation of the hypocrisy of the way the District of Saanich has been operating itself than the way it has brushed off the Indigenous request for meaningful consultation prior to adoption of the plan. Council meeting after council meeting, we hear land acknowledgments. Then when the Indigenous ask for meaningful consultation prior to the adoption of a major plan that will irreversibly transform their traditional lands, they are effectively marginalized and ignored. This is the continuance of many years of such gross treatment of the land's original inhabitants who have helped shape the ecology, the amazing ecosystem which it is, and which unfortunately is being rapidly dissolved for quarterly profit margins from the development and real estate industries who are the real power on the island and in the province.

The Songhee's letter included the following quote. Songhee's Nation's connections to Quetlatl Kamis food systems and garrioke ecosystems remains deeply rooted in our ancestry, cultural practices, stewardship responsibilities, and the intergenerational transmission of knowledge and rights. These food systems are not simply ecological features. They are living cultural artifacts that reflect indigenous laws, governance, food sovereignty, and the stewardship of our ancestors, particularly women and family groups who sustained them over countless generations. Today, only an estimated 1 to 3% of undisturbed quet ladal food systems remain within the Capital Regional District. Despite this severe decline, Songhee's people continue to rely on these ecosystems for traditional foods, medicines, harvesting practices, cultural teachings, and ecological stewardship.

The proposed land use framework continues patterns of fragmentation and loss affecting a critically endangered ecosystem that is integral to Songhee's Nation's constitutionally protected rights and cultural practices. As the QMP will guide land use and growth over the next 20 years, its decisions will have lasting impacts on Songhees Nation's traditional lands, food systems, cultural practices and medicines. These impacts require meaningful consultation with Songhees Nation prior to the finalization or adaptation of of planning frameworks and policy directions. Songhee's Nation respectfully requests that Council postpone adoption of the Quadra McKenzie plan pending meaningful consultation with Songhee's Nation regarding Garry Oak ecosystem analysis, cumulative impacts and long term stewardship planning. End quote. So what are you doing?

Why as such, is Saanich not postponing the adoption of the Quadra Mackenzie Plan pending meaningful consultations with the Songhees Nation regarding Garry Oak ecosystem analysis, cumulative impacts and long term stewardship planning. For many months I've been asking this council and the District for the same things. I've continually asked for detailed ecological and hydrological analysis of the environment impacted by the Plan. Every time I have asked as your constituent for this basic necessary precursor to an intelligent and responsible plan, it has fallen fallen on deaf ears when ancient inhabitants of the southern island have asked for such analysis. Again, no such analysis has been forthcoming. Why are you so eager to advance a development industry agenda without proper analysis of the ancient ecosystems here which stand to be destroyed by it?

Are you simply here to represent the development industry and its political puppets in the provincial government? If not, do as the song he's request and engage in meaningful consultation with their nation regarding Garry Oak ecosystem analysis, cumulative impacts and long term stewardship planning. It is a basic and simple ask. At the same time, it is a critical ask. Your response, or lack thereof, will define your term in office. Thank you. So I noticed several interruptions with cell phones. So if I could just ask folks to please. I know you're not doing it intentionally, but if you could just please ensure that your phones are muted. It is quite disruptive. And while people are providing us with input. Good evening.

Okay. Hi. Jan Ellison. I don't want to speak to the particulars of the plan tonight because I

don't like the plan itself.

The plan doesn't value neighborhoods, nor does

it value its existing residents. It doesn't value the environment or the health and well being of the residents.

We were presented a predetermined plan that

wasn't in line with a large portion of the local population.

We weren't even consulted about whether or

not we even wanted the corridor centers and villages approach.

I don't want it. Yes, you have made tweaks here and there. Sometimes those tweaks were putting things back to the original idea that many didn't want anyway. For example, the 18 stories, then the

24 stories, then back to the 18 stories to try and make it seem as though you were listening and making concessions. That was not a concession.

Do you already know the meaning of neighbourhood? It's not the same as community, which is a broader term. A neighbourhood is much more intimate. Mine is a true neighbourhood, like the

one I grew up in way back in the old days. We've gotten to know most of the

people for blocks around this plan. And the SVP are fracturing neighbourhoods that make Saanich special. They give the okay to remove entire neighbourhoods, greatly affecting the people that chose to put their routes down in the area due to the certain attributes and characteristics that appealed to them. Slight changes are one thing, but we are now talking about why.

Wide sweeps of change.

People who had originally planned to stay are already talking about leaving. And so the domino effect begins as the developers start door knocking. Neighborhood and community stability is very important. This plan removes that without a second thought. And the frustrating and sad thing is that there doesn't seem to be a way to stop it. We tried with the Shelburne plan. Now there's this one and the next one, the Tilikum Burnside. Many people are being forced into the same doom.

I want to call it.

Buildings will remove trees and even the new Tree bylaw can't control the loss in the building footprint. Replacing trees is far inferior to keeping the existing ones. And side by side by side divide development will be the demise of the

existing tree canopy and all it provides for us and for the wildlife. As I said at the start, I'm

not speaking to the particulars of the plan because I don't like the plan itself. Particulars may be more helpful, but I think this plan needs more than help. This is not a plan for neighbourhoods, it's a plan for developers and Saanich's tax base. Okay, and one more quick thing. When I arrived today, when I thought I was early, I wasn't because here's on the agenda. At the top it says 6:30. Down here it says 6:00'.

Clock.

So a lot of people came in late and missed some of the presentation. And so I don't think that's a very fair thing either. So thank you,

thank you for catching that. We can certainly confirm the advertised time for the meeting, but I appreciate you bringing to our attention that there was a discrepancy in the time that was provided on the agenda. I will just look to any member of the gallery who wishes to address council as I'm not seeing a hand online. Just a reminder to folks who are online, raise your virtual hand and we can call upon you to provide you with the opportunity to present to council. Good evening.

Good evening.

Thanks for the opportunity. My name is Mike Corey, I'm fourth generation Saanich guy. I'd like to postpone the qmp. I know everybody says it and I'm just going to probably reiterate a lot of what people have already said, but if I don't say something, my wife will get mad at me tonight. So here we go. One of the big problems I have with this QMP is through visiting this council many times and listening to decisions and talking to developers is this is not a human plan. This is not for people, this is not for the environment. I consider this, in my humble opinion, nothing more than a business plan plan strictly looking at the economics of future development.

Construction companies, development companies and property revenue for Saanich Corporation upon which they can borrow large sums of money depending on it. Your representative this evening, hardworking man, I'm sure. Looks like a decent fellow.

Fellow.

Gave a lot of effort to putting in a presentation tonight and I focused on Mr. Corey. I'm going to ask that you please direct your comments to council and not characterize the presentation provided by any member of our staff. And so what he did was what was explained by one of your planners tonight was the fact that there were priorities and that was solving homelessness, looking at biodiversity, diversity, climate action mitigation and 10 minute cities. Well, again, through all the council meetings I've attended and watched the decisions, talked to developers, talked to people in my neighborhood. It's talk, it's writing on pages. Every development I've seen has totally wasted the lot.

It's on wall to wall, no trees, no biodiversity considerations. And I don't think new tree bylaws are helping either. We know Bill 44 will cancel everything. We know that your board of variants will give numerous variances to ensure that the maximum profit for a development goes through. Generally speaking, this is nothing. Go ahead, Council president plan. I think there is an impunation of people who are not here to defend themselves and to say that the board of variants will grant variances. This accusation is un unfair and not how we conduct our meetings. Yeah, I agree with the point of order, Councilor Plant. So. Okay, just a second. I won't speak anymore. I will complete the point of order and then you'll be welcome to continue.

I'd like you to withdraw the comment and remind you that we're here to talk about the quadrant McKenzie plan and not other aspects of the organization or boards that may represent decision making bodies. I'll try and be more vague. I feel like that misses the point of the point of order and so I need to know that you understood so that you can continue to provide input. I understand perfectly. Thank you. So can I take from your comment that you don't intend and to speak about anything other than the Quadra McKenzie plan? This evening, in my own mind, I will be speaking about the Quadra McKenzie plan and why I find it to be a problem. Okay, well, you're welcome to speak on those points.

Furthering my outline of what was presented about bioversity and climate action. I can understand how a plan like this, a business plan like this with severe density increases has anything to do with mitigating climate action. I'm a climate action scientist. I've studied the environment and tearing down good homes and putting in large, high density, high concrete, high plastic, high electrically built, high sewage, high water requirements has anything to do with climate action mitigation? I believe this plan is an economic plan. I will say again, and I wish and hope that this council or any other future council that replaces them will consider the natural environment and its absolute importance to communities, to humans, and stop emphasizing economic growth.

Is there anyone who's not yet addressed. Council on the plan who wishes to do so. We encourage you to please come forward. Good evening. Good evening. Nathan Ng. I live in Saanich. You know, I, I support most parts of the plan to increase housing supply. I think that's much needed for Saanich and we know to bring down, to maintain affordability in Saanich we need to increase the supply and that means all types of housing. Like the corridor, like, like the town home. Well, like the townhomes and you know, the three, four story, you know, we need all of those. I mean there's been, you know, I thought, I think there have been many concessions already to public input, you know, bringing down the height of the 24 story. I mean, and let's not forget this is just a plan.

It's not a really any developments going to take place after this plan passes. Right. It's, you know, and some of these changes that have already been made to the plan, I mean they're not even going to be probably financially viable for any firm to come in and build anything. And that's, I don't think that's, it's good enough that we're just going to accept that this plan is going to probably not incentivize enough building in terms of housing supply. I mean, I've, you know, I've lived in Saanich for four years. I don't know what that means to some of my fellow residents who have been here for much longer.

You know, I started in 2022 and I'm a student. That was the year this council, you know, that was the election year. Right. And I worked in that election. So I know at some level who shows up to these types of, you know, participation in, you know, in civics and those types. And it's certainly not, you know, young people like me. I know, you know, I look at my classmates and my colleagues, you know, some of the top worries that if they're in class, scrolling on Facebook marketplace looking for rents, looking for the right prices, I mean, is that a useful time for our students at university to constantly be worrying about am I going to find a place to live?

And the solutions has to be to increase the supply. That's well known. And you know, so they have, you know, a place to live. I look at some of the previous, you know, correspondence for this plan, the emails that have been sent. Now one engineering firm, he says, you know, I'm worried, you know, I'm not going to hire the students that I hire from the university. They're like, like it's too expensive to live here. I can't live here, you know, so, you know that, I mean, a lot of people who I think support the support increasing, you know, housing supply aren't here to speak for it. Whether, you know, for whatever reason.

You know, it's a complicated, it's a complicated process. You know, having looked at it, I mean, and even then again, this, none of this is rezoning. It's just a high level plan for policymakers. You know, I think it's a small portion that speaks out against it very strongly. I think most people support. I think I've seen, you know, surveys, they say when there's new buildings in the neighborhood, it actually adds vibrancy, adds a sense of newness. When I look, I go around San Diege, I look at all these buildings, it's like I'm stuck in the 80s, which is nothing wrong, but like, there needs to be a sense that the city is moving forward in some way.

And, you know, I think of other correspondence, you know, nursing students at UVic, they're like, hey, most of you know, all of my nursing students, they just graduated, they're like, it's too expensive to live here. I have to move out. Okay, what do we say to that? Are we gonna like, you know, all our talent is leaving Saanich, right? We don't want that. You know, we want to solve these big issues related to climate change. You know, know they're not going to be in Vanish. They're going to go somewhere that's more affordable to live. So thank you, thank you, thank you. Anyone else who's not yet had the opportunity to address council on the draft plan, whether in person or online, please come forward or raise your virtual hand. Good evening, Good evening. Good evening. Council, Mayor, Council.

I had not planned to speak tonight. My name is. Sorry, my name is Matt McGitchie. I live in the Brayford area. I had not planned to speak tonight, but there, you know, broad opposition, I guess, to the qmp. But I want to touch on, on something maybe more personal. I've said this before. My wife and I have a blended family, eight children and 12 grandchildren. Our kids are between 32 and 46. Not one of them would want any of what you're trying to offer them. Everybody that in our family, including probably our grandchildren, our oldest granddaughters, second year UVic. Now actually, my son is at UVic, taking the engineering program as well. But they are not interested in this kind of a community. It's, you know, I say this over and over again, the university has 22,000 students.

Over 75% are out of the region. So you're looking at about 60, 16,000 people that are in by definition transient, that are looking for a place to stay while they're going to university. The enrollment has increased from about 19,000 to 22,000 now. Probably over the last, say, 10 years. Yeah, about 10 years or so. And as the university continues to increase its program, you know, the numbers will continue to increase. That is the problem with Saanich by far is the biggest issue. So when you develop this plan, you're really developing it. I hear a lot about rental and all that kind of stuff. You're really catering to the university's issue. They're the ones that are creating the demand on this area and, and they don't.

As somebody else pointed out, as I know as well, the university doesn't pay any property taxes, contributes nothing to the community financially and creates a huge burden. So it would be really incumbent, forget about this Quadra Mackenzie plan. Put student housing, encourage the university, encourage the provincial government to support the university to build housing and take the stress off of this, this whole region. Anyway, thank you. Okay, thank you. If there are no other first time speakers who plan to address council on the draft plan, we'll open the opportunity for those who wish to. Oh, there's a first time speaker. So let's make a deal.

Every time somebody gets up from their speaking time, just assume, I said, if you haven't spoken yet and wish to, and then you're welcome to come forward. Good evening. Good evening. My name is Michael Moore. I'm the president of North Carter Community Association. I listened to everybody tonight. I think the plan has gone through our association for at least eight years. Some of that has been Covid delayed, as you might know. It's changed various times. Density has been a problem, ecology has been a problem. Transportation has been a problem. So now it's kind of bulked into a final stage of what it should be or shouldn't be.

The big concern for north quadrant is ecology and transportation. Transportation is very hard to access through Quadra Street. No crosswalks. Take a life in your hands and people kill in Quadra, as you know, speeds are ridiculous. There's no accounting for the speeds in the street. You do 50, there's a sign posted, people do eight on that street. Not a problem. Switch lanes. They're trying to get the highway number 17. It's an access arterial road. The problem with the community, there's no community road for Quarter Street. There's no access for the community to make it safe. Needs to be calmed down quite a bit. 40 kilometers would be a issue.

That could stay instead of 50 that means it would do 50 or 60 anyways. Right. That's areas in the world that have changed are 50 km to 40 or 30. Edmond, Alberta Edinburgh, Scotland. The whole city in Edmonton is 40 now, not 50. They need to be controlled sidewalks to catch traffic transportation as you go one street to the other street. It's a very busy street to get that control. It'd be better access for getting BC transit and that's going to be a higher density area in Quadra as you know be more demand for access to public transit. There is no bicycle transit on Quadra Street.

It's too dangerous. I live in a street that probably gets 3 to 400 bicycle traffic a day. Even some of your employees in Saanich take that street. To get the Saanich park through Rainbow Park I try to get bicycle access on Dieppe and Douglas street when it was being redeveloped for the Fats poultry farm to Allen's West I got a few sidewalks. They turned me down for bicycle Access and that's 10 years ago. And I said there's going to be a demand for it, you better get it. No, no, we don't need bicycle lane there now. We've got electric bikes, scooters, road racers. It's all using DF and Quadra and it's a one way street. You have to do cars can't fasten that street.

So that's a heavy demand on bicycle traffic because Douglas street you can't use it for bicycles. That's a big transportation problem. Number two is density. Density in the corridor is down to a reasonable expectation of the density especially after the center has gone away. But there's going to be a public transit transportation problem with that. Right? Right. Also there is need to be infill housing has to be addressed for proper design. There has to be some policy in Saanich for proper design of infill housing. I've heard from the signage farmers union that some of the development on McBryer is totally unbelievable. It's a problem of life and death to get to that fire. There's a fire there.

So there was a big mistake of developing an infill property with not public access for fire department or police or ambulance services. Ecology. We have about 3 creeks in North Saanich that need to be redeveloped. Beckwith Creek, Mount Douglas Creek and Gabble Creek need attention. We have a promise Beckwith Creek and Mount Douglas Creek by four councils ago when the Western Forest Products left that area. That's a watershed area in Blago Valley that were going to be redeveloped, restored. There's one creek that was restored, Godsby Creek which was restored by a private person. That creek goes into Blankensop Lake which goes into Blanks Hop Creek which empties into Swans Lake. Gavel Creek emptied into Swan Creek on the other side of the highway. Those are all watershed creeks.

Gavel Creek is emptying with this bog. So those are all issues environmentally. Also missing 90% of our oak tree canopy. Oak Creek roof is a problem. There is people in my neighborhood that grow oak tree saplings because you can't buy one in a nursery anywhere. There's no oak tree saplings. So they're growing up these saplings for people who want to plant them in the yard. So having said this plant had been involved, the neighborhoods impressed. This could come down scale down to something that makes more community, more neighborhoods as the plan goes by. This plan is going to evolve of 20 years, not what it is today. But something may be different.

We do know that North Quarter is going to be the host for the Saanich operational yard which is a controversy in our neighborhood. Part of that property of the Saanich operational yard won't be used for the operational yard be scaled down. The entrance is for the Saanich operational yard be on Quarter street and Mackenzie. I'm not off boarding anymore. One more time. Zanich North Car community associated with a property left over will be asking for a community recreational center or civic center to host as a public space in that time of the period as well. Thank you, thank you, Thank you and

good evening Mayor, council. I hadn't planned to speak tonight so I might be a little bit scattered. I'm Mary Kendrew and I live on Craig Miller Avenue which is just off of Quadrant and three other residents of Craig Miller have spoken tonight and in regard to zoning of three to six stories and Craig Miller and Kathleen Avenue are barely managing the traffic density now and density of six story buildings.

One or two on that street would be absolutely dangerous. Not just to the way it is now and to how it is used now and to families now, but for traffic.

For traffic and with the changes on Quad street as well, it would be truly intensified. And that's apart from all the other stuff, the garriotte ecosystems, all the animals, all of that.

It's just not feasible traffic wise and it would be dangerous to people using the street So I am hoping that the petition that we submitted and the people who have spoken today will catch your attention. Thank you.

Thank you. So if you're sitting there and you're thinking to yourself, I'd really like to address council on the draft plan. I have good news for you. We have an open opportunity to do so.

You just need to come forward and provide us with your name and address. Oh, it's a race. Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor, Council.

Thanks.

This will be very short. I also live on Craig Miller and everybody's already.

Sorry to interrupt. I just need to get your name.

Oh, I'm sorry. Joanne McNish.

Thank you.

So Craig Miller is a prime access point for Playfair. It's almost an extension of Playfair and the Garry Oak ecosystem that they preserved when they did not blast the rocks out at the entrance, I think was considered in the original plan. So the very first plan that we saw, they actually preserved the heritage housing and the. And Craig Miller by making it densified, but only to like townhouses for on a lot. I think I have that right. And so that consideration, I think, has been put aside with all the concessions where they have to add a little bit more densification. So my only point is, please consider the ecosystem, the Garry Oak ecosystem that is an extension of Playfair and the tremendous walking traffic that access Playfair on that route.

Especially when you densify Quadra, which makes sense, it will become even more of an important pedestrian walkway. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And I see we have another intended speaker already lined up. Come on down. Hi, my name's Nat Massa and I live at 3711 Craig Miller Avenue. I just wanted to say that I had the pleasure of going to this spring, going to a city that houses 1. 8 million people. And I can tell you that I spent a total of maybe zero seconds at a traffic light when I traveled through that city for five days. The McKenzie Quadra plan, from what I can tell, has an additional 10 traffic lights between the highway, I guess you would call it Papay highway and Cloverdell. That's what the antespeed. That the reason you can move 1.

8 million people in a city without having them wait at traffic lights is because they don't use traffic lights. Their council, however, many years before the. Before I was there, put the foundations in place to move the population before increasing the density and then trying to figure out how to move the people. I believe this plan lacks foundation in terms of how to move that Many people. And I understand that the reason that people want to come to live in Saanich is because, because of the way streets like Craig Miller look, they want to come here. If you change that too quickly, too dramatically without putting the foundation in place, they won't want to come. And then you will have a concrete city with nobody who wants to be here.

I would suggest that, that those foundational requirements to allow for the density growth be put in place before trying to increase the density. It's like putting the cart before the horse. I love my city. I love Saanich.

I was born and raised in south. In fact I was born and raised within four blocks of where I live today.

And

having seen other cities that have had councils many moons before that respected and put the foundations in place, it seemed like the populace of those cities were the was more buy in because they had already seen that the problems were mitigated first.

It seems here that putting 10 traffic lights in that small space is just going to add to the aggravation of your transportation issue. And you know, so there are other options like roundabouts, like, like. And I'm not sure that the Quadra McKenzie plan from my perspective has taken into consideration how to putting in the foundational needs in order to, in order to deal with the density. It's like they've put the density first and then they'll figure out how to put in their foundations later. I would suggest that you slow down, look at some of those other options that other cities, great cities have implemented before striving for the numbers. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Are there any other first time speakers on the draft plan? Please come forward or raise your virtual hand. Okay, I'm not seeing anyone else who's yet to address council for a first time. So Ms. Van Dyke, thank you for patiently waiting. If you have new information to share with council you have up to five minutes. I know it seems absurd but we do need your name and address. Again just for the record Dyke, I

live at 3947 she Shorncliffe Road North. Thank you for 35 years. So tonight I did come to talk about and to advocate for the disabled and seniors. And right now I'd like to talk about seniors. One of the things I do for a living is I go into seniors homes and I help them. And I say this because 10 traffic lights along quadrants, along with the narrowing of roads, elimination of lanes, left hand turn lanes, right hand turn lanes has made it difficult to do My business, I do not work for a company who does in home care for seniors, but I do have friends that do.

A lot of them are thinking of quitting. They usually are booked for an hour and because they cannot travel like they used to from point A to point B, they are shaving 15 minutes off of their client's time just so they don't upset their employer and they can make it to the next destination.

And you know, when I moved here 35 years ago, there was a little saying, victoria is the land of the newlywed and nearly dead. And I never really quite got it until myself. I'm 69 years old and there's a lot of aging seniors in Saanich. And I have one particular set of clients, she has Alzheimer's and they want to age as long as they can in place and they do have the support system that comes into their home to service them. But there's a lot of people who might not be able to hire people because they don't have the means like they do. So they go to services like Beacon, etc.

And these companies I have friends that work for and the reduction of these lanes, the stress that is being put on people who need to drive for business, let alone the fact that my husband drives for business and he's into delivery. But I'm more like the home care workers are shaving 15 minutes off of the time. 10, 15 minutes. Minutes. Because they have to get to the next place and they know it's going to take two, three times longer than it did maybe four or five years ago. I said before, I live on Shorncliffe Road. Let's just say Brayfoot and Cedar Hill Crossroad is my neighborhood. Just last week I tried to go down to Fairways at Cedar Hill Crossroad and show it took me 20 minutes. Four or five years ago.

I could do it for four minutes. It took me 20 minutes. So when you're doing these plans, you need to think of people who have to drive for a living and how this is affecting them. 10 traffic lights on Quadra. You're going to have companies that are doing in home care that are either going to and fold because they can't make their profit margin or you're going to have people, you can't take the bus and do that work that aren't going to want to do it because it's too stressful being out in traffic all day long and not knowing if

you can achieve your mark and make

your next client on time. So these are the little Things that perhaps you haven't thought of or considered from counselor to engineering. But I just wanted to make that input tonight. There's people who need to drive for a living and there's going to be

a lot of seniors that can't be

placed in homes and when I say homes, facilities and they need to age in their homes and we need to make it easier on the workers that come in and take care of them

so they can do that.

Thank you for listening to me.

Thank you. I'm just going to. I've heard folks mention now what went from six to now 10 more traffic lights. When the opportunity comes to ask staff questions, we'll be seeking clarity on whether or not those numbers are real numbers. But just for your awareness, just because it's been said repeatedly doesn't mean it's actually in the plan. If there are others who've not yet addressed council or would wish to address council for a second time with new information, this will be your opportunity to do so. Good evening. I'm back.

Ms. Berry. B E R R Y Kyla Alexandra and I am a resident on Mackenzie Avenue in social housing. At risk of getting cut off or having my mic muted. I'd like to speak about my experience of actually trying to navigate this whole Quadra Mackenzie plan and Shelburne Valley plan process. As a person living my whole life with limited vision and relying on screen reading technology and magnification technology to access web forms, webinars, Microsoft Teams, you name it, I need software that's third party and isn't always compatible with mainstream products. I'd like to address first the. I think it was called govocal, which was the platform that you put your survey and all the maps of the plan on way back in September, October 2025.

Yeah, that particular platform was definitely not compatible with screen reading technology. What drove me nuts about trying to fill that in effectively was that every time I would try to go through the survey and it would time out when I tried to save my changes and log back in, it would take me right back to the beginning of the bloody whole thing right at the front first map.

And I'd maybe done half the survey by then. So skipping through, navigating through, trying to find the right point to pick back up where I'd left off was nearly impossible to do with screen reading technology. I tried reaching out to GoVocal by email and relaying my concerns. I got nowhere with that. I'm not even sure that my email landed in the right place. It went into cyberspace Then your webinars for the Quadra mackenzie plan. I participated in two of them. And I want to say that the fact that you wouldn't let people use your microphone was an accessibility barrier. I know you wanted to make sure that people wouldn't talk over each other or drift off topic or whatever. But, but having comments or questions being restricted to the chat function only at Microsoft Teams was an accessibility barrier.

I don't type the fastest. I don't sometimes my screen reading technology and Dragon, naturally speaking, don't play nice with the chat function. On teams it's very difficult to follow threaded messages. So I can think, I've put myself on the chat and then there'll be like 16 other messages because it just keeps scrolling through and I can't keep up with it. I can't divide my attention between trying to watch what's being said on the chat and listening to the presentation and or other speakers that are coming along. So I found those an inaccessible process. You did have some in person meetings, which I did manage to get to. But again I kind of, well, truthfully, I felt dismissed.

Now as a blind person that is a member of a minority, a person with a disability, and I must remind everybody that I am, my rights are protected under BC's human rights clause. And that's why I bring up the nothing about us without us, your process did not meet some of the standards of our accessibility legislation and what would probably be codified in our jurisprudence for the nothing about us without us framing. I didn't even learn that my house was in the rezoning bullseye when A was being rezoned. I didn't hear about that meeting until I got a letter from capitol region on March 1st.

I should have been there, invited by either council or staff or Capitol region saying, hey, there's going to be a hearing. You're right in the middle of this. I didn't get a postcard that was in print and if I did, that would have been a barrier to me as well. Many of the other seniors in my building don't have computers of their own. People of low income or seniors, they don't have the digital literacy I have. I have a master's degree in counseling and it took me eight years to do it to do it with screen reading technology. And it's just been an uphill battle and very many barriers.

So I caution that when the Songhees Nation asks for meaningful consultation, that should also be extended to persons with disabilities because I don't think that that standard was met.

Okay, thank you. Appreciate the benefit of your feedback and thank you for sharing your experience. I regret the frustration you've experienced and certainly we can pass that on to folks to ensure that the process is improved going forward. I will call now on anyone who's not yet addressed council, who wishes to or if you wish to address council for a second time with new information, you'd be welcome to do so. I see a hand online, I believe that's Mr. Najiri's hand. You're welcome to address council for a second time with new information for up to five minutes. Mr. Najiri, I just need your name and address.

Mehdi Najeri, 1005 Leeds Place. The government wanted to make sure that we fall for their big lies that there was a housing crisis. So what they did in order to convince us, they come and said that we are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create more student housing at uwic. We also are going to spend lots of money, millions of hundreds of millions of dollars to build affordable houses housing because the developers are just building market housing. So everybody say yes. So there has to be a problem that government want to do that. But what's happened the last December was the dead time deadline for the new OCPs.

As soon as they got the new OCPs that allow all these changes, changing the zoning, giving what the developers want, convincing all the councils to do that as soon as they got all those OCPs, now they come out and said oh we don't have money for a student housing.

We don't have money for the affordable housing. It was all a trick to make us to fool us to believe that

they really need it.

We have a housing crisis and we need all these housing. Even the Saanich consular that were enthusiastically supporting these corrupt NDP government in the headlines in Victoria times colonies Saanich Council on February 28, 2026 after the deadline Saanich councilors wants province to a scrap housing target. Why do you want to province with scrap housing target? Because you know there was no housing crisis so why are you pushing this? Quadra Mackenzie There is no housing crisis, there is no rush. Why do you want to really push it? On April 28th meeting of the council Councilor Plant said quote we have made a choice to focus on these corridors as the primary area where we are going to have growth and it sucks for people who live nearby because they don't want it.

But we have as a council and as a community have said we are going to do that. No consular Plant, we as a community didn't say we want to do it. Mr. Najiri, I'm going to stop you. A reminder that the comments that we are. That council will receive is intended for all members of council. And so while I appreciate that you're referring to a statement provided by a member of council, comments this evening are meant to be directed at all of council. Yes, it's on the record. So it wasn't for the community decide. It was this council decided. Decide to put the interest of the developers over the public interest. And shame on this council in terms of going to the Quadra Mackenzie plan. Okay, Mr.

Nagiri, I'm going to stop you. I'm going to hear a point of order from Councillor Plant. Yeah, I've consistently. Whenever someone says shame on this council, I think that crosses the threshold from fair commentary to disrespectful language in the council. Say it in the public all you want. But in the council chamber, we don't allow each other to shame each other. Okay, I'll take that point of order. I agree with you, Councillor Plant. You know we're going to treat each other with kindness and respect. You're welcome to share your opinions, Mr. Nijiri, but the point is well taken. I don't think there's any anything productive about shouting shame at anybody in the council chamber. I live in Leeds.

Leeds. Place of

Lodge Avenue. Lodge Avenue is perpendicular to Quadra. My place is a small cul de sac, more than 500 meter away from the center. And you designate it for four stories apartment. Why? Why? One side of the lodge is for four stories to six stories. The other side side is for single family. Why? How did you guys make this decision? Prop. Please try to tell us and convince us that you have reason for that. Or did you did your planners went with the developers in the back room and color the map. Whatever the developer. Okay, Mr. Najiri, I'm gonna stop you. I'm gonna take a. Mr. Najiri, I'm Gonna stop you. I'm going to hear a point of order from Councilor Fish. Phelps Bondoff. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I think suggesting that our staff is doing backroom deals is wildly inappropriate. Three points of order is enough. I suggest we move on to the next speaker. Okay. Okay. Now, Mr. Niri. All right. Could we mute Mr. Najiri while I attempt to bring order to the meeting while he continues to interrupt me? I agree with the point of order provided by Councillor Phelps Bonderoff. It is inappropriate language to be using in the Council Chamber, it is completely inappropriate to suggest that anybody is making backroom deals. And this is now the third time I've had to stop your input after I've repeatedly reminded you to please keep the comments relevant to the content of the draft Quadrant Mackenzie plan and had to repeatedly remind you about respectful comments conduct within the Chamber.

I don't believe I can end your input on that basis alone, but I do note that we've exceeded the five minutes allotted for input, so we're going to move on to the next speaker. You just interrupt me three times. Likewise, Mr. Najiri, you've interrupted me four times and we are now done with your input. We're going to move on to the next speaker. If there's anyone in the chamber who has not addressed council who wishes to do so, this will be your opportunity to do so. If you wish to address council a second time with new information, you're welcome to come forward. And then after we've heard from the speaker in the room, I'll go to the other individual who has raised their hand online.

I live on Severn Drive

just to

finish up a couple points that I missed. First time around, I think I stopped, I ran out of time where I said laudable goals. But the accountability side, one may ask how is that working? Working?

And that after referring to key aspects of the qmp and I would offer my own report card on how things are going. And as far as affordable housing, it's not happening.

As far as improved transit system, a viable alternative to the private, there's lots of planning and there's very little implementation. It's complex, it's expensive and the money

isn't there to do it.

And with the way our economy is sitting today and maybe things could tank seriously. And we will never have the money to have a rapid transit system, active transportation, there is more biking.

It's still a hostile environment for the pedestrian. Sidewalks still are sadly lacking and the

new hazard has been introduced.

The electric bikes and scooters that create hyper vigilant pedestrians, operators of trucks, cars and muscle powered and muscle powered bicycles all kind of are, to say the least, put on notice.

Public reaction for the most part is

hostile, as you've heard tonight. At least that's my impression for all the building going on and the fundamental goals are not being met. What I think is wonderful about a public hearing is that you get to hear what people in a face to face conversation structure. Yes, but you get to hear from residents who are concerned and what is neighborhood, what is community. You can't ignore residents and you can't ignore their feelings and you can't ignore their frustration and you can't ignore their questions.

And a bureaucratic model

has to be greatly tempered, as everybody has said, with a lot of consensus building. I don't think any of that has taken place with the QMP from what I've seen of it and been involved in it. It's a program that has been developed in by planning. There were focus groups and yada, yada, yada and we came up a well worded and a very optimistic plan of what sandage can look like.

And that is something that has been

sold to us over and over and over and over again with very little sensitivity to the backlash that has come and I think will continue to come. The idea that you continue

a functional

or an already developed community. We're not like the prairies where you can take another 85 acres and build a new housing development. We have a limited space and that's a reality and there's no way of getting around that.

Inviting more people to come and putting more and more pressure on that space isn't a solution to a viable signage. I personally believe that we are reaching that point of tipping point. Your comments about traffic support that people's concern of losing their quality of life. The Cree canopy is essential. The environmental factors are essential and the QMP does not allow it. The wording, the language used is very comforting and very utopianist. It's not happening and there's, you know, engineering is months, years behind development

anyway.

Frustration abounds and I think one solution, although I know there's going to be after investing as much time and effort and expense into the QMP and presenting it and we're getting to the finish line in people's view and you know, we can't, you know, we can't throw it away.

We can't.

We've got to finish it. Well, you don't have to finish it tonight and you can pause and there can be more consultation. The issue with the Songese is a big one. Don't kid yourself. Aboriginal rights, that is where the political power is. Thanks very much. Appreciate your input. For a second time I see a hand online from an individual. I can only make out the LK because the little preview box is quite small. Looks like Leslie. So Leslie, if you'd like to unmute yourself, I don't believe we've heard from you yet. So you're welcome. As a first time speaker. We'll just need your name, address and you'll have up to five minutes.

My name is Leslie Kennis and I live at 3626 Craigmiller Avenue. I am right next to the giant rock. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Thank you. I've been in this house since it was built in 1992.

And I actually live the house and the house next to it are in the backyard of the heritage house that is off of Tattersall. Our front stone wall is actually the original wall for that building. So I have a Heritage house behind me that's four stories tall. I can't see over the roof, but that's fine. It's a nice house to look at. We live on. The rock that our house is sat on has glacial grooves in it. So it's been here a very long time. And our backyard is completely full of mature Garry oaks, mature Douglas firs. We have trilliums, we have ferns.

We have thousands of birds that come in. We have the owl that you may be able to see on. My thing is was sitting in an oak tree when my husband took the picture of it. We have nesting woodpeckers, we have nesting hawks. So we are a chunk of the green space that is this end of Craigmiller. It's also the side of the street that they want to be able to put in six story apartment buildings. That's frightening, quite frankly, This looking out the front of our house in the afternoons, you quite often will see the children walking from school, children walking to Playfair bicycles because it's safer to bike along our road.

We are actually narrower than Kathleen, which has got an exemption from this area partly because of their heritage, partly because of. Maybe they're just a little further up Tattersall. I do not know. However, we've always expected to see apartments on Quadra. It's a busy road. It's suitable for apartments. The fact that on the plan it looks like the apartments would come all the way back to Craig Miller, which would effectively turn Craig Miller into, at the very best, a driveway for the apartments, not a commuter road. It could never be a commuter road unless you tore down absolutely everything. It would be interesting to find out the people who've done the plan, have they actually walked some of these areas?

Because on the map, Craigmiller looks straight. It's not straight. There's a large chunk of BC sitting there. Right next to it is a Garry oak meadow. It does not belong to my property. It abuts it on the Saanich side. It's part of Saanich. We look after it we make sure the camas grows, we make sure all the little garry oaks grow. And that's part of what Saanich is supposed to be all about, is the country, not the city. So I felt like I just had to say something about that because. Because it's why we moved here and why we want to stay here and why we'd like to not necessarily see it change that much.

However, there's a lot of infill that's been happening around here, but it's always been sensitive. It's people putting up the little houses in the back. There's panhandle lots along here because a lot of the lots are quite big.

We have room in ours if we cut down all the trees to put a whole bunch of houses. But then you lose all these trees that are supposed to be so precious to Sanich. And when you start talking about density over diversity, and I'm talking biological diversity here.

Okay, I. We're now well past the five minute mark, so I'll have to stop you there. Thank you very much. Appreciate your input. Yeah, I will have to you guys

just look into it a little bit, a little bit deeper.

Okay. Thank you for your comments. Councillor Chambers, are you calling a point of order?

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, I don't think. I think it's not a point of order, it's a point of clarification. Okay, thank you very much. I'm just getting some calls from the public and they're trying to get on to webcast so they can give their input. Both Preet and I were able to join from the link posted just now. We just did it now. Oh, thank you. Through the mayor, this person says that it requires a registration that he miss. Okay, so is there. Is there a. There's a message that comes up and

it says join now.

It's just a purple button. Okay, thank you very much. Sorry for the interruption, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you for ensuring people can get online. Okay, before I go to the next speaker online, I'll just look for any member of the Gall in attendance in the gallery who may wish to address council, certainly for a second time with new information. And if you haven't yet for a first time, you'd be welcome to come forward as well. Hello, my name is Mike Corey, I live in Saanich. Thanks for the second opportunity. Just a simple question. Obviously, I assume that this is a polarized economic plan. Would it be appropriate for me to ask council to ask staff if they've done any calculations due to the fact that we're going to have increased sewage, increased water, storm drainage, maintenance, parks.

Has there been any estimations on in percentage values how much our property taxes will go up, how much our service charges will go up, how much our utility bills will go up as a result of this progressive plan?

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I see a hand online from Andrew Gardner. You're welcome to address council. You'll have up to five minutes to do so. We just need your name and address. Yeah, I'm Andrew Gardner. I live in the designated Four Corners Village area of the provider proposed plan. Yeah, I wish to voice my strong support for the adoption of this plan. Pardon me? I submitted a request to speak earlier. I missed my appointment so I'm happy to be able to get my remark today. I just want to say I've lived here for four years. The status quo is bad. I strongly encourage Sant's council to not delay any further and you know, listening is important, but also taking leadership here on what we know to be a plan that will make Saanich more livable and safe.

We're already behind in this regard. There's a lot I'd love to speak to with my limited time on housing density. I think it's plainly apparent obviously Canada's population is going to grow and Saanich, urban Saanich specifically will continue to be an attraction, active place for people to call home. How we plan the development of our city can turn that reality into an ever deepening crisis or it can turn it into an opportunity and that's what I would love to see. I think we can be ready for the growth, invite it and improve the quality of life for urban sandwich residents today and tomorrow. For streets that move people safely and effectively, housing diversity and affordability or at least relative affordability.

I think we've got a wonderfully unique combination of parks and urban core and it's just a pleasure to move through and spend time in. I think we, you know, this plant can help us strengthen that. I think concerns for our unique and threatened ecosystem are valid and important. I echo them. I believe that the plan gives us the flexibility to protect it. And I think we, you know, as citizens and as council, you know, have to continue to keep that pressure on and you know, hold developers feet to the fire on making sure that that is the case. I think, gosh, I just want to speed through here and make sure I get it all in my time. But you know, I live by Four Corners Village. I'm right by cooking Quadra the intersection. There are accidents here.

Sorry, I Shouldn't even say accidents. There are collisions here on a very regular occurrence. And yeah, I can hear them from my house. It's very common. When you see the design of the intersection, it invites speed, it invites conflict. It's a five minute commute on foot to the grocery store and all of the infrastructure around me on that route is screaming at me not to walk. You know, the, the infrastructure is telling me to take a car instead. And I think that's kind of the important takeaway here is that, you know, infrastructure can encourage a great diversity of transportation choice. And right now the only choice that I have when I leave my house is car. It's so unpleasant to walk along the stretch of Quadra.

There are buses breezing inches away from my shoulder when I walk Quadra north of my house. God bless these hard working crossing guards who protect the children at that intersection walking to and from school, which they ought to be able to safely do every single day. I just want to say the status quo roadways, in short, do not provide reasonable choice for options for transportation. I do bike and I do walk, but I do so against the support from the infrastructure. I think good infrastructure would instead support and encourage me to make the choice to walk, to bike, to take transit. It would be very, very disheartening to me as a resident of Saanich to think that this stretch of road, my connection to anywhere I might want to go, is not going to improve in the next 10 or even 20 years and that my choice will continue to be made for me.

Take a car. I don't want that. So yeah, I'll close there. I again just want to voice my support. I think, you know, this gives us the flexibility to achieve our ecological goals here. But more importantly, I think that the safety that is going to come with the ambition and the will to get this done, I think that's, you know, worth the whole package. Thank you very much. Perfectly timed. Thank you. I'll now look in the chamber. If there's anybody who wishes to address council for a first or second time. If you have new information, you'll be welcome to come forward again. Just need your name and address and you'll have a up to five minutes. And is there anyone online who wishes to address council for a first or second time? Okay, I'll call for a officially for a second time.

Although we all know it's been many, many more than that. If there's anyone who wishes to address council on the official community plan amended to include the quadrant McKenzie plan, this will be your opportunity to do so, please come forward or raise your virtual hand. And for a third and final time, if anyone wishes to address council on the draft Quadrant Mackenzie plan for adoption as part of the ocp, this will be your final opportunity to do so. Seeing no one in the room and no virtual hands going up online, I will now ask our turn it back to our staff as I've recorded a number. We'll consider public input closed. Ms.

Da Silva Standing, sitting there with bated breath saying, you have to say it, you have to say it. Public input is now closed on this matter. I'll now return to staff who were the presenters and applicants in this case, applicants on behalf of the district. I've recorded a number of questions and then I will turn to my colleagues for any questions that I may have missed that they would like to address the first one. And there's a memo that will help support information to address this question, but one that we heard many times this evening, including from representatives on behalf of the Song He's Nation.

And I want to to express my gratitude to those individuals for attending and making representation this evening. Mr. Scott, if you could provide us with an overview of the process to date. I know that there has been engagement with the Songhees Nation. I was included in part of that engagement along with Chief Sam. If you could provide us with some information about about that process and next steps. So to the mayor. So the process of engagement with the Songhees Nation has been more intense as of recently. Throughout the process, there was notifications and invitations to engage in the process that were sent to the Nation recently through the initiated, through the letter from Chief Sam was a. Was a number of meetings that took place.

So the mayor, myself, the cao, met with Chief Sam and following on that, there was two separate two additional meetings with staff from the Songhees Nation and Saanich planning staff, and additionally an additional letter from the Songhees Nation expressing their concerns, which is part of the agenda path.

So certainly we're pleased that we're able to start that dialogue and certainly there are opportunities to continue that through implementation of this plan and other processes. But more of the more direct communication has happened recently. I noticed that part of the request included the development of an action plan for ongoing engagement, and you referred to ongoing engagement as part of implementation. And I think probably also along with the urban Forest strategy and biodiversity conservation strategy or biodiversity strategy, I wondered if you could just speak to what that might look like and then what that means in terms of adoption of the plan into the official community plan to the mayor.

So potential future engagement with the Songhees Nation could happen through a number of different avenues. Certainly the implementation of this quadrant McKenzie plan, with that implementation strategy being directed by Council in terms of what exactly they would like to see in that. Right now, based on Council direction, we're updating our Agriculture and Food Security plan with a big focus on indigenous food systems as one of the core components of that update state. And certainly we have the space within that process to engage with the Songhees in terms of some of their cultural food values, and looking at ways that we can identify actions to include in that strategy, and then certainly the work that our Parks Department would be doing with the biodiversity conservation strategy and urban Forest strategy.

So there's a number of touch points where there's potential engagement to advance some of those initiatives. In terms of some of the broader concerns of the Songhees, a lot of those really are best addressed through a Saanich wide lens and oftentimes a regional wide lens, noting that our biodiversity conservation strategy did a lot of work to really identify those areas of greatest habitat value.

So that's really the work that we've been building on. Interestingly, of the habitat sites for all of Saanich that were identified is either habitat sites or habitat hubs, about 1. 1% of those are within the Quadra Mackenzie area. So it's an important area. And a lot of those values are really quite granular. But it's also important that there's to acknowledge that there's a number of other areas in Saanich that also have significant value. I understand that you may have drafted some language that could be included in the plan that might reflect exactly that, that there is ongoing discussion and with the Songhees Nation and any nations on whose territory the plans apply.

If you could share that with us. I think it may be helpful for Council's understanding, if there's an opportunity to include that, so that it does make explicit that there is an ongoing process and how those would be addressed through the Mayor. Yes, I can share that language of some possible policy additions that could reference that work that's being done. And certainly important to note that in previous Council meetings discussing the Quadrant Mackenzie Planning, Council did identify that ecosystem values should be prioritized as part of the implementation strategy. So this could serve for. Serve to further strengthen that. Okay, just when you say you're able to share it with us, is that something we're able to put up on the screen? I can send it to Ms. Da Silva and perhaps she can share it. Is that appropriate?

Okay, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

I think it would create some clarity for council on how we may be able to appropriately address some of the concerns and ensure that there is an ongoing dialogue.

It.

Yeah, there we go. I regret that I'm going to need it a little bit bigger than that in order to see it. There we go. Mr. Scott, if you could speak to it so through the mayor. So the two potential edits that are identified really reflect some of the major concerns that were identified by the songhis and further strengthen them. The first one is to add a goal. So in the initial goals in the plan, we have goals around housing, land use, transportation, and public realm. So really to elevate those values around environment and biodiversity, that first edit would add a goal there, and then the second edit would add a policy which would specifically talk about that future work and engagement that could be undertaken.

Okay, I appreciate that clarity. And the preparation of the draft language, if council chooses to amend to include that as part of the plan, not to suggest that that in any way is final or closes that chapter. I think conversely, or it actually provides an opportunity to be explicit that there will be ongoing dialogue in respect of the plan and others that have a direct impact. So that is just for council's consideration, and that can come up in the course of debate. I have a number of other questions that I will put to you now. Thank you for the clarity in respect of the concerns that had been raised by the representatives from the Songhees Nation.

As we were discussing the garry oak ecosystems, there was a question about the potential to protect properties with garrioke ecosystems. And you mentioned that that language. The council had directed that language be included and just wondered if you could reiterate that for folks who may not have been aware. So to the mayor. So there is identification of. Of special sites which pick up on the habitat sites and habitat hubs are identified in our biodiversity conservation strategy. And certainly a big part of those habitat sites is garrioke ecosystems. It's not the only habitat ecosystem identified, but the garrioke ecosystems are a big part of that. So that's our primary tool is leaning on that.

And then certainly some of the broader objectives we have in the plan would also look to that and look to really support that evaluation through the redevelopment process, which would come to council for consideration and of course, incorporate things like the tree protection bylaw and other things. Okay, thank you. There were a couple of comments specific to neighborhoods, one in particular that came up several Times was Craig Miller and wondered if you could address the contrast with Craig Miller and the immediate area where council did direct some, some changes, what that means in terms of the future land use.

And then maybe if you could just be clear about any changes, council would be in a position to direct this evening or rather if council can direct any changes in terms of the designations. So maybe addressing the. The first question or the second question around potential changes. So at this stage of a public hearing, should council wish to change use or density on any of the properties. So that could include changing the land use designations, then it would. A new public hearing would be required as part of this. So that's kind of a procedural consideration for council in terms of Craig Miller itself. The area area that's being referenced is the. The block between Craig Miller and Quadra. So Quadra of course being a frequent transit route.

Previous changes looked at the properties across Craigmiller, between Craigmiller and Kathleen and remove those from the plan area. So that is one of the areas of the plan where we have the narrowest band of the plan area close to one of the major core. So it's about just over 100 meters if you include the two properties fronting Quadra and fronting Craigmiller. So certainly those are the kind of properties that we look at as potential sites for additional transit proximate development with the frequent transit route on Quadra. And certainly we usually look at two parcels deep to allow for a reasonable development. I think a number of the concerns raised are something that could either make the development challenging in terms of some of the physical conditions on specific sites or in terms of the economics of assembling those parcels and other things.

So there would be the additional consideration that would come at the time of redevelopment and certainly the viability of each parcel for redevelopment would vary on. Depending. Depending where you are. Okay, thank you. And I think every member of council heard that any change to the designation would impact use and density and therefore would require an additional public hearing. The similar question was raised in respect of Chatterton Way. There was an individual who asked about removing the commercial aspects along Chatterton, wondered if you could speak to what's included there. And. And then I think the answer is the same in terms of changes. Yeah. Through the mayor.

So similar, similar response in terms of any changes to the use or conditions of use, I think would put us in that similar situation where we may be in contravention of that section of the Local Government Act. So similar considerations apply. Okay, appreciate that. Thank you. And Mr. Smith, incidentally I started by directing these specifically to Mr. Scott, but please, please don't feel that they were intended to only be answered by him. It is open to either of you should you wish, and if you can provide clarity, I will go now. I know that Mr. McKay is online and I wondered if he could address the comments that came up several times identifying anywhere from 6 to 10 news traffic lights that were going to be included on Quadra Street.

And that was new information for me, at least in the way it was described and wondered if you could clarify what's actually happening. Good evening, Mayor, Council. Thank you for the question, Mr. Mayor. On its map 4. 5, in the plan on page 66, the document that has the map of the existing and proposed signals on Claudia street, there are eight proposed locations. One of them overlaps at Lodge Avenue where there's an existing crosswalk. The majority of these would be enhanced crosswalks, what are commonly known as half signals. So a traffic light, but only for to allow pedestrians to cross the roads that are primarily to be lined up with future transit locations.

So people can take the bus and then cross the street to get to or from their destination. As they get on, off the bus, they would be coordinated with the other signals along the corridor. So the corner travel time would likely be only minorly affected by the addition of the signals and lots more connectivity for other users. Could you just tell me a little bit more about what's meant by a half signal? I wasn't totally sure what that meant.

Sure.

So we have an example right now is a McKenzie and Brayfoot. Where there is. You see the flashing green lights or where the Regional Trail crosses Quadra street just south of McKenzie, where there's flashing green lights and there the traffic signal is only. There's only half a signal. Then it's to stop the traffic on the main street. There wouldn't be a side street kind of green light that would remain to be a stop sign. I see. Okay. I appreciate that clarity. I didn't fully understand that, but I know very well the Brayfoot and Mackenzie intersection you're referring to. Okay. I suspect there'll be more transportation related questions, Mr. McKay, from members of council, but those are the ones I recorded.

So you're off the hook for now until I turn to my colleagues. I have, I think, one more. Oh, yeah, this one will be for our planners. Again, there was a comment about coordinating growth and development so people who work downtown would want to live downtown. So why are we also building places for people who want to work downtown? To live in Saanich. And I think the spirit of the question is are we coordinating with other communities about their growth and development and the implications of how our region is going to grow. To the marriage? Certainly there's regular communication with City Victoria, District of Squamil, District of Central Saanich, all the communities that border Saanich and as well as the CRD as well.

And certainly you may be aware that the CRD is developing a regional transportation plan as well. So those communications are ongoing and certainly we look to identify changes to roads or land use that are compatible with adjacent jurisdictions. Okay, thank you.

Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, sorry.

Yes.

If I could please get a motion to go past 10 o'.

Clock. Oh, sure. Oh, you think we're going to go

past 10 just to cover our bases?

I think Councillor Plant and Phelps Bondroff were movers and seconders. If I can call the question on going past 10. Those in favor and opposed? None are opposed. That's carried. Thank you. I also. It's just slipped my mind now, but thankfully I have this trusty cheat sheet to refer to. Oh yes, consultation. So there was a comment made specifically, a number of comments made about consultation, but one specifically about the consultation consultation requirements on the property that CRHC is redeveloping. And just hoping you can provide, if you're able, some clarity around what's required and if you could speak to the tenant assistance requirements that CRHC has and why the exemption from the non market for those particular. Sorry.

For non market housing providers. From that, from our policy to the mayor. So that's referencing the Capital Regional Housing corporation project on McKenzie. So for that project, that one, that project is consistent with our official community plan. So it did proceed through our rapid deployment program. Certainly looking to create additional non market housing units. Enter our tenant assistance regulations. Essentially non market projects are exempt primarily because they have their own policies and regulations to guide that. And the Capital Regional Housing Corporation does have that which looks at consulting tenants and looking for suitable places to relocate them. So there are some details involved in that, but that's primarily the responsibility of the Capital Regional Housing Corporation to work with their tenants to find the best options available, recognizing that anytime there's a redevelopment of these sites, even though we're gaining a large amount of additional non market housing units, that transition can be challenging for the existing residents.

Yeah, appreciate that, thank you. And it's not specifically germane to tonight's discussion, but as as five of us are representatives on the CRHC board, I did reach out to CRHC staff for clarity around the policy and relocation. And they are going to provide some information that we can convey to tonight's presenter who's also emailed us separately on that exact topic. Council. Those are the questions I've recorded. So I'll now turn to members of council who I who will likely have several questions for staff. And just a reminder that this is not the opportunity for comments, but just questions. We will be closing the public hearing in order to have a debate which is then the opportunity for comments. But first we need to seek clarity and I'll give the opportunity to members of council to do that.

The first speak will be Councillor Chambers, followed by Plant.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for everyone who's come out to speak tonight. And thanks to staff and everyone. My question is about litigation and it's about legal. And I'm wondering if there is.

Our lawyer is online to ask some important questions about Senate residents.

We do not have legal representation online, but you are welcome to ask some questions.

Okay, thank you. Well, I do think that would have been an appropriate thing considering the nature of the items that we're discussing here, which is these lands are subject to aboriginal title. And I'm wondering what kind of background legal work was done when Bill 44 was implemented without first nations consultation or public input and then it was early adopted by Saanich Council. And what I am wondering is what is the legal obligation of the district to consult in the absence of the parent local government doing it? Are we done downloaded the legal obligation or are we just expected to not adhere to a legal obligation as the province did not?

I think that's a very challenging question for staff to answer. Mr. Scott, if that's something you wish to address, you're welcome to. But I actually think that is a question that all local governments are currently attempting to reconcile. If that is in fact an obligation for local governments.

Thanks. That's not quite enough information for me at all. We're talking about. We're talking about disabled rights, we're talking about indigenous rights. And before we go forward with a plan that is going to impact those rights, I'm wondering if we have done legal. Legal work, are we putting Savage residents in legal harm's way because of things that are going to come up in the future which the first nations have shown? These trees are standing right now. They're standing there. They are proposed 40% of the growth anticipated. And.

Go ahead. Councillor phelps Bondor. Sorry, Mr. May I? Do me interrupt. But I do believe we're trying to focus on questions. And I know there's a certain. Obviously there's preamble required for questions, but I'm feeling that we're straying into rhetoric and it's putting our staff in a position of needing to answer multiple questions at a time, which I know puts them in a difficult position. So maybe you could direct my colleague to be more focused on her questions on this one. So. Point well taken. Councillor Phelps Bondraugh. Councillor Chambers. I'll just remind you that this is an opportunity for questions. And so if you have a question you wish to put to staff, you'd be welcome to do so.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. And you thank. Thank you to my colleague I'm just working on.

Councillor Chambers, you can address the chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I'm looking at you. I'm addressing you. I am saying to my colleague that I am getting to the question. Everyone else here at this table has the opportunity to get to the question. I would like that equal right as well.

So if you're prepared to ask a question of staff, you'd be welcome. If you have further comments, I ask that you please hold them until get to debate.

Okay. It's going to be like this. Okay, I will.

Councillor Chambers, I'm going to stop you. I find that comment quite disrespectful. The content and procedure for public hearings is always the same and is always clear. If you wish to deviate from that, I recommend that you bring forward a motion at a future meeting to amend the procedures bylaw. As chair, it's my responsibility to keep order according to the procedures bylaw. And if you take issue with that, you can. You're welcome to challenge the chair, but I am only following the procedure which has governed each of our public hearings.

Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor, I am just trying to ask a question.

And you're welcome to do so.

Thank you.

Are you going to ask a question?

I would like to.

I'd love to hear it.

Okay. So I am wondering what the plan is. If there is legal things. Has there been legal. Legal eyes on this document before it has been come to this stage? Because it does cross over aboriginal title rights and title and the rights of property owners and the rights of other rights that haven't been acknowledged. All I want to know with my question is how has there been legal eyes on this work before we have brought it to this stage?

Mr. Scott, through the mayor to Councillor Chambers. So certainly as staff, we're guided by the Local Government act requirements around consultation. So certainly that's been something that we've had in mind and we've worked with our internal. Internal solicitor to kind of guide this through the process and ensure we're. We're following the correct procedural steps.

Thank you very much. I noticed in the, in the many letters from the public and from the Songhees nations and from personal conversations with Chief Sam that they do not feel that they've been consulted with adequately about this plan. And so I understand what colleagues. Colleagues say. So I'm wondering if staff read those things that the staff and council read that the first nations do not feel consulted with. They do not. And that these cultural landscapes that they're talking about are associated ecosystems. They're not like, essentially like gardens for food. Security. Security. The whole thing is about it. So I'm just wondering about that. If you could please answer that question.

Yeah. Through the mayor to. To Councillor Chambers. So certainly we're, we're aware of some of those concerns they've expressed and certainly are. Are happy to carry on this conversation. As, as we've kind of, as I kind of noted before, I think there's a number of opportunities to address some of those concerns. And certainly, certainly we're happy to carry on that conversation. As it pertains to this, one thing that's important to note is this is not changing zoning, so there'll be additional decisions required by council before any development proceeds. Additionally, this is a living document that can be adapted over time. So if there's additional information that arises, there is the ability to make revisions as we go along.

Thank you very much for your answer, Mr. Scott. And through the mayor, I do believe we can, you know, come back to certain elements when we're rezoning land. But rezoning land is not the only way that trees get cut down. So I was talking about a more precautionary principle as this area is anticipated for 40% of the population of the rapid development and 20% of our trees exist in this area. I'm wondering. And those trees are, you know, those trees are the ones that are coming down on Mackenzie. They're the ones that, you know, that are. There's road allowances being given for bike lanes. They're in the path of mature Garry oak trees.

And I'm wondering what the plan is for these ecosystems which the Sanghes nations and others says that Saanich is not identifying as cultural landscapes and that that is not respecting aboriginal rights and titles. So I just want to know what your feeling is on that

point of order. Go ahead, Councillor Devries. I think it's inappropriate to ask staff what their feelings are on something that is a political question and one that we will have to answer in. In debate. It's not a fair position to put staff in. Yeah, I, I agree and I, I think probably it was unintentional framing on the part of Councilor Chambers, but I'll give you the opportunity to restate the question if you wish.

Well, thank you. Thank you very much. I've been interrupted quite a few times tonight, so the words of my question have kind of fallen to the side. But I'm sorry I added the word feel. I didn't mean feel. I'm not asking how you feel. I'm asking about what you did. And if you could please answer the question I already asked without the feel.

To the mic. I really, I really started to do this, but are you able to repeat the question? Sorry, I just missed that, if you don't mind.

Yes. 40% of the anticipated growth in these housing legislation, Bill 44, is in the QMP. 27% of our forests lie in that area. Those forests are at risk of being cut. So 75% of those are on private property.

And right now, of the 530, 800,000 trees at risk right now, 27% of them are in the QMP. And we've just heard from Chief Sam that these are exceptionally important to Aboriginal rights and titles.

So I'm wondering what the plan is with those trees. We're going to remove them and then replant them and create this canopy with the new updated bylaw. How is this going to work?

Yeah, through the Mayor to Councillor Chambers. So one of the things that staff heavily relies on is the really rigorous work that was done as part of developing the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and the Urban Forest Strategy and the Resilience Manage Technical Committee that was part of that. So the habitat areas that are identified on there are the highest priority for preservation of ecological values. In terms of your numbers, about 27% of the trees being in this area. The data we have is a little bit different. This. This is about 7. 7% of the area total of Saanich and it has about 1. 1% of those habitat areas.

But all to say, those areas of greatest value are identified in the plan. Using that rigorous data from the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, is there an ability to do additional work to identify additional spaces that have not only that echo value, but cultural value? Yes, and that's something that can be layered into, into a number of our planning documents, including potentially the implementation strategy here. So there are areas that are flagged as special areas based on that rigorous work and the potential to identify more as time goes on.

Okay. After the interruptions, I. I'm a little bit shaken and I had a whole bunch of questions to ask and I want to know. I want you to know how intimidating it is to be interrupted when I'm a minority on this council. I'm done, Mr. Mayor.

Okay, well, if you have more questions, we can certainly come back to you account your. Our colleagues are always in a position to call a point of order if they feel that the order is not being kept. And I regret that it may interrupted the discussion, but it is my job as chair to maintain order in the meeting. Councillor Plant is our next speaker, followed by Councillor Brownhoff. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to ask two questions that I would describe as fairly simple, but just want to have them on the record. Said one of the. So the question is always through you. Mr. Mayor to staff.

One of the members of the public said that they felt that they've been dealing with this for eight years. And I just want to confirm that the QMP actually started in 2022 as a process by which we would pivot to corridor center villages starting with the QMP rather than local area planning of North Quadra Quadra through the mayor to Councillor Plant. The plan development process started in February of 2023. As I. As I previously mentioned in the presentation. Okay, thank you. The other one, I just want to have it said out loud so we all are on the same piece of information, though I'm sure it's in many of the reports.

Can staff please provide a high level estimate of how many people participated in this process and how many pieces of information were provided? And I would offer that I see them as different because obviously someone could submit 100 pieces of information. So if staff have that ability of how many people participated and how many inputs we received, I'm happy. Mr. Mayor, if that's something that should be. Could be looked up and come back to. To wait a few minutes or. And because that's the cessation of my questions. Okay, Mr. Smith, if you need a couple minutes for that one, we can go to the next question and come back. Okay, why don't we do that. Councillor Brownhoff and Councillor Bryce will be next.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Through you to staff. There was a question raised about context within planning documents. And one of the things raised was natural assets. So I'm wondering. We have our asset management plan and we do have A natural asset part of that plan. So where does that fit within this plan? And is it something that we look at around development, especially like Swan Lake was mentioned, like buffers and the water table. So please.

Yeah, through the mayor to Councillor Brownhoff. So certainly one of the first things we do when we're looking at these planning areas is, is looking at the attributes that exist in the area and the assets. This area is quite unique as it does have things like Playfair Park, Swan Lake Nature Sanctuary, Christmas Hill, and certainly the land use designations that were developed look to be sympathetic to those assets, particularly the ones that were more of a natural state. Additionally, as I referenced before, the habitation, habitat sites and the biodiversity conservation strategy also have asset value from a natural perspective, even though they oftentimes reside on private land.

So those are the kind of the two main things and I think that the main ways that they're addressed in the plan is looking at ways that we can ensure there's sensitive development practices and then in the actual land use designations themselves in terms of the scale of development that might happen on or close to those parcels.

Thank you. Another question through Mr. Mayor staff. So we all know that the Garry Oak Meadow, the Garry Oak system is the most endangered, but even though we have a biodiversity plan and we have an urban forest plan, that doesn't help when a SMU or another development comes forward. Is there any way, and I think they would be classified as value trees. Is there any way that they could be protected more so that if an applicant comes forward, they want to put something, you know, redevelop their property? We would be able to say, well, you know, you got 10 Garry Oak here. We'd have to work with you on places on the site so that it's not just placement in the middle and you lose, you know, through the building envelope and service corridors.

Is there any way to really elevate the protection of the Garry Oak through development

through the mayor to Councillor Brownhoff? So certainly the most fundamental tool is the Tree Protection Board bylaw, which, which does identify the protected trees like the Garry Oaks and certainly the smaller caliper ones are given higher value. So that's, that's the primary tool in the context of a building permit for something like a small scale multi unit housing. In the context of a rezoning application, certainly council can look at a range of different considerations and, and they're evaluating each project on their own and have the ability to, to approve or not appropriate approved. So there's a chance for a more maybe nuanced evaluation as part of that rezoning process and can include things like, you know, changes to setbacks or you know, parkade structure amendments or things like that.

So those are the two primary tools that we'd use. And certainly some of the, some of the policies in here can help support the staff analysis and ultimately, ultimately recommendations to council. But certainly that, that would be part of the rezoning process. And, and as you're aware, there's often trade offs when we're looking at areas where there, there's higher density projects.

Thanks Mr. Mayor. One last comment then. It still doesn't answer the question about the garry oak and the endangered nature of that species and how, how we can protect them more. I thought under the legislation, SMU legislation, there was some opportunity for environmental protection. So if we had identified something, the site might not be as applicable for, you know, the four stories might only be applicable for duplex.

Is there nothing under the legislation about protection of environmentally sensitive areas?

Through the mayor to Councillor Brown off certainly with the broader small scale multi unit housing guidelines, that's not a kind of core element of that. There are other tools available to local governments such as development permit areas that can look at specific environmental features or strategies, streamside areas or things like that. But within the context of small scale multi unit housing zoning, that's not a core element of that zoning.

Okay, my last question is around accessibility and the process we use when we engage people. There are seniors and others that may not have computers. So how I know we've done in the past, we've had conversations, we've phoned them up, talked to people. How are we engaging those people that don't have the ability to one have a computer? Some seniors may be nervous having a computer. How do we engage those that aren't as accessible to the technology we're trying to use?

Yeah, through the mayor to Councillor Baranoff. So for our engagement we typically try to combine online and in person events. Certainly those can target different demographics and certainly busier families. Sometimes the online events are great, but for seniors or other groups the in person events are important. So we have our open houses and we try to make those accessible as possible. We also have pop up displays in the, in places like libraries where we, we kind of run into people in their daily lives. And then we also meet with stakeholder groups oftentimes who, who represent a broader segment of society, including maybe folks that aren't typically engaging in processes.

So certainly it's always something that we're looking to refine and even some of the comments from Ms. Berry around our webinars. I know that's something that we've. We looked at kind of amending our structure where we allowed people to speak at the end, whereas where some of the ones where we had larger attendance, we were just accepting written questions. But we try to adapt some of our practices as we move along as well.

And would that be something you could refer to our technical Accessibility Committee to get input on better communications with people that. Yeah, yeah.

Through the merit. Councilor Brown, I've certainly. If there's additional opportunities to get feedback that's something we'd welcome. As council has directed, we are looking at doing a review of the CCV planning. So that's certainly the engagement portion is one thing we're going to be looking at and that would be a useful resource for us to tap into.

Perfect. Thanks Mr. Mayor.

Okay, thank you Mr. Smith. I think you're probably ready for Councillor Plant's question, so I'll go to you. Yes, through the mayor to Councillor Plant. I'll try and keep this brief, but. So across the multiple phases including Phase 2B from October 23 to September 2024 all the way to Phase 4 which ended in December of 2025, total participants which included surveys in person workshops, open houses, webinars, emails and website engagement.

Total over 30,000 participants. This was split and resulted in over 17,700 comments including survey in person workshops, open houses and emails. Across 3300 survey responses. 12 pop up events, 8 in person workshops in open houses, 9 online webinar webinars, over 1100 emails to hello Sanich followers, 3 postcard mailers which resulted in 17,000, 19,000 and 21,000 residents. UVic post ring services, over 13 newspaper ads over or sorry 12 presentations given and additional stakeholder updates, outreach and communications. Thank you. Next to speak is Councillor Bryce.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. Through you to staff. One of the speakers from Craig Miller indicated that the plan had been changed from the first iteration to the final increasing density. And the speaker suggested that it came as a result of the removal of Kathleen and the implication being that it was then increased on Craig Miller to make up for perhaps some lack of density that was going to occur.

Could you comment on that series of events in terms of whether or not the density was increased and if it was, what triggered it? Thank you

through the mayor to Councillor Bryce. So the plan and the kind of land use map has undergone many different changes. Starting with workshops where some initial concepts were introduced and kind of evolved over time. Speaking of more specifically about the recent change around Kathleen, the removal of that area from the plan did not result in any additional changes to adjacent areas. So that was just a simple removal of that area from the plan and everything else was left the same as it was in that version of the plan that was reviewed by council.

So, and you said it, but I'll just ask you to say it again. There would not be any additional density in the Craig Miller area in the final version of the plan that had not been included in the previous. That is correct.

That's correct.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Next to speak is Councillor Phelps Bond. Thank you very much Mr. Mayor. Question through you to staff. One of the early slides in the presentation was just talking about how the diversity and variety of different plans and strategies Saanich has interact with the Quadra McKenzie plan. And I was wondering because we've been talking about the diversity conservation strategy and urban forest strategy, if staff would just return to that slide and perhaps just talk a little bit more about how these plans interact in slightly bit more depth. And I apologize for having to return slideshow back up again but I think it's important because often we look at these plans. I can vamp for a second while this being brought up.

We look at these plans as a panacea but in fact they interact with the diversity of other plans that we have. And a bit more detail I think might help assuage some people's concerns around potential gaps or things that this plant isn't doing. We don't necessarily need a slide I guess maybe just a bit more of an explanation on the interact fraction of different plans. Oh perfect. Through the mayor to Councillor Phelps Wanderhoff, the Quadra McKenzie planning framework as identified through these numerous plans up on your screen now work in conjunction and in tandem with all of the policies, the strategic directions that exist with all of these pre existing and future focused district wide Saanich plans and strategies.

What the QMP tries to do is to build off of those strategic directions at a more parcel level and provide further direction using these existing frameworks to provide a more granular level of detail when we look at the parcel level and the redevelopment process. Thank you very much. I think that makes a lot of sense. I appreciate that we're going from the broad to the granular. Very much appreciate it. Mr. Mayor, you covered a lot of the questions we heard from the public. There was a question that was asked. I don't think staff could possibly have the answer to this but it was asked and I Did want to repeat it, which was do we have any indication as to the impact of this plan and plans like it on things like utilities and property taxes in the long run?

Through the mayor to Councillor Phelps Bondaroff. Certainly plans like this help us plan for future infrastructure improvements. And by knowing how we're going to grow as a community, we can really put those investments in place. Certainly in terms of a bottom line number, in terms of how it would progress affect property taxes, that's tough to say. But it's also important to note that we do have our development cost charge program. So as new developments come on, come on board, they're required to pay a certain amount per unit towards development cost charges which fund things like new park space infrastructure upgrades, transportation upgrades that, that support that new growth.

And by and large, you know, the multifamily development that we're looking at is kind of more efficient on a per capita basis a lot of times in terms of being able to provide that infrastructure. Thank you very much. I have no other additional questions. Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Next to speak is Councillor Harper.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And through you I'm going back to Craig Miller here for a minute. Are you aware aware of the Saanich

Heritage foundation motion from May I will

read it to you if you are not.

It said that Saanich update McKenzie Quadraplan to reflect the following. Update land use to urban townhome low rise or lower in areas where a heritage designated property exists. So that was one aspect of it. Don't go away here. Incorporation of heritage designation on the future land use use map to provide greater clarity to developers. And three, update the land use on the west side of Craigmiller Avenue and the corner of Tattersall Craigmiller Avenue to match the east side of Craigmiller Avenue and Kathleen street to align the proposed future land use with Saanich's existing heritage policies. Have you been given that yet? Through the mayor to Councillor Harper.

I was not aware of that that motion and certainly one thing that's important to point out is any heritage designated structure could not be redeveloped unless there's approval by council and a heritage alteration permit or de designation. Well, let's pursue that a bit further

in order for that to happen.

Essentially it is if it's an expropriation,

if it's not a willing situation. So.

Okay, that's fine. I just wanted. But bottom line is you're not. You haven't had this sent to you before. So I think that's Something that we need to follow up on for sure.

The other question that I have, it was asked by several people and it was in respect to the university and

the suggestion that the university can just create additional housing. And I know their intention was to do that.

But am I correct in my understanding,

understanding that the university is only able to build student housing if the province allows them to do so because they fund it?

It's not like they can act in

as a free agent in this matter. Yeah, through the mayor to Councillor Harper. Certainly that's experiences that unless there's provincial funding to support that student housing, then it doesn't get built. And of course we're all aware of the experience recently with the change to the funding program there. But the provincial funding is a typical prerequisite of that housing being built.

And my final question really is around

affordable housing because we had a number of comments that the plan is not dealing with affordable housing.

But would it be a fair statement to say that we are having affordable

housing built in this area? For example, the Nellie McClung library would be one example, the example that was brought up nearer to the university.

And so can you just inform, I think everyone for greater clarity where they can get information on what the affordable

housing projects are that are being built in Sandwich?

Because there's a lot more than people

realize through the mayor to Councillor Harper. So that, that highlights the fact that since 2024, half of our development permit approvals have been for non market housing or affordable housing. So that's been kind of a really big success story in terms of identifying that housing need and providing the mechanisms to support it. In terms of finding information on that, there's a couple of different ways that that can be obtained. Certainly we have a suite of information on our, on our housing website. So encourage folks to go there and then with our, with our development tracker there you can see any projects that are in process.

Thank you.

That's okay. Thank you. If there are no other first time questions from members of council. That was weirdly worded. If members of council wish to ask a question who've not yet had the chance to do so, I'll go to you first. If not, I will go back to Councillor Chambers for a second time. Okay, Councillor Chambers, the floor is yours for any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. Mr. Mc, my question is, it is about the Bill 44 housing targets. And my question is through you to staff with the housing targets we've been giving. Our targets only become targets or counted targets on occupancy although I think there's other ways of looking at that. Now, after historic financial downloads by the province and the early adoption of the ocp with the current provincial budget downloads and us not making the targets, is there a reality that more infrastructure may not be funded by the province?

The province has already pulled back on some important house housing initiatives on our carap and different things. And so what I'm wondering is, do we run a risk of the province not funding the infrastructure that they have said they would?

Through the mayor to Councillor Chambers. It's tough to speculate on what the province will or will not do. Certainly the housing target still remains in place, so we're still working, working towards that. But in terms of the provincial funding mechanisms, it's, it's, it's hard for staff to speculate on what might happen with that.

Thank you through the mayor. Have we been close to meeting our targets? Have we met our targets? And if not, has there been any punishments or things that have happened as a consequence? Was there any consequence?

Through the mayor to Councillor Chambers. So as was kind of pointed out in the annual housing update that was given to council recently, staff have put in place a number of things, staff and council have put a number, number of changes in place to really work towards meeting those housing targets. I believe on the last update we were falling a little bit short in some areas, but also exceeding in some other areas. But also when you look at the long term pipeline, pipeline of housing, a lot of the, the potential units that will need to make those targets are in process right now. So certainly the province has indicated that they're, they acknowledge the efforts that Sanchez has made and, and our progress towards meeting those targets.

Okay, thank you through the mayor, if the province, because of the budget, if they were to back down on those influences, infrastructure commitments that have come, who will pay for the deficiencies in the infrastructure?

Through the mayor to Councillor Chambers. So I don't know if you're referencing specific infrastructure projects. Certainly as I mentioned before, with our development cost charges, there is the ability for new development to contribute to those amenities and infrastructure that's required for new growth. So we do have mechanisms at our disposal to help support that growth. Some of the larger investments from the province, as you've mentioned, around UVic housing or other things, I mean that's, that's hard to say what might happen with the province on that.

Okay, thank you. Well, thank you through the mayor, I'm just going to ask another question. And, and that is. It's not it. I'm Asking the question because I have been spoken to by the first nations several times about how they feel disrespected by being called stakeholders. And I'm wondering if there's any way we could change our language and planning from stakeholders to rights holders or. Because it's an insult to them. And I, I, I feel very, I feel very humble about that through the

mayor to Councillor Chambers. So certainly I did notice some of the speakers use that terminology today. Certainly at the staff level, we, we try not to use that, that language. It's, it's government to government relations. So certainly anytime something like that's pointed out out to us, we try to be respectful and, and kind of acknowledge the, the role that they have in the, in the community. And you know that what that language was used by some of the participants, but certainly at the staff level is something.

Thank you. Thank you. Well, just want the st. Our staff to use rights holders. Thank you.

Okay, if there are no further questions from members of council, we can give our appreciation to staff staff for all of the responses. We'll, we can now close the public hearing and I will turn it over to a member of council if they wish to put a motion on the floor and we can begin debate. Councillor devries, I'll move that the amendment to the official community plan bylaw to incorporate the Quadra McKenzie Plan and update the OCP land use framework to align with the Quadra McKenzie Plan and administrative amendments be approved. Okay. Seconded by Councillor Phelps Bondoff, please go ahead, Councillor devries.

Okay.

I recognize normally we would give remarks at second reading, but as is tradition, public hearings, we tend to do it on the, the first motion. I want to thank everyone who has participated in this process over the last several years. You've shared your input, your feedback, your feedback and perspective. Perspectives. And I appreciate the time, care and lived experience that people have brought to the conversation about the future of our community in the quadrant McKenzie plan through multiple rounds of engagement and this has resulted in several iterations. Each one, I think on aggregate has improved. On the last, albeit I haven't agreed with all the changes.

I agreed with some, but I think that's, that's, that's the nature of this kind of process is we're not going to agree with everything, but on balance we're going to get to the plan that's the right balance for our community. I also want to recognize that decisions about land, housing, transportation, change and growth are never just technical. These are decisions that touch on our history, our identity, our sense of belonging. And our shared vision for the future. Council has the responsibility responsibility to consider all of these inputs. It also has the responsibility to consider our entire community, including people who are not always present in the chambers.

Children growing up in our community, young people trying to stay in Saanich, seniors trying to age in place, families seeking stable housing that meets their needs, workers who support a local economy and future residents who will make a positive contribution to our community. The Quarter Mackenzie plan is the result of a lengthy planning process involving staff analysis, public engagement, revisions and a series of community inputs. It reflects years of work trying to balance important community objectives around providing more homes, supporting local services and and businesses, creating more walkable neighborhoods that have the amenities people are looking for, climate action and environmental stewardship, improving transportation options and choice and making more efficient use of existing infrastructure and making sure that we're planning for the infrastructure we need as we grow as a community.

The housing challenges facing our community are real. We hear regularly from residents of all walks of life who cannot afford to live here or are struggling to pay rent or their mortgage and are looking for amongst this uncertainty for opportunity to remain here in Sanich as their needs change and they go through different phases of life.

Doing nothing doesn't preserve affordability or opportunity. It simply limits who can live here. This plan is about ensuring that we recognize that growth will happen happen and that the question for us is whether is not whether or not people will need homes, but where and how those homes will be provided. Plans like this help us direct growth to the appropriate locations where people can live closer to the services, transit, parks, schools and amenities that support a quality of life. Beyond this, I believe that there is important intergenerational consideration before us. Decisions we make today will shape the opportunities available to future generations. We have the responsibility to leave behind a community that is affordable, inclusive, sustainable, livable and accessible to people of all stages of life and different income levels.

My decision to Support the Quadrant McKenzie plan ultimately comes down to a simple does this move us closer to Saanich where more people can find a home, build a life, remain near the people and places that they love and participate meaningfully in our community today, tomorrow and for generations to come?

Based on what I've heard through this process and where we're at with this plan, the answer is yes. Yes it does. And I'll be voting to support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor DeVries. Before I go to the seconder with the opportunity to provide provide motivational remarks remarks to motivate, they don't have to necessarily be Motivational, Inspirational maybe. I just wanted to seek clarity from staff. This is a procedural question, not a question on the bylaw. If a member of council, myself included, wished to incorporate the recommended language from Mr. Scott in response to the concerns regarding raised by the song, he's would the appropriate opportunity be to move an amendment before second reading or as amend this initial motion so that it's incorporated?

I think an amendment to this motion saying something along the lines of that the amendment to the official community plan bylaw to incorporate the Quadra McKenzie plan with the concerns of the song East Nation or however you would like to address it, do an Amendment to Councillor DeVries motion.

Okay. I appreciate that advice. Thank you. I'll give the seconder the opportunity to motivate on the main motion. And then as you probably would guess, I will seek a motion to amend to include the language recommended by our planning department Councillor Phelps Bondoroff. I'll turn it to you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm glad you asked that question. That was something I wanted to explore. I did also want to flag that I have a motion arising once we've concluded. Okay. So I want to also thank everyone who came out to speak. This has been a long process and we've had, as we've heard from staff, thousands of records.

Residents participate in a wide range of different consultative processes, whether it was town halls or open meetings or surveys going to a pop up. And that's really appreciated and also huge thank you to staff. You guys worked amazingly hard on this plan. It's been a long process and it really does need to be said over and over again that staff works incredibly hard for our amazing community. Community planning is a complicated process. As we've seen throughout this process, it involves people from different walks of life and different backgrounds and different perspectives. It's full of disparate views and different visions and different values that sometimes dovetail into something beautiful and sometimes clash because they're incongruous with each other. And the process is something that involves compromise and balancing.

We have to balance different visions, different values with those of existing residents while considering the needs of future residents and the future needs of our community as a whole. These exercises have been. These exercises must have us take a long term view of our community. We have to step away from our positionality, whether it's on one corner of a street or one house. And we need to look at what will do good for our community in the future. We need to have that long vision and we need to think about what is going to Help maximize the happiness and the well being of future residents as we move towards the future, because it's obviously coming.

Saanich is growing and we need to plan for the future. This means that we need to plan how we manage land use, how we manage transportation for a growing district, and we need to ensure that our residents have access to a wide range of amenities. This plan incorporates a wide range of perspectives and a number of different iterations that we've seen. And it's been an extensive process. We've had an iterative process that's been adjusted over time, that's incorporated feedback. And I think that the participation of our residents throughout this process really shows that people care about our community and they're passionate about its future and the direction it's taking.

We also live on an island and we're in a community that rightly respects the urban containment boundary. And that's also, by the way, very critical for protecting rural sandwich and critical farmlands. And so we know that if we're growing and we are growing, that we must grow up and then we must plan how we grow up and that growth must be managed. This is what this plan is about effectively. And what we need to do is we need to design a plan. And I'm hoping this plan provides for walkable, compact communities where the things that people need are close by. So we have centers where people can go and drop off their kids for childcare, visit a doctor, get their groceries, meet their friends for coffee.

We have corridors where people can travel using a wide range of safe, convenient, sustainable and affordable transportation options to get to where they want to go safely and sustainably and affordably. And we have housing that meets the needs of a diverse range of people. Because Saanich is beautifully diverse. Housing diversity means that we have different types of housing for different people in different stages of their lives. We are still in a housing crisis, friends. Saanich has made progress to tackling that housing crisis and I'm very proud of what we've done. But we have yet to hit our housing target and our provincial housing targets are yet again only 75% of our actual anticipated need for housing in the district.

We still hear that the vacancy rate for three bedroom units is zero. We still have people couch surfing, living in vehicles, commuting astronomically long distances because they can't afford to live close to where they study or where they work or where they play. We have people in dangerous living situations where they are living in danger situations or with people they don't trust because. Because they can't afford the alternatives. Growing communities like ours need diverse housing to give these kinds of folks housing options and to give people and growing families housing options. We need housing for students who are looking for an affordable unit. We need housing for young couples who are looking to start a family, for young families that are looking to grow, and for seniors who are looking to downsize but stay in place in the communities that they clearly love and we love to have them in.

And we need housing for professionals that want to come and help provide desperately needed services for our residents. I think this plan helps balance all these different needs and perspectives and it presents a reasonable vision for the future. It's a, you know, insaniture we face and people have heard me talk about this many times. A poly crisis, we have a climate crisis, a housing crisis, an affordability crisis. And we're growing. And that means we need to grow in a way that addresses these challenges. We don't turn our face from them. We don't hide our head in the sand, but instead we directly engage our plans in solving these problems and providing housing for our, our residents. We can't ignore these challenges. We need a plan.

Now perhaps this isn't a perfect plan, but it's a workable path forward as we work to help grow Saanich. So I'm going to be supporting the QMP for these reasons because we need folks to have affordable housing options, safe transportation options and we need to manage growth in our community in a way that helps foster well being, happiness and the well being for all of our residents.

Thank you.

Okay. Well timed. Thank you Councillor Phelps. Bondroff. Okay. Because it would give bring me comfort, as I'm sure it might, other members of council to ensure that the recommended language is included. I'm going to move an amendment to the motion that's currently on the floor so that after the words incorporate the Quadra McKenzie plan, we add including the addition of policy language in response to concerns raised by the Songhees Nation as recommended by planning staff. Thank you. I don't think there's need to motivate further on the point. I think it's important. I appreciate the recommended language from staff. I think it appropriately reflects the concerns and most importantly ensures that there will be ongoing engagement government to government engagement in respect of this plan and those all of the plans that have direct implications for the issues that have been raised.

Councillor Devries, you have the opportunity to speak to it if you wish as the seconder move that we call the question. Okay, is there a seconder to call the question on the amendment. Is that. Are you seconding? Oh, okay. Is there a seconder for calling the question on the amendment? I think you're right. There are no other speakers, so it. It resolves itself. You wish to speak to the amendment? Not to the amendment. Okay, I will call the question on the amendment. Adding those policy. The policy language that staff recommended. I just want to confirm. Are you planning to speak to the amendment? Not to the amendment.

Okay, those in favor of the amendment and opposed? None are opposed. That carries unanimously. Thank you, counsel. I will go next. So, councillor Brown off, you indicated you wish to speak to the main motion as amended, and I saw that happen initially. And then I will go to councillor chambers. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I saw your light blink first. So are you deferring to councillor chambers? Okay, okay, Councillor Brownhoff, I'll go to you because I saw your light go first and then I will go to councillor Chambers. We're back to the main motion as amended.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I want to say, you know, there are reasons, in my opinion, why this plan was not received to the level of support that I'm used to when Saanich does regional engagement. We've held numerous engagement events and throughout those sessions we've constantly heard the same concerns. Infrastructure, budget pressures, environmental impacts, parks and overall quality of life. We've also heard repeatedly that this plan feels a little bit too ambitious at this time. The introduction of the 15 minute city concept through these proposed hubs brings increased density and commercial activity into established neighborhoods along defined land use corridors. I understand the intent, reducing car dependency, improving sustainability and creating mixed use communities.

But the question we needed to ask is, does, did the residents in these neighborhoods actually ask for this level of density and change, or were they simply asking for a smaller scale amenity like perhaps a neighborhood coffee shop or a gathering place, similar to what we've already done through rezoning.

One resident wrote that the province's housing legislation already allows for four to six housing units on single family and duplex lots. Should we not first allow time to see how these changes unfold over time over the next five years? There's also concern, and this came out a few times, around the designated land use corridors and how some of that density is rolling into neighborhood neighborhoods as opposed to strictly staying on the corridor. There was actually a letter from a resident who said we should have a discussion on this for the greater community to understand. Another major issue raised by residents was around parks and green space. And I agree.

Why doesn't this plan identify meaningful targets? With increased density, there's going to be need for more access to natural areas. Residents live in these communities every day. They experience the realities of traffic safety, neighborhood character and social connection. Future planning needs to generally include residents similar to how we conducted former local area plan process. We shortened the engagement or this one took longer. But when council gave the terms of reference, the timing for engagement was shortened.

So it's important that to get broadly supported and to help create healthier neighborhoods. Change can create uncertainty and anxiety for residents. We must be willing to, and we have in some, some situations, compromised, negotiated and work towards solutions that balance growth with livability. For me, I want to give residents something they can truly be proud of. Communities that enhance neighborhood character, strength, connections and improve quality of life rather than developments people fear will overshadow their livability in their neighborhood neighborhoods. For that reason, I can't support the motion. I would have supported a motion to pause so that we got more information and more engagement with Songhees and provided some education as well around the corridor designation.

Not engaging the public on what that really means, I think has a terrible, terrible impact on the anxiety. So, thanks.

Okay, thank you. Next to speak is Councillor Chambers.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bear. I will not be supporting this motion tonight. Of course I support the first nations consultation. This has been the whole point. This has been eight years. This is full circle. Two terms of. First we went from, from COVID public out of the chambers. Developer recommendations, pause of local area plans last term. This term, the provincial legislation which was adopted by council 18 months ahead after extreme opposition at a public hearing. All three readings were made in one night. It was what I consider one of the most heartbreaking things that has happened this term. There's two things that have happened.

The not restored environmental protection on private property, which would have absolved all of these problems, and the decoupling of the local area plans, which were the beating heartbeat which captured over 100 years of civic engagement. And you know, the fact that those are no longer the guiding document that we have sort of, you know, we. Everything now is about the oscp. The OCP is, like I said, it's without the local area plans as a guiding document. And I do not consider the OCP an ocp. I consider it an odp, an official development plan. And I am not in support of this path forward. And I am not in support of the rush, the partisan politics, the rush, the decision making that has gone on this term has really, really been hard.

We talk about a healthy Saenich healthy environment. A sustainable signage without environmental protection on private property is a dream. It's a dream. We are putting at risk over 538,000 trees inside the urban containment valley and thinking we're going to raise it to 44% canopy with I don't know what the percentage is about the less space to create that canopy. So really the rubber's really on the road and I'm not voting for this. I'm willing to lay my whole reelection campaign on this because I this hundred years of civic engagement. These people think the local area plans comprised of my mentors in Saanich, the people who helped to create our hundred kilometers of trails, 171 parks, the Saanich green belt, these things that I've lived my life by for the last 35 years, long before I was a counselor.

For me, becoming a counselor and being in a position of leadership to try and increase regulation on the environment and to protect what we love here in Saanich has just been absolutely difficult. There is a lot of forces at hand. I called them out last term, I will be sharing them soon. I called them out and they have had an impact. And what I would like to talk about is the state of the residents. So I brought forward a motion not long ago about restoring public input at the onset of development within the, within a non statutory way so that we are keeping within the legal bounds.

I truly believe if we would have started that way. Bill 44 has not expedited development, it has delayed development, it has not made life more livable, more sustainable or more happy. Saanich residents, residents have felt a lack of control, of powerlessness. They are being implemented and these plans that are being legislated are basically being downloaded onto taxpayers. And I stood up for residents. I did not surrender our municipal authority or the reasons why the decisions that I was elected to make on behalf of the residents, I've been making, making those decisions. And yeah, they're hard decisions. And saying no is not fun. And it's not been a party and I'm not on a party, it's not a party. And you know, I made those hard decisions and I am accountable to those decisions.

And I can speak and I can look every first nations chief and every elder in this territory in the eyes and I can speak about every vote. And I really believe that my work has protected the decisions that I've made, have kept us within the legal bounds. And it's up to council on everybody has their own vote. My vote will not be in favor of this. And I do really believe that if we had more civic engagement with the Songhees, we could have made a better plan because. And I'm going to speak again.

Okay. Next to speak is Councillor Harper.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

And I also want to thank not

only everyone who is here tonight, most

of whom have fled, and I can certainly understand how that could be, but

also the thousands of people who, in fact, participated throughout the whole process. And it is humbling, in fact, to

have had such a significant amount of input on the this project.

And I think it shows how much

all of us care about the community

that we live in. And I will be supporting.

I will be supporting this going forward.

I see it as a living document which guides the future of the community. Is it perfect? Of course it's not perfect. If I waited for perfection, or if

any of us waited for perfection, nothing

would ever get done. But because it's a living document, this is a start.

And I see that many amendments, as was acknowledged here tonight by a few of the speakers, have already been made.

And I can see that we should

be considering some future amendments, but this

is not the time to be able to do that.

So, for example, the questions that I asked about Craig Miller as liaison to the Heritage Committee, and realizing that staff weren't even aware of the motion that

came from the Heritage Committee, let alone

the community, I will be pursuing that matter should this go through subsequently. I'm also the liaison to the Economic

Development Advisory Committee, which both supports business being part of the plan and being

placed in appropriate locations, but also are

very concerned about the ability of workers to live closer to where they work,

so that they definitely support a diversity of housing types, which is what this plan ultimately would provide and would provide. But also they are concerned that in

addition, by doing this, we might create the potential for more young people to

decide to stay in our community.

Because the reality is right now we have a different missing middle than we often talk about.

And that missing middle is really the 20 year olds to the 40 to

45 year olds who are not staying

after they finish university and are not here to provide workers and services that

we all want to have. And I think part of that, in

terms of the presentations that we had tonight, it was enlightening to see what one could describe as a generational divide.

And the views on both housing and transportation are quite different. But given that the. This is a very long term plan, over time this will all sort of blend together.

But I think about one of my

near relatives who lives in the community and until a few months ago lived

in saanich while attending UVic.

And for a variety of reasons, he

and his partner have now moved to a different part of the community so that they can have appropriate places to

live and will be busing to Uvik every day. And the reason that I raise this

is he illustrates a very different attitude

than most of us who grew up

at different times towards the automobile. He's 21 years old, he doesn't have a driver's license and he doesn't want a driver's license and he certainly doesn't want a car. And they don't think twice about taking the bus everywhere. So I think we're in a period of transition and transition is always extremely

challenging and can be difficult.

But I think we're trying to navigate

our way through it, to find a way that will work both for the people who are currently here and for the people who will be here as

we mature and grow as a community.

So I think, as I said, not perfect, but it's definitely at the point

where we need to move forward on this so that there can be some certainty in the, the community about how we're going to be moving forward. So I hope my colleagues will support the plan.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Harper. Next to speak is Councillor Bryce.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Colleagues, we've gone through a long process and I too want to acknowledge all the amazing public input, all the staff support and the work of everybody around the table here. I hear the word balance.

I hear it from colleagues tonight, I hear it from the public. And then I hear the plan is too dense or the plan is too watered down. So I think maybe we've found the balance. It's all from a perspective of the individual who is looking at the plan in some respects, going into this process and talking about 20 and 25 year plans. It almost to me is too overwhelming for us to get our heads around. And I think there's no point in getting hysterical about something that's in a plan, because nothing is going to happen until council makes it happen.

There are going to be versions of this plan that are revisited over the years, just as we revisited the Shelbourne plan, which had at one time been concluded. So it is what it is. I think that. But any sense that it's going to change life dramatically, I think is not accurate. I think it will be a guiding tool. Future councils will take a look at it, see if it's working, if there's changing circumstances, depending on the economy. Depending on changes that will occur, we can speculate about what the next 20, 25 years are going to bring.

But we even look back over the last decade and we see some humps and bumps and good times and bad times that have happened. This will give our community a, I think, a good guide. I don't want to oversell it because I don't think it is the absolute blueprint for everything that's going to happen in this area. It will work or it'll be revisited. And I guess at this stage I can say I am prepared to give it my support, because I don't think that going back and spending a lot more time at this stage of the game is going to change things too much.

Were there things that I would like to have seen changed?

Yes.

I tried throughout the process to not only suggest them, but to support colleagues who raised good suggestions. And I think we did make a difference. I think that the community at large recognizes that as well. Some folks are still disappointed, so we'll see, you know, where that goes. But my feeling is, at this stage of the game, I'm prepared to say that the document is one that I'll be supporting. I think it will give some good guidance and direction, but it's not prescriptive and it's not infallible. We have to look upon it into the future as something that a future council will say, boy, we sure missed the mark there. Let's go back and revisit that. And I have confidence that they will.

So at this stage of the game, it has my support. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor Bryce. Councillor, it doesn't appear that there are any other speakers to the motion. So if you're ready for the question. Councillor Chambers, you wish to speak again? Yeah. Okay. Well, since you've now just turned your light on, I can turn it over to you to speak, if you wish.

Thank you very much. It isn't an easy night to speak. As you can see, there's a lot of differing views at the table. For me, passing the QMP tonight is not a legacy of the term. In fact, it is quite the opposite. And for me, the decoupling of our local area plans last term, they were a top initiative. And through lobbying from the development community, they were paused. And that pause was supposed to be temporary, even though I voted against it and it did not. It was not temporary. And for me, those founding documents of the municipality were critical to who we were, who we are and where we're going.

And this last two terms, it's Been like Humpty Dumpty sitting on a wall and basically Humpty Dumpty had a big fall. And basically those local area pounds and lots of our other plans were superseded by this Bill 44. And these shells have shattered on the ground. And many people have felt that. And when you're engaged in local area planning for 30 years of your life and then those plans are taken away without your knowledge, you go into a public health order and things are slowed down and you come out into a health order with corridors and villages and come out with centers, corridors and villages without notice.

And that is how. And I understand the community's upset and anger and I have worked full time listening and understanding that and I have brought those interests to council. And so the local area plans being dismantled, decoupled was like place breaking to me and part of those shells. So for me, I know there's a lot of. And this is not a criticism to staff, this is about an institutional memory that I have had of the district for 30 years. And I came here from UVic. Inspired by sustainable Saanich and removing environmental protection on private property has thrown sustainable Saanich in question. The adoption of the so sand and Bill 44, I no longer believe that we have sustainable Saanich.

We have changed from preserving our environment to replacing the environment without guarantee or guarantee of funding or guarantee of a future council saying yes. So I will not be supporting this. And this is not an insult. This is called institutional memory of where we've been and the aspirations of the public, the people blueprint. I'm respecting the public's blueprint for the future.

Councillor Plant, thanks Mr. Mayor and thanks to all my colleagues for their comments tonight. I've enjoyed listening to you as we've gone through several iterations and it goes without saying, but as somebody said last night, it's always best to say it if it goes without saying. The public who have in the thousands talked to us and even tonight we started with probably 100 people and while there's only five here. Thank you for being here and thank you probably to the hundreds who went home and are now watching online. This is never an easy decision when you make a decision that you find your community, some of whom are in favor and some are in opposition. So you have to then try and find your way forward.

I am given great confidence in the fact that this is an overlap plan. Nothing changes. Tomorrow every land use in the future will come to this council for a rezoning with the exception of Bill 44, which I'll talk about in a few minutes. So in that perspective, people who are concerned, I think we need to do our duty to make sure that the public knows that if this is adopted and given fourth reading at a future council meeting, what it means means today and what it means in the future. And I will be supporting it just so there's absolutely no drama here. I do acknowledge that there has been significant community pushback, but I think that requires a bit of chronology.

And as one of my colleagues has spoken about in the shift from ocp, pardon me, lap to ocp, it's a little late. My brain's been on since about 7am this morning for school.

School.

We'd made the decision and it wasn't unanimous. I accept that. And it is true though, that in the 2022 phase we started saying we weren't going to continue down the path of laps. We were going to switch to a different form of doing planning in CCVs. And so in 2022 there was an election and we adopted prior to that, in the spring of 2022, the OCP. So for anyone who has concerns that we adopted our OCP a full year and a half before the province required it, I would just offer that Saanich was already doing an OCP review. That's why we didn't just delay it, we had started early. And so I don't feel bad that we adopted our OCP in the manner we did, certainly can appreciate there will be disagreement about that, and that's okay.

The Bill 44 didn't come into effect until late 2023, a year and a half after we had adopted our OCP. So when you think of timelines, that's important. That all being said, the shift from doing the planning in our community from laps to OC ocps has created for some upset and I respect that's how it works. But as a member of council who has been here for 12 years, I can assure you the laps, while there was value in them, were not going to get us the best excuse the expression bang for our buck of having staff time revisit them an area at a time and taking likely five to 10 years to update them.

Doing the OCP renewal and the review was a far more effective use of time. And for people who were sad that we decoupled them, they still are appendices, they just don't have bylaw status. They are still guiding documents, although not enforceable. So from my perspective, the upset that exists in this community is because we did that differently and then we switched started probably with the biggest CCV we could have. We didn't. I mean, the Shelburne Valley plan was kind of already landed and we know that the Burnside Tilikum is coming. But it is accurate that we will learn from this process and Mr. Mayor's motion halfway through the process to ask staff to give us guidance on how to do it differently or not do it differently. What we've learned will be useful.

I do think it's important to acknowledge that the community is not always going to agree with the decision of council. However, this is a council that has listened and has had years of input, and those people who disagree are entitled to that. And that's how our process works. And even amongst ourselves, I think it is accurate when we have disagreement. And I try not to get too caught up in upset because I think it's based on people loving their community. And so everybody who comes here comes to us with what they think is best for the community. And we have all been elected by the public to do that.

And I think by advancing this plan with the caveats that that exist, we are maintaining what the public has sent us here to do. Thank you, Councillor Plant. Before I call the question, I'm just going to offer a few closing remarks on Quadra McKenzie plan. I'll obviously be supporting the adoption. I just wanted. Councillor Plant, I don't say this to undermine any of the comments you made, and I completely agree with your comments in respect of the ocp. Just to correct the timeline, the terms of reference on the OCCP strategic update were approved in March of 2022 and council adopted the OCP on May 7, 2024.

And that did, as a result of that timing, incorporate the changes that the province introduced in the fall of 2023. But that's still a two year process. Two years and two months. So there was nothing rushed about the adoption of the OCP. But I'm not here to talk about the OCP, even though we're amending it to incorporate the Quadrant McKenzie plan. I'm here to speak in favour of adopting this plan, which has been quite a journey. I was reflecting on it this morning, thinking about the likelihood that the plan would be adopted tonight and how it is unexpected that In June of 2026 we're still talking about the Quadrant McKenzie plan.

And I can remember myself very clearly saying In October of 2023, when we received the draft and we were about to go out to a more a larger engagement process, saying, I sure hope people get involved in this process. Wow, did they ever. And it was probably not the type of involvement I was hoping for, but I am very pleased that people got engaged with the document and have been continuously engaged throughout the process. It doesn't include everything that I had hoped it would, but I, I do think it's still a very forward looking document that's going to serve the district for many years. As we, as we navigate growth, how we, how we're going to ensure that people can find a home that meets their needs and fits their budget, that they'll have access to the services and amenities that they rely on to build a life.

There's a lot that's been learned about this process. I don't think we will ever do another corridor planning process quite like Quadra and McKenzie because we've learned a lot about what works and maybe what needs to be improved. And I know you will all be in receipt, if you're here next term, of a report from staff that will outline some of the changes that they recommend about that planning process. But I find myself in reflecting on this as sort of one of the final significant policy pieces that we'll be adopting this term, still feeling a sense of pride for the work that's gone into this, the forward looking initiatives that are included in it.

And I think that it is something that while it will probably be amended many times over and probably be replaced, that's just how policy works. But I think that what we've landed on does its very best to reflect a changing community, one that is certainly in a state of transition and transformation, but one that I know will continue to be a place that people feel so proud of and that they love so very much because of its natural beauty and the incredible people and places that serve around us here.

I've now lost my train of thought. There was one other thing I was going to say about it, so I'm probably going to regret that I didn't have the chance to say it. But with all that being said, I do think that this plan is one that we should feel really proud of and I look forward to seeing the future changes that this council will direct, or future councils will direct under the guidance of this plan. Oh, it's come back to me. I'm glad I still have a moment to cover it. I wanted to speak to the importance of incorporating the policy language that we did by the amendment and thank you council for supporting that unanimously.

As your mayor, it is so important to me that we have a respectful and meaningful relationship, government to government, relationship with the nations on whose territory Saanich resides and Saanich residents reside. I think that while this policy language does not resolve all of the issues that were raised, what it commits to is an ongoing relationship and discussion to ensure that that is respected and that we can remain responsive to the issues and concerns that I think the Songhees have very thoughtfully articulated.

So I'm grateful that that's been incorporated here and look forward to the next steps that that will engender. Okay, I am out of time and out of words. I am going to call the question. Those in favor and opposed? Councillors Chambers and Brownoff are opposed. The motion carries. Could I look to Councillor Devries to make the motion for second reading that bylaw number 10298 be given second reading? Okay. Moved by DE and seconded by Phelps Bond. As I think we've all motivated on adoption. I will call the question on second reading. Those in favor and opposed? Chambers and Brown off are opposed. The motion carries.

Councillor Devries, that bylaw number 10298 be given third reading. Same mover and seconder on third. I'll call the question. Those in favor and oppose. None. Pardon me not none are opposed. Councillors Chambers and Brownhoff are opposed. The motion carries. I will just confirm with our staff that the only remaining motion is for adjournment. So moved. I just want. Oh, there's a motion arising from Councillor Phelps Ponderoff just on the topic of the Clara McKenzie plan. As we have not moved the motion for final reading. Counsel cannot receive any. Any additional information on this topic until it has been adopted, which will occur with final reading at a later date.

You're welcome to talk to each other, you can talk to staff, but you can't talk to council until we've gone through final reading. Councillor Phelps wander off. Your motion arising. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to move that we refer accessibility and our engagement process to the accessibility administrative technical Committee, which I am liaison. Is there a seconder for the referral? Second Seconded by Councilor Phelps. Sorry. Councillor Brown off. Councillor Phelps. Bondroff, the floor is yours. I won't motivate very long. We heard from a couple of residents that flag concerns around accessibility for our engagement process. I know we can always do better.

And this is our technical committee which is well positioned to do this. Staff's already mentioned it's on their radar, but I think we might as well formally direct it to that committee. And we always want to make sure that our residents can engage with our engagement processes in a way that's acceptable. So I think this is just a helpful step to have that committee, which is, I believe, meeting in a couple of weeks, and we can explore it on an ongoing basis. Okay, thank you, Councillor Brown off. You're the seconder. Did you wish to speak to it? No. Councillor Chambers.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a question to my colleague who just made the motion arising. Will this be a committee that will be able to adopt the disabled rally and cry?

Councillor Phelps Bondorf, if you're able to provide clarity in response to that question. This is the Accessibility Administrative Technical Committee, so I know we have terms of reference. I don't have them on the top of my head, and I don't know, I can't speak to that necessarily, but. But I do know that it's likely. No, I can't speak that this late hour, but it's something we can look up because it's in the terms of reference of the committee. Thank you.

Oh, thank you. Well, perhaps maybe you could let council know, just. Just if that is within the terms of reference, just so I can let the public know.

Okay, thank you. If there's no other comments on that motion, I'll call the question. Those in favor and opposed? None are opposed. That's carried. Is there a mover to adjourn? Thank you, Councillor devries. And seconded by Bryce on adjournment. Those in favor and opposed? None are opposed. That's carried. Thanks, everyone. Have a good rest of the evening.