Transcript: Special Council - Public Hearing - 2026-08-11

Good evening everyone. Welcome to your Council chamber for Tuesday, August 11th. We are gathered for the purpose of a public hearing and to begin with a territorial acknowledgement and inclusivity statement. I'm going to turn it over to Councillor westhaver. Thank you Mr. Mayor.

Good evening everybody. It is appropriate that we begin by acknowledging that the district of Saanich lies within the territories of the Lewanquin peoples represented by the Songkes and Esquimalt nations and the Weissanich peoples represented by the Sartlet, Pakuten, Sioux, Sachem 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 Councilor Westhaver. Now to take us through the procedures for the public hearing, I'm going to turn it over to Councillor Chambers who's our acting Mayor for the month.

Councillor Chambers, thank you very much Mr. Mayor. It is a very big privilege to be acting Mayor for this month and I'm on call for any of your needed assistance. Public input has always been an important part of our Council meeting agendas and is welcomed in person via email or written subscription submission or by video on Ms. Teams. For those wishing to address Council 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 a community association will be allow up to five minutes to address council regarding the application under consideration.

Any speaker may address counsel a second time for up to five minutes with new information. Once all first time speakers have had an opportunity to speak, the Mayor will call a total of three times for public input before closing. Public input this meeting is being live webcast and by participating in this webcast you are consented to 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 recordings 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 follows.

Number one Introduce introduction of the of the Bylaw Permit or application by the Clerk. Number two, staff will provide a presentation to Council. Number three, members of the public are invited to provide comment on the public on the bylaw permitter application being considered. Once the call for public input has been given three times consecutively, no further representation from the public can be considered. Number four, staff will be invited to respond to new information on factual matters raised by speakers or the public. Number five, the public hearing will be closed. Number six, council can receive no new information once the public hearing is closed. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councillor Chambers. So this evening Council has four items that we will be considering for public hearing. The first one relates to an OCP amendment to accommodate an update to mapping. The second one is a cannabis license application. And then items 3 and 4 are land use applications related to Tennyson and Feltham. For those of you who have not previously attended a public hearing, it's not like a committee of the whole meeting or council meeting. The input must be specific to the application in front of council. Council will only be considering adjudication of those specific items. Obviously, in the case of mapping, it relates to the maps. In the case of the cannabis application, it relates specifically to that license application.

And in the case of both Tennyson and Feltham, it is specific to the land use and density for those items. Other subjects, while they may be of interest, are not relevant to council's consideration this evening. So we ask that you please keep your comments focused specifically on the adjudication of the land use. I know that we're all going to treat each other with kindness and respect and we'll get through this together. We've got lots to talk about tonight, so we're going to get on with it. And I appreciate everyone's indulgence as we make our way through the many items for council's consideration as part of tonight's public hearing.

We're going to turn it over now to our Senior Committee Clerk, Ms. Da Silva, who can introduce the first item for us and take us through the order of events that will occur for that. Ms. Da Silva, over to you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The first item is a two part application. The first part is Official Community Plan Bylaw 2023Amendment Bylaw 2026, number 10304 to adjust the land use designation boundaries on Mountain Road. The intent of the proposed bylaw amendment is to adjust the boundaries of the parks and rural area areas land Designations for Section 77 Lake District, except parts and Plan 7667 and 2 4, 954-4692, Mountain Road and Lot A, Section 77 Lake District Plan EPP 113-866-4718, Mountain Road and address administrative errors in certain maps of the Quadra, Mackenzie and Shelburne Valley plans.

The second part of the application is zoning. Bylaw 2003Amendment Bylaw 2026, number 10305. Proposed rezoning for a land exchange on Mountain Road. The intent of the proposed bylaw amendment is to rezone a portion of Section 77, Lake District, except parts and Plan 7667 and 249. Sorry. And Lot A, Section 77 Lake District Plan EPP 113866, 4718, Mountain Road. Sorry, I've lost my spot. From the P4 Recreation and Open Space Zone to the A1 Rural Zone and rezone a portion of lot A, Section 77 Lake District Plan EPP 113866, 4718. Mountain Road. From the A1 Rural Zone to the P4 Recreation and Open space zone to support a boundary adjustment.

You'll notice that they left the script reading to the others because they want to make sure that I don't have a whole lot to say. Because I can sympathize with you, Ms. Da Silva. I'm very easily tongue tied when it comes to trying to get my comments out.

Okay.

Before I ask Ms. Da Silva to call upon any registered speakers, I don't know if there are any for this item. My apologies, we're not going to do that. We're going to go to the applicant first and then we will call upon any registered speakers for this item. In this case, we are the applicant. And so I will just check in with our staff to see if there are any. If there's a presentation or comments to be provided as part of the discussion.

There is a presentation from the crd. I see one person from the CRD online. I'm just going to see if Kevin is making the presentation tonight.

Perfect. There you go.

Okay.

A person in person. Wonderful. Thank you for joining us.

Thank you for having me.

Okay.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Jessica Arnott. I work in the Property and Real Estate department at the crd and I'm supporting our regional Parks department with this application. So just a quick overview of the subject properties. They were described, their legal descriptions were described. But just to visually give you an idea, the green area is the Syrtes Mountain Forest Regional park. And then the area outlined in black is 4718 Mountain Road. These are the two subject properties that we're working together. And so what are we trying to achieve? So I'll start with how we arrived at needing this application and then what we're trying to achieve.

So the crd, when the CRD acquired the property, we knew there was an encroachment onto the Mountain Forest Regional parkland. And it's a driveway. And so this was considered at the time of acquisition. And the intent was always to do an exchange of equal areas of land between the CRD and the neighboring private property at 4718 to fix that encroachment. And so the yellow area is what would be subdivided off of the regional parkland and would go to the private property owner. And the green area is what would be taken into the regional parkland. And I'll get into that a little bit more as well. The areas are each 0. 161 hectares, so there's no change in the amount of land that each property will have. It'll remain exactly the same.

So in order for this to happen, we need the support. We need support with the rezoning and OCP amendment for the lands to be exchanged. So, as described, the land being added to the regional park, which is in green, the zoning would go from a 1. Sorry, I have that backwards. The land. Yeah. The land being added to the regional park. Sorry, would go from A1 to P4 for zoning, OCP would go to rural park and vice versa. For the private property, it would go from P4, which would be the original parkland, to A1, and then for the zoning park to rural. So, fairly straightforward.

So the CRD acquired the land, which is now Mountain Forest Regional park, back In November of 2021, in order to purchase the land. It was a combination of regional parks, money from the Regional Parks Acquisition Fund, it was a partial donation from the seller, and funds were raised by Habitat Acquisition Trust. Also, the property was designated or was the subject of an ecological gift and has been certified as ecologically sensitive by the environment and climate change. So part of HAT's fundraising was predicated on the CRD's intention for the property to be designated as a regional park and to be managed as a conservation area. So part of that commitment, HAT registered a conservation covenant on the property.

And the covenant contemplated a few, like multiple things about conservation, that it would be classified as a conservation area, managed as conservation, but while allowing recreation in a manner that's compatible with the conservation. In addition, the covenant also contemplated that the land should not be subdivided, except that the CRD may Exchange a portion of land with the adjacent property owner, which is one of the subject properties, 4718 Mountain Road, for the purpose of providing access to that property. And there was this stipulation that the exchange could be no more than 0. 2 hectares of land. So we're well within that area. This is just to give a little bit more of a visual again of what we're giving up and acquiring. Again, the yellow area is what would be taken out of the park.

And as you can see, it's kind of hard to see, but there is an outline of where the driveway comes into the park. The picture in the top right hand corner with the dotted yellow line is the driveway that goes into the park area. And then in the bottom left corner of the Arbutus Woodlands is what we would be acquiring. So we're adding ecological integrity to the property, which is really great. And we're also relieving ourselves of the encroachment. Also, you'll notice that the yellow area kind of comes down one side and there's a very narrow strip at the back. The reason for that kind of orientation was so that we could achieve that equal area and so that we could acquire as much of the Arbutus Woodlands as we could. So that was kind of the.

Why it has that kind of a funny shape.

But yeah.

And in addition, we also have support, we have letters of support, both from the Ecological Gift Program and we have a letter of support from HAT saying that they are supportive of the land exchange. Yeah. So we checked in with them beforehand and everyone's good.

That was it. Okay, thank you so much. If that concludes your presentation, before I go to members of Council for any questions, I'm going to ask you to take your seat and I'll call upon any member of the public who may wish to address Council on the item. And then if there are questions, we'll call you back up to give you a chance to respond to them. Thank you so much. At this time, I will now look to Ms. Da Silva to see if there are any registered speakers on this particular item.

I do not have any registered speakers.

Thank you. In that case, if there's anyone in the chambers or online who wishes to address Council on the first item for Council's consideration, this will be your opportunity to do so. Please come forward. We need your name, address, and you'll have up to five minutes to address Council. If you're online, please raise your virtual hand and we can call on you. And if you're in the room, please Just come forward. I'll call for a second time if there's anyone who wishes to address council on the first item, which is the rezoning and mapping changes pertaining to Mountain Road. And for a third and final time, if there's anyone who wishes to address council. Seen and hearing none. I believe there was going to be a question from one of our councillors to the applicant.

So I'll call upon the applicant to please, please come forward and you can respond to any. I will close public input. Thank you for that point, Councillor Harper. A little out of practice when it comes to public hearings. They don't happen all that often. So you're correct. We'll now consider public input closed. I'll ask the applicant to respond to any questions that may come up from members of council. Councillor Chambers, I'll turn it over to you for questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and thank you very much for your presentation. I am just confirming a coup of points and I know it did say it in the readings, but I did want to confirm on public record that the covenant actually allows for this transfer and actually prescribed it acknowledges it when it was written. So can you please confirm that.

Yes, correct. There's a section in the covenant that specifically refers to the land exchange and it was preemptively thought of when at acquisition.

Now, if only all covenants were written like that. Okay, anyway, so that's great. And just a confirmation that now with the long skinny sort of cut off the end. Now we've included Arbutus Madrona, like ecological. A more robust ecological part onto where the driveway was. Is that correct?

Yes. So the area in green contains the Arbutus Forest area and the.

Yes, I think that's what you're.

Perfect.

It sounds really great. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Councillor Chambers, are there any other questions for the applicant from council seeing? None. Thank you for clarifying and at this point I'll ask you to take your seat. Council, if there are no other questions for staff, we will consider the public hearing on the item closed and I will look for a member of council to make the motion. Councillor Chambers, did you wish to do that?

Thank you very much. That the official community plan be amended to a update map 8 road network, map 9 truck routes, map 15 parks and map 16 trail works to address an administrative error that occurred at the time of adoption of the Shelburne Valley plan and Quadra Mackenzie area plan and B, adjust the boundaries of the parks and rural areas for Section 77 Lake District accept parts in Plan 7 6, 67 and 24 954-4692 Mountain Road and Lot A Section 77 Lake District Plan EEP 113-866-4718 Mountain Road and is there seconder.

Thank you, Councelor Harper. Councilor Chambers, I'll give you the opportunity to motivate. Just before we do that, Council, can we agree that all comments related to the application will come with the first motion so that we don't have further commentary as we move through. Just to keep things moving, Councillor Chambers, over to you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I'm very happy to move this wonderful project which is a real conservation legacy that includes a private gift, Habitat Acquisition Trust and the crd. And we've all worked together to protect this area. And this, this is a legacy and it's very, very exciting and I hope you all get a chance to go out there.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Chambers. Next to speak is the seconder, Councillor Harper.

Thank you Mr. Mayor, and thank you for the presentation. This is an elegant solution and creates all the conditions necessary for us to move forward. So I don't think we need to say much more than we've already seen in the report and heard from the presentation. I totally support it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other comments from members of council? Seeing none. I failed to acknowledge at the beginning of the meeting that Councillor Plant is joining us electronically on teams. And so Councillor Plant, if you have any questions or pardon me, if you have any comments, please, as you know, indicate with a raised virtual hand. Otherwise, thank you for being here with us tonight and we wish you well in your recovery. Council, if there are no further comments, I will call the question on the first motion. Those in the in favor and opposed. Seen and hearing. None opposed. The motion carries. Councilor Chambers, did you wish to make the second motion? Please go ahead.

That the application to rezone a portion of Section 77 League District accept parts in Plan 7667 and 249-544-6992 Mountain Road from the P4 Recreation and Open Space Zone to the A1 Rural Zone and a portion of Lot A, Section 77 Lake District District Plan EPP 11386-64718.

Mountain Road from the A1 Rural Zone to the P4 Recreation and Open space zone be approved.

Okay, Seconded by Harper. As I don't expect any comments at this stage, I will call the question. Those in favor and opposed. Seeing and hearing. None opposed. The motion carries. Thank you. And now we'll go to the bylaw readings. Councillor Chambers, did you wish to do those as well? Go for it.

That bylaw number 10304 be given second

reading and seconded by Harper. I'll call the question on second reading. Those in favor and opposed. Seeing none opposed. That's carried.

Thank you.

Back to you, Councillor Chambers.

That bylaw number 10304 be given third reading.

Seconded by Harper on third reading. Those in favor and opposed? None are opposed. That carried. There's a couple more readings to do, Councillor Chambers, so I'll turn to you for the next bylaw second reading.

Okay. That bylaw number 10305 be given second

reading and seconded by Harper on second reading. Those in favor and opposed? None are opposed. That's carried. Thank you, Councillor Chambers.

That bylaw number 10305 be given third

reading and seconded by Harper on third reading. Those in favor and opposed? None are opposed. The motion carries. Thank you so much. That's as far as we can take that item this evening. Thanks everybody for your input and for the applicant, for the thoughtful responses. I will. Now that item is completed and so if you were here for that one, you're free to go. But of course you're also welcome to stay if you want to see more of the fun on this beautiful evening. What else could people possibly want to get up to? Ms. Da Silva, I will turn it over to you to introduce the next one for us, please.

The next item is a non medical cannabis retail store application for Unit 105, 3995 Quadra Street. The intent of this application is to seek a resolution of council in support of an Application at Lot 1, Section 32, Victoria District Plan 304-553-995 Quadra street to the BC Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch to allow a non medical cannabis retail store for Saanich Centre, Canna Plus Retailers Limited.

Thank you. this time I will call upon the applicant or their representative if you wish to come forward to address council. So we look forward to hearing from you. Good evening.

Good evening.

When I saw you out there, Mr. Smith, I had a feeling you might be here for this item.

There you go.

Yeah, I think I've spoken to you about these types of applications before. So again, my name is Dougal Smith, I'm a former Saanich resident and my client Rhett Large of Canna plus is a current Saanich resident.

Great.

So this evening I'll try to be fairly brief.

I'd like to talk to you a

little bit about the location and the Store. And this is again the resolution to support the cannabis license for a retail store at the Quadra Center. I want to talk a bit about the regulated industry, the supply chain, the importance of access to legal cannabis and some of the issues with safety and schools, which often come up when we're talking about this topic. Some of the best practices and a little bit about Canna plus and Liquor Plus. Great.

Do I just.

Ah, there we go. So, again, just some introductions. Canna plus is affiliated with Liquor plus, family owned and operated business in Saanich. Liquor plus operates four liquor stores and Canada plus has now opened a cannabis store at Royal Oak.

Yeah.

And the properties are owned by Hands Bond Investments, who's been a longtime commercial landowner in Saanich. Again, I'm Dougal Smith. I'm a former Deputy General manager of the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch and worked establishing the legal industry. In that process. I reviewed about 450 applicants. So I'm quite familiar with cannabis applications from a provincial perspective and in that time worked extensively with local police in looking at how we can safely establish the nascent industry. So again, the location is Unit 105 in 3995 Quadra street in the Quadra Center Mall. So for those looking for a point of reference, that's just to the left of the Starbucks in there.

So it's right in the middle of the mall. In terms of the official community plan, as we've discussed previously, this is sitting inside a commercial center, so it's consistent with these types of commercial stores in those locations. It's on two important the intersection of two important transportation corridors with lots of public transit and alternative transportation access. The the mall is zoned C3L, which is permit permits, both liquor and cannabis retail sales. And in 2024, I spoke to you and we went through a fairly rigorous rezoning process to rezone the Quadra Mall and the Royal Oak Shopping Centre to allow for cannabis sales. So that was done two years ago.

So we now have that zoning and we're just proceeding with these applications now that the zoning is in place. Obviously, during that rezoning process there was a fair bit of consultation with a variety of different parties and that consultation process has continued on in the application process for this specific license. Yeah, and the license that we'll be looking to be granted is a cannabis retail store license, which is granted by the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch, which is of course a provincial entity. In terms of the store from the street. The cannabis stores are very benign and professional in their appearances. The Health Canada regulations prohibit any sort of flashy signs or things that might attract children and youth and draw attention.

So the signage is purposely very sort of low key. And the store interior, again, it's very professional looking. There's some photographs of the store out in Royal Oak there. In terms about the products that are sold, the broad ranges of products. Most cannabis is not smoked anymore, obviously. Traditionally it was something that people would smoke, but often it's in the form of edibles or beverages or topical ointments. A lot of the cannabis products sold are very low in THC and high in cbd, and people buy these products for their medicinal purposes. So a lot of the people coming in are looking for. To acquire products for pain relief. So you can acquire medical cannabis through the federal government. But many of the products that are sold in these stores perform a similar function. And again, it's a.

Yeah, it's a diverse consumers that are purchasing this. And the packaging is very controlled by Health Canada. I think people had been concerned that people would buy. Buy products and then go outside and smoke them. And that's really not what happens. They're, you know, they're sealed and packaged just like you would buy a bottle of wine in a liquor store. So I don't think that's. That's necessarily a concern. Come on.

Oh, sorry.

Can you help me back up at all or. Sorry, I'm not. As I was known for my. So. Oh, I can just. Okay, good. All right. Yeah. Again, maybe just talk a little bit about the supply chain for cannabis in Canada, and that's important. So cannabis is obviously strictly regulated, and it's always in the custody of a company or an agency that's regulated by either the federal or provincial government. Obviously, all retail cannabis in B. C. is sold through cannabis retail stores that are licensed by lcrb. And all the product that they source, there's only a single wholesale distributor, and that's actually through the BC Liquor and Cannabis.

The BC Liquor distribution branch, which again, is the people that run the liquor stores, they have a cannabis wholesale division, too. So all the retailers buy through them, and they buy through producers or growers who are regulated by Health Canada. So there's this progression of. From seed to sale is the way that we spoke about it when we were setting out the regulatory framework. You've heard me talk about this before. The application process for cannabis is rigorous. Financial integrity assessments of directors and stakeholders, police checks on all applicants. It's a very effective process in keeping the bad guys out of the industry. But one thing that we have seen is that when legal retail options are limited, consumers have a tendency to turn to illegal channels.

And unfortunately, the resilience of the illegal market has been the biggest challenge for the industry in B. C. because again, this sort of notion that access and convenience is a real strong driver in consumer behavior when it comes to purchasing cannabis. Only 60% of cannabis consumers will purchase exclusively through the legal market, and that's only up 5% since legalization. So it's been really quite difficult to get consumers to move exclusively to the legal market. And again, one of the key problems is that convenience drives consumer choice. So when there are only illegal choices, there's a good big cohort of consumers that will take those illegal choices.

And we counter that by making sure that we provide lots of legal, legal opportunities to buy cannabis. So again, in a place like Saanich, we need to make sure that there are legal options available for consumers to get their cannabis. I've showed this slide off before and it just shows where Saanich stands relative to similar sized cities in B. C. and the major centers on Vancouver Island. And we are still fairly underrepresented in bricks and mortar stores in Saanich compared to other places on the island and some of the other cities around 100,000 in BC. So, just wanted to quickly talk about cannabis sales and youth. Obviously, the Health Canada regulations are very strict in terms of making sure that cannabis retailers can't market their product to youth.

So in terms of names of products, names of companies, types of signage, types of characters, they can't use cartoon characters and these sorts of things in their marketing. And in terms of, actually, if a miner got into a store and was able to purchase cannabis, the licensee would be liable for a $7,000 fine. So they take that really seriously. It's still illegal. Sales to youth is still strong, particularly online. So that's often where they're turning and there is, there's an availability to, to purchase cannabis legally online. But one of the problems is, is that it's been difficult for some of the consumers to discern between a legal and an illegal option when they go online to purchase their cannabis.

So in speaking to some of my former colleagues in lcrb, they all said that, you know, the safest way to make sure people get the cannabis that's legal is to buy it through bricks and mortar stores in the communities.

Just in terms of the. And the staff report goes into the issue of proximity to schools. And I know in the administrative policy it talks about lot line to lot line. There's significant precedent in other store, in other retail stores that have been approved in Saanich that the measurements are from the cannabis store to the school and that, that being over 200 meters and certainly in this case where we're dealing with a storage Saanich center and the close school would be Reynolds Secondary School, which is obviously across Lockside Drive and across Borden street, that is over 200 meters.

And there's a, you know, a pretty strong buffer in terms of the buildings.

So I just want to remind folks to please take any conversations outside in the hallway just so it's not disruptive to the meeting.

Sure. And I'll just wrap up here. So again, some of the main points in terms of safe retail sales of cannabis is meeting consumer demand in providing regulated cannabis. It's a legal product. It's been legal in this country for seven years. Again, as I said, sufficient and convenient bricks and mortar opportunities so people can go and physically buy the cannabis at these stores, increasing the legal market share, making sure we're serving the market and attracting the best operators. And in my experience, people like liquor store operators have experience selling controlled substances and they understand what it takes to work within a regulated industry and typically are having fewer issues with compliance and enforcement than perhaps people who are enthusiasts of cannabis who have tried to get into the business.

So yeah, just wrap it up by saying Liquor plus, who are the affiliate of Canna plus, have served over 20 million retail liquor customers. No compliance issues, safe service protocols, staff are well trained and it's a greater Victoria community owned and operated store. So that's it for me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. If that concludes the presentation, and I think it does.

Yes, it does indeed.

I'll ask you to take your seat and if there are any questions or there's anything you wish to respond to after the public input, I'll invite you up to the microphone to do so. Ms. Da Silva, are there any registered speakers for this item?

There are no registered speakers for this item.

Okay, thank you for clarifying. So in that case, if anyone wishes to address council on the non Medical Cannabis retail Store or application for Quadra street, this will be your opportunity to do so. If you're in the room, we ask that you please come forward. If you're online, we ask that you please raise your virtual hand and we'll call on you when the opportunity presents itself. You'll have up to five minutes to address council on this item. We just need your name and address. So anyone in the room who'd like to come forward, please do so, and if you're online, please raise your virtual hand for a second time.

Anyone who wishes to address council on this item, please come forward or raise your virtual hand. And for a third and final time, if you wish to address council on the cannabis retail store application on Quadra street, this will be your final opportunity to do so. Please come forward or raise your virtual hand online. Just pausing to confirm that somebody is not struggling to get themselves unmuted or have their virtual hand raised. And it does not appear to be so. In that case, we will consider public input closed Council at this time, if you have any questions for the applicant, I'll give you the opportunity to ask them. I'm not seeing questions, so I don't think Mr.

Smith needs the opportunity to clarify anything as there was no public input about which he would need to clarify. In which case we will consider the public. Pardon me. We will consider the public hearing on the item closed and I will look to counsel for a motion on this item. Councillor Chambers, did you wish to make the motion?

Thank you very much. That the application to the B. C. liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch for unit 1053995 Quadra street for Saanich Centre canap less retailers be approved.

Seconded by Councillor Phelps Bondroff and again we'll consider this the opportunity to speak to it. Councillor Chambers. No, no, no waiving the opportunity to comment. Councillor Phelps Bondroff, I'll give you the opportunity as the seconder.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I'll be very brief. Also thanks to the applicant, we've had a similar presentation in the past and I feel each time I get to remember different statistics. So it's very helpful. This is a primary growth area and when we're looking at primary growth areas, you want to have a wide range of amenities and these kinds of stores are one such amenity. So the fact that folks can walk there or bike there or use a wide range of transportation options is excellent. We have an existing site with retail. There's medical, there's office, there's liquor stores, there's restaurant uses. So it's consistent with the commercial use in the space. It's a large mall.

We've already discussed the sort of the door to door versus lot line, lot line conversation last year and I think nothing has changed since that time. So I'm happy to support it.

Thank you, Councillor Phelps Pondroff. I see a hand from Councillor Plant online. I'll go to you next.

Okay, Mr. Mayor, I will be lending my support to this series of motions to send the letter. I guess it's really just the one motion, isn't it? Or are there several?

The first motion is to approve and then the second is to forward.

Thank you very much. Sorry for that. I don't have the green sheet yet, but I've asked staff for it. I just want to indicate the main reason I'm in support is based on the fact that this is a company that has been currently operating a similar situation in Royal Oak. Now, there is both a liquor plus alcohol facility with a cannabis business proximal to that liquor store. And I have not had any neighborhood complaints. It happens to be in my neighborhood. That doesn't really change anything except that I tend to frequent it. Let me rephrase that. I frequent the area and I am not seeing any challenges. I haven't had anybody showing disapproval.

To be clear, I am not a customer of either business at this time. But I thank the applicant for having such a thorough presentation tonight. And as we become more and more familiar with this, I think this is something that is supportable. I do just want to put a marker in even though it is not germane to the specifics of the zoning. So you're welcome to say, Mr. Councillor chestal, the truth is we've never seen the benefits as a municipality of the increasing of the legalization of cannabis. And that was one of the major tenets from other levels of government, is that municipalities would see that benefit. And so I just put that in as a marker. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, and thank you to the applicant and to the public.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other speakers to the motion? Seeing none. I too will be supporting this. As Mr. Smith referenced, there was a rezoning application for this specific site a little more than a year ago where there was robust discussion about the potential use for this facility. And I think at that time it exposed any issues that may have come up. And at that time council was supportive and most of the feedback we received was supportive. And this evening, I think the fact that there have been no speakers on this item is telling that this was very much expected and in line with the use of this site.

I am going to and very happy to see a local business continuing to expand its footprint in Saanich. I am going to call the question on the first motion. Those in favor and opposed? None are opposed. The motion carries. Thank you. Councillor Chambers. Can I look to you for the

second motion, please, that a copy of the report and council minutes be forwarded to the B. C. liquor and Cannabis Regulations Branch, seconded by Phelps, Bondoroff.

I'll call the question on that motion. Those in favor and opposed. Seeing none opposed, the motion carries. Thank you. That takes that one as far as it will go. And thank everyone who came out this evening, including the applicant and their representative, for their points. And if you were here for that item, then you are also welcome to go. But again, you are more than welcome to stay if you wish wish to see more more discussion on land use in the district. Speaking of which, Ms. Da Silva, if you could introduce the next item for us, I would be grateful.

You make it sound like the price is right.

Come on down.

The next item is also a two part item. The first part being official community plan by law 2023amendment by law 2026 number 10306 to allow a nine story building on Tennyson Avenue. The intent of this proposed bylaw is to permit a mixed commercial development of up to nine storeys at Lot 2, Section 7, Victoria District Plan 9027 accept Pardon Plan VIP 530-563-308 Tenn Avenue and Lot 3, Section 7, Victoria District Plan 9027 accept Pardon Plan VIP 530-56-3312 Tenn.

Part 2 is Zoning Bylaw 2003Amendment Bylaw 2026 Number 10307 to create a new C12M mixed commercial storage zone proposed rezoning for a mixed use commercial development on Tennyson Avenue. The intent of this proposed bylaw amendment is to create a new C12M mixed commercial storage zone to provide flexibility for future uses while maintaining key policy objectives and to rezone Lot 2 Section Section 7, Victoria District Plan 9027 accept pardon Plan VIP 530-563-308 Tennyson Avenue from the Rd 12 Family Dwelling Zone and Lot 3, Section 7, Victoria District Plan 6027 accept part in Plan VIP 530-563-1312 Tenn Avenue from the M1DW Douglas Street West Zone to the new C12M mixed commercial storage zone to construct a mixed use commercial development of up to nine storeys.

A development permit will be considered with variances requested for off street loading spaces. A covenant will also be considered to further regulate the use of lands and buildings.

Thank you so much. At this time I will call upon the applicant or their representative to come forward to present to council on this item.

I do believe they will not be making a presentation but are available should there be any questions.

Okay. Very well. I know council was in receipt of a Presentation at a recent committee of the whole meeting. And so perhaps that has provided Council with enough information at this time. As there's no presentation from the applicant, we'll go to anyone who wishes to address council on this item. Ms. Da Silva, I'm just confirming that there are no registered speakers for this item.

I sound like I'm repeating myself, don't I? There's no registered speakers for this item.

Thank you for confirming. In which case, as I think you already know, if you wish to address council on this item, you're welcome to come forward. You'll have up to five minutes and we just need your name and address. And if you're online, please raise your virtual hand and we'll call on you when the time presents itself. Over to you.

Good evening, council. My name is Matt McGitchie, I live in the Brayford area. I'm speaking out against this rezoning of the Tennyson property for a mixed use commercial development on industrial land. I've mentioned this before. Once industrial land is gone, it never comes back. Ian Maxwell, owner of the Relmex group of companies, has stated in the past that industrial land should have the same protection as ALR land or similar. Given that less than 25% of this building will be used for industrial purposes, it sets dangerous a precedent for other properties in the area. As an aside, I also have to point out the irony of allowing a storage facility in the uptown neighborhood to compensate for the lack of adequate storage in buildings that Council has been improving in the area. Thank you.

Okay, if there is anyone else who wishes to address council on this item, please come forward or raise your virtual hand. Okay, for a second time, anyone who wishes to address council on this item, please come forward or raise your virtual hand. And for a third and final time, if anyone wishes to address council on this item for Tennyson Avenue, please come forward or raise your virtual hand. As I'm not seeing anyone at this point, we will consider public input closed. I'll just look to the applicant if they wish to come forward to clarify anything based on the public input that was provided. Good evening.

And if you could give us the benefit of your name, even though we know who you are, that would be a great way to start your remarks.

Thank you, Mayor Murdoch. My name is Brent Pimchock. I'm the owner of that property for a upwards of 33 years. I always hear about the preservation of industrial property. Well, that's two duplexes on residential land.

When I first purchased that, I converted one of them 3312, 3316 to commercial. The larger portion presently is still resident residential. I'm asking to increase the footprint of industrial property in sag.

I'm not preserving it, I'm promoting it and expanding it. Additionally, the footprint is amplified by the

number of stories and the self storage is built to industrial standard also.

So potentially you could see a nine

to tenfold increase in industrial lands in sah.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Before you take your seat, I'll just look to council if they have any questions that they wish to put to the applicant. I'm not seeing questions to the applicant and I'm not seeing any in the room in that. In which case you are welcome to take your seat. Thank you. I take it that members of council wish to ask questions of staff in which case I will turn it over to. No, you wish to make comments, make the motion. Okay. I think Councillor Chambers had her light first, Councillor Plant. So I'll go to her to make the motion. If you wish to do so, go ahead. Thank you.

And thank you. That the application to allow and up to nine story mixed use commercial development at 3308 and 3312 Tennyson Ave. Be approved.

And we'll take Councillor Plant as the seconder as I think he also intended to make the motion. And I didn't say, but I think it was implied but has to be said that the public hearing is now closed on this matter and council will deliberate on the motion which has now been put. Councillor Chambers, over to you Demota.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor and thank you to the applicants. I understand this property well. I own a home in this area and I've walked around this area more times. I know this exact area, the gravel on the road. I support this and as you say, it is an expansion and what was there regularly. I understand this and we do need this storage facility. We do need to have this. We have. You know, I support this expansion of industrial use and I know the area. And especially as a farmer who's preventing industrial uses on farmland. I know the importance of protecting industrial land and of creating an industrial land reserve. But in this case, because there is an expansion of the industrial land and we are moving forward on that.

I think this is a great future for the area. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Councillor Chambers. Councillor Plant is the seconder and you'll have the chance to speak to it. I believe you're muted, Councillor Plant, so I'll. There you are.

I apologize. I will reserve all My comments for this file on this motion, if that's okay with you, as we've done previously. Yeah, of course. So I want to first off thank the applicant for coming forward and bringing us tonight something that I think the district of Saanich can be proud of. We have an increase of more industrial land use as a result of this rezoning and application. And we have an example of this council saying it's going to help a Saanich based business evolve into the future and remain viable. And so while I appreciate the comments from the member of the public, I don't think they fully understood what was actually being offered here in this application.

And I regret that that was the case because I think this is actually a win for Saanich. I want to thank the applicant for their patience in how long it took to get this file through. And I want to just express how valuable it was to talk with the applicant and understand the situation in a one on one setting and public setting to understand what the experience had been like. And so I think we're almost at the finish line here of something that is very positive for Saanich and I think that this is supportable. And the fact that this evening there has been absolutely. Other than the one resident who spoke this evening, there's been no correspondence and there has been no media coverage. I think the residents of Saanich will be supportive of this decision. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Plant. And as Councillor Plant indicated, if we could have all comments in respect of this application on this motion. Next to speak is Councillor Bryce.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I too give this my wholehearted support. I want to acknowledge a longtime Saanich business person who has continued to invest in our community, who sees the future potential and is prepared to continue to invest and to allow industrial land there to evolve to meet today's needs, become potential for the future.

And I think that it's a mark of confidence that this business owner has shown in the area and in the business community. So I put out my wholehearted thanks, wish the applicant well should this application be approved and look forward to seeing just exactly what he has in store for the future.

Thank you, Councillor Bryce. Next to speak is Councillor Harper.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I too am lending this my wholehearted support. And I have to say that as chair of the Economic Development Advisory Committee this is exactly the type of project that we need to see in this particular area. It was, as people will recall from our prior meeting. I'm sure it was wholeheartedly supported by the Community association. And in fact they saw this project as essential for making sure that Tennyson developed to its full proper industrial potential. So I think that that was a very important point and I appreciate the information re provided by the proponent because I think that when one looks at the building, while the current use and the zoning will permit uses that are not, technically speaking, industrial, it's being built to a standard that it is industrial and it can be changed when circumstances change.

And I think this is exactly the type of flexibility that we need to be supporting in our projects so that we can work for today, but we can also have something that will work into the future. So I think it's all been said several times at this point, but I wholeheartedly support this and I want to thank the professor opponent for bringing this forward and as a longtime business person and Sandich for recognizing what can be done and the potential of the area.

Thank you.

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

Off.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I too am going to support this application. I just want to say it's one of the things that if you, if you think about as we always do, climate change and you think about flexibility, I want to thank this applicant for really looking at the site and getting creative of what he could do and what could be done in the future if design had to change.

It's still very flexible and adaptable. So. And of course you had nobody coming to us to complain about it and no letters and last time you had some support from your neighbors, which was very important as well. So I want to thank you for staying in Saanich. I want to thank you for this development and I think it does start to set a statement in that area of Saanich Industrial doesn't have to be ugly and tin. It can be something that's a statement. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Off.

Next to speak is Councillor Phelps Bondarov.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All the good comments have been left, so I will do a bit of mop up. Also echoing my thanks, I also wanted to echo the. I found the committee, the whole process very constructive and I think that was really helpful as far as the process wise. It was really helpful to see different perspectives and also to see the the work the applicant did to make this project fit the space with respect to height. I know that was flagged in the staff report, but it's definitely supportable given the nature of the neighborhood and the support of the neighbors. And my colleagues already canvassed the flexibility of the space Which I think allows it to grow and change with the needs of the district, which I think is really important. So a good win here.

And I think it's also offering a lot of storage options for a part of San Anton that is growing where we are going to see a lot of density where the walk score is over 85. And it's a great spot for folks who maybe only need temporary storage to maybe keep the canoe there for a few months or perhaps a bunch of books.

Thank you, Councillor Phelps Mondroff. Next to speak is Councillor westhaver.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will be lending this my full service support. Everything's already been said. I just wanted to thank the applicant for speaking because I think you really just tied a bow around anything if anyone had any concerns. So thank you for that and thank you for what you're doing in Saanich.

Thank you, Councillor Westhaver. Are there any other speakers? Councillor Chambers, did you wish to speak for a second time?

No.

In which case there's really not much more to be said that has not already been said. I just want to convey my appreciation to this longtime Saanich business owner for his continued investment in Saanich and to be a strong employer in the district. It is most appreciated and I think that this rezoning and development clearly represents that industrial space will continue to maintain a strong foothold in the district and will continue to be an employment center and generator of jobs in the district. And for that we as a council and your community are grateful. Council, I am going to call the question on the first motion. Those in favor and opposed? None are opposed. The motion carries.

Councillor Chambers, I will turn to you to make the next and then the subsequent motions.

Councillor Chambers, thank you very much. That the application to create a new C12M CO mixed commercial storage zone be

approved and that seconded by Plant. I'll call the question on approval. Those in favor and opposed? None are opposed. That's carried.

Councillor Chambers, Motion 3 that the application to rezone Lot 2 Section 7, Victoria District Plan 9027 except part in Plan VIP 530563, 30810 Ave. In Lot 3, Section 7, Victoria District Plan 6027 accept part and Plan VIP 530563312 Tennyson Avenue from the Rd 12 family dwelling zone and the M1DW Douglas Street west zone to the new C12M mixed commercial storage zone be approved.

Approved.

And we'll take Plant as the seconder. I'll call the question those in Favor and opposed. None are opposed. That's carried. Councillor Chambers.

Motion for that bylaw number 10306 be read for a second time and seconded

by Plant on second reading. Those in favor and opposed? None are opposed. That's carried.

Councillor Chambers, Motion 5, that bylaw number 10306 be read for a third time

and seconded by Plant on third reading. Those in favor and opposed. None are opposed. That's carried. Back to you, Councillor Chambers.

Motion 6, that bylaw number 10307 be read for a second time and seconded by Plant.

Those in favor of second reading and opposed. None are opposed. That's carried.

Motion seven, that bylaw number 10307 be read three for a third time and

seconded by plant on third reading. Those in favor and opposed? None are opposed. That's carried.

Motion 8, the final reading of the zoning bylaw amendment and ratification of the development permit be withheld pending a registration of a covenant to secure the statutory right of way and B receipt and planning department approval of updated plans to reflect the required servicing upgrades, inclusive of sidewalk and statutory right of way and seconded by Plant.

Those in favor and opposed? None are opposed. That's carried.

And for the final motion, motion nine, that development permit DPR 01011 OOP eight, shall I read it again? Sorry. That development permit DPR 01018 be approved

and we'll consider Plant the seconder. Thank you. Those in favor and opposed? None are opposed. That's carried. Thank you. That's as far as we can go with that item this evening. Thank you so much to everyone who came to speak and participate in that item. And if you were here for that item alone, you are welcome to go. But of course you're welcome to stay for the final item tonight. And in order to get us there, I'm going to look to Ms. Da Silva to introduce it for us. Please.

So the last item on our agenda tonight is again a two part item. The first part being Official Community Plan Bylaw 2023Amendment Bylaw 2026, number 10309, to allow a five story building on Feltham Road. The intent of this proposed bylaw amendment is to allow a five story building in the neighborhood designation at Lot 1, Section 58, Victoria District Plan 3400 and sorry. 34089, 1805 Feltham Road, Lot 11, Section 58, Victoria District Plan VIP 66313, 1809 Feltham Road and Lot 1, Section 58, Victoria district plan 6378 accept pardon plan VIP 661811 Feltham Road. The second part is zoning bylaw 2003amendment. Bylaw 2026, number 10310 proposed rezoning for a five story apartment building on Feltham Road.

The intent of the proposed bylaw amendment is to rezone Lot 1, Section 58, Victoria District Plan 34089, 1805 Feltham Road from the P2 Utility Zone and Lot 11, Section 58, Victoria District Plan VIP 663131809 Feltham Road and Lot 1, Section 58, Victoria district Plan 6378 accept pardon Plan VIP 66313, 1811 Feltham Road from the RS6 Single Family Dwelling Zone to the RA11 Apartment Zone to construct a five story apartment building, a Telus Cable Hub facility and one level of underground parking.

A development permit will be considered with variances requested for projections. Visitor parking, accessible car parking space width on site, loading space, maneuvering aisle width, setbacks and horizontal building width. A covenant and housing agreement will also be considered to further regulate the use of lands and buildings.

All right, thank you. I'll give you a moment to catch your breath. I will now call upon the applicant or their representative if they wish to come forward to address council on this item. Good evening.

Good evening. Thank you. I'm Lauren Wolinsky. I'm here representing the applicant. I just want to clarify, this is not a carton of milk. I went across the street beforehand to get some water and this is what they gave me.

So it's water even if you were drinking a carton of milk. We're not here to judge. Well, the land use, we're here to judge.

Understood.

But not the milk.

Understood. Just want to see how this. Okay.

I'm Maria Pavlochuk.

I'm also here.

A little bit closer to the mic, Sorry.

I'm Maria Pavluchuk. I'm also here to represent the application

and I noticed you didn't bring any milk with you,

So. Good evening, mayor and council. I'm Lauren Wolinski, VP of development with Leadcore Property Investments, here on behalf of the project team for 1805 Feltham Road. Before anything else, thank you to the neighbors in this room. Many of the design decisions before you tonight exist because they spoke up and they joined the process. Thank you as well to Sanj planning staff who have worked through this fall with us for several years. Our project team is here tonight to answer any technical, technical questions council may have after the presentation and as well. Joining us is Manaswita Batia of Telus, our partner on this project. Section 1 application.

So before you tonight are three applications. A OCP amendment, a rezoning and a DP amendment. Just to. There's an echo in the room. I guess just to sum it up and to synthesize it down, the question for you tonight is whether an aging telephone exchange on a major road steps from frequent transit, should become 77 rental homes with every bylaw protected tree retained, essential communications infrastructure kept in service and no one displaced.

Planning staff have recommended approval. I will take about 10 or hopefully not more than 15 minutes to show you why. So what is proposed again? 77 rental homes, a building that's five and four stories, floor space ratio of 2. 1 FSR. And you can see the setbacks and number of parking stalls there as well. The proposal also contains 54. 5% family oriented homes.

That's 42 homes with two or three bedrooms. And because this is a utility site, no one loses a home to build these homes. So why this site? As you can see from the rendering on the right and the current building on the left, this site fronts Feltham Road. The point of the pair of images is that this is not a house being replaced by an apartment. It is a utility parcel on a major road and a frequent transit route. Land that only became available because of the investment in telephone infrastructure. No home is lost and no one is displaced. And you can see as well that we are quite close to transit village center as well as recreation.

It's important also to note the fees because the site and the current use on the site cannot go dark. The exchange on the site carries 911 and emergency communications. So the replacement is built first under a temporary use permit. And that is the construction neighbors can see today. Equipment transfers across service and only then does the old windowless building come down. The 77 rental homes follow. The replacement facility is permanent, downsized and integrated into development. And better yet, it's much better integrated into the community. The original applications were submitted in 2022 under the Interim official Community Plan which were in effect in spring 2022.

And the proposal has since been reviewed against the new official community Plan adopted in spring 2024. The application predates the current plan and has been tested against it anyway. And you can see here the number of steps we've gone through for the last four years as well. I do want to confirm that the Advisory Design Panel in February gave unanimous support to this to this application.

What neighbors told us Neighbors have written to us at length, some over several years, and we have read every letter and we have responded to each and one of those comments through either transportation measures, design measures or various other mitigation measures.

So in terms of scale, we have done design refinements, stepping down the building at the edges for privacy. We've included screening and some additional landscaping to screen our building from the adjacent building. In terms of traffic, there will be only two, sorry, one car every two minutes. So 30 to 36 peak hour trips. And we did an assessment on this site just because we thought it was the right thing to do for the neighborhood. Even though one wasn't required, there were concerns over servicing. We have completed an engineering study and the engineers confirmed any service upgrades that are required to service this site. There's concerns about the new pathway and we have developed actually quite an excellent plan that integrates public art lighting with a brand new path that goes through the edge of the site. And finally, construction.

We have developed a construction management plan and we'll further refine that as we continue through this process and especially in consultation with the neighborhood. So how the proposal changed through this process. The original proposal was for 91 units.

We ended up at 77 homes after hearing that the community wanted more family sized homes. We had a pathway crossing under a sky bridge. Now we have the pathway on the eastern edge of the site so that it is more isolated and much cleaner public. Right away we have moved the entrance, we have preserved additional trees and no protected trees will be removed. And because of this we're able to achieve 59% canopy. And as well as we've introduced a TDM package which includes car share and unbundled parking. So want to get now into the design and how we have made design changes to fit the neighborhood.

You can see here, this is a design diagram that was created by OMB architects. So a typical wood frame, you know, residential building follows typically a 65 foot depth, as you can see on that first, that first iteration of the building. And what we did is we sucked in the building to create larger setbacks that allowed more distance between us and the neighbors. Then we split up the building to make it into finer grain to mimic more of the built form in the neighborhood. And then we broke up the massing and further refined the massing to ensure that we were further mitigating overlook into our neighbors and as well as to further retain trees on site.

So looking west, the building sits behind the mature trees that stay. And I reads four stories at the edge before the Fifth steps back at the center looking east street trees and the separated bike lane sit in front of it. And the roof line holds below the tree canopy, the retained cedar screens the corner and the frontage meets the sidewalk at grade. So these are the renderings superimposed within the current neighborhood. I want to reiterate that no bylaw tree has been removed and actually we've gone to great lengths to shape the building. You can see the trees here in order to preserve those trees. This is an unusual form for this building. This is not an efficient cost effective way to deliver units. But this is the right thing for this site and this is the right thing for this neighborhood.

And that's why you see this unusual building form. But it does help to retain those trees and create that finer grain rhythm that is more consistent with the built form of the neighborhood. And touching on transportation. We have a Moto car share on site. We'll have resident memberships, unbundled parking and 84 bicycle spaces. And there'll be about one new vehicle every two minutes coming and going on the site commutatively. And that is, you know, a drop in the bucket relative to what's existing in the current neighborhood. And this site is again below the threshold required for a full tia. However, we thought one was necessary in order to give the residents peace of mind. So key considerations this proposal aligns with Sanich's official community plan. Policy 8. 4. 4 targets 30% family friendly units. The mix delivers 54.

5% at two bedrooms or more with over 15% at three bedrooms. Policy 7. 2. 6 and 7. 4. 7 direct density toward the frequent transit network and 15 minute walkability. A Route 2728 stop is 50 meters away. The AAA bike network is at the door and Feltham village is 640 meters to the west. The project reaches 59% canopy cover against the urban forest strategy of 35% target and meets the tree protection bylaw and is built to BC energy code. Step code 3 higher energy efficiency standard than the building code requires with electrified heating and cooling and EV ready parking. On precedent policy 7. 2. 4 exists so council consider can consider a site specific increase where the tests are met. Approving this application turns on the facts of the site.

A utility parcel on a frequent transit route and does not commit council to any other site. We don't believe this is a precedent setting decision in terms of the OCP because this is a highly unusual site. Then the decision comes down to three questions each answered on this slide location A Utility property on a frequent transit network near neighborhood services with no tenants displaced design the building steps down at the edges. Setbacks exceed what is generally required. Mature trees and the hedges are retained and privacy measures are built. In terms of community benefits, 77 rental homes, 54. 5% family oriented, a public pathway, public guard and transportation measures staff have assessed all three tests are satisfied. Just to summarize, we are delivering 100% market rentals secured for 50 years through covenant homes for families.

There'll be no tenants displaced. A new multi use pathway, integrated public art and upgraded telecom infrastructure. In summary, staff find all three OCP tests were met and the advisory design Panel recommended approval 6 to 0. This is a unique site approving it does not approve the next one. 77 rental homes for the housing strategy calls for secured 50 years over half family sized. No one displaced 4. 4 years of consultation shaped the design.

Fewer larger homes, essential entry and A rerouted public pathway 5. About one new vehicle every two minutes at peak and no bylaw protected tree removed. And finally a lasting public benefit will be delivered. An all ages pathway, integrated public art, fiber to the neighborhood and an upgraded Feltham frontage. And in closing, this site has served the neighborhood for 60 years as infrastructure. The application before you lets it serve the nexus 60 as homes without losing the trees, a service or a single existing tenant. We know not everyone in this room agrees with us tonight and we respect that. Staff recommend approval. The ADP recommended approval unanimously and we respectfully ask for yours. Thank you.

If that concludes your presentation at this point, I'll ask you to take your seats. We'll turn it over to members of the public for their input and then you'll have the opportunity to clarify anything that came up during input and respond to any questions that council may have to raise. Before I go to Ms. Da Silva, because I know there are registered speakers on this one, I will just mention to folks who may not have had the opportunity to address council at a public hearing. You're welcome to come and address council with your input, including any questions you may have. I'll make a note of those questions and then we will put those to either our staff or to the applicant once public input has closed. With that in mind, I'll turn to Ms.

Da Silva to introduce the first of our registered speakers.

The first speaker is Mark Henderson. Mark, if you'd like to either unmute yourself or come to the mic, state your name and address. You have five minutes.

Oh, hello. My name is Mark Henderson and I live at 4447 Greentree Terrace. Thank you to Marin Council for accommodating my opportunity to speak and for doing so on teams as I'm on vacation at the moment, and so it's a little hard to get in to the council chamber. I'm opposed to this development on this particular location for a number of reasons, but I think in particular the proponent's perspective that this development is not precedent setting is misplaced. In particular, I think it's not hard to foresee that a future council considering a similar application further up the road would find that the presence of a five story building several doors down means that the next application by a developer would be that much easier.

Once you've allowed one, it's reasonable to see that others would try. And I think that shoehorning an apartment building into a residential single family neighborhood is a slippery slope and it creates an irrevocable change for the neighborhood when you consider the neighbors first. The necessary excavation for parking for so many units creates immense disruption for immediate neighbors and for anybody who uses that thoroughfare regularly. No one who bought a house expects that an apartment sized excavation will occur next door. I certainly don't think that would like to find that next door to where I live, and I don't think any of you would either. Immediate neighbors would not want to live next to the construction site either during construction or when it's completed.

And it's hard to see prospective buyers wanting to move in to the houses on Kavilan Court or on Fairhurst Avenue with an apartment building next door, to say nothing of other residents on Feltham itself. And I fear that that would cause other other homes to go up for sale with no one wanting to buy them and developers sweeping them up. I also think that it's a betrayal of the missing middle and gentle density platforms that this council was elected under. I think that turning single family housing stock, even if there wasn't immediately present here, into apartments reduces the availability of single family housing. And I think that is the precedent setting problem that is at issue here.

The staff report says that this development will meet family needs because there are 30 two bedroom units and 12 three bedroom units. It's not clear to me what size family is expected to live in a two bedroom unit, but if the goal is to accommodate families, then I think families would be better served by seven or eight townhomes on 1809 and 1811 with Telus retaining its utility facility on the remaining lot.

The staff report rationalizes that this location is appropriate for this level of development. Because Feltham is a major road and it has a triple A bike lane. But in reality, the bike lane ends before the proposed development. And the proposed development is also directly across from only one of. From one of only three signaled crosswalks on the entire stretch of Feltham and an already busy T junction with Tyndall Avenue. As I said, I live in Gordon Head and my children cross Feltham at Fairbairn every day to go to school when schools are in. Fairbairn is already a very busy street. It has insufficient sidewalks or. Sorry, not Fairbairn.

Feltham is already a very busy street. It has insufficient sidewalks between Tyndall and Gordon Head Road. And the traffic that's already there would be greatly exacerbated not only by the equipment used for the construction, the dump trucks, the excavation equipment, and the partial road closures that would no doubt be necessary for safety during the construction, but then also followed by a drastic increase in traffic once the development is complete.

And that would make, on a personal level, our journey to school, ideally by bike, whenever the children are able to, a much riskier affair. And I don't think that additional traffic is a drop in the bucket. Certainly not when my children are crossing the street. The staff report also rationalizes that the 27 and the 28 buses serve the area and are close to the proposed development. Speaking from my personal experience riding the 27 and the 28, they're already very busy when school is in with current

residents

and when the university is in session, the buses are often standing room only by the time they get to Felton.

Mr. Henderson, that's the five minutes I'll have to ask you to wrap up your comments.

All right.

Thank you. Thank you for that. I think that people who are relying on transit as the antidote to over development won't be able to if they can't rely on transit being effective. If it's over, if it's overextended.

Okay, I'll have to stop you there, as that's well past the time at this point. Thank you, Mr. Henderson.

Thank you.

I will go back to Ms. Da Silva to introduce the next speaker, please.

The next speaker is Myrna Yeg Chung. Myrna, if you could state your name and address for the record, please. You have five minutes.

My name is Myrna Yapchong and I am a Gord head resident on Francisco Terrace. I have lived here for over 50 years. I love this place. It is a gem. And I would like to ask, what is the maximum horizontal building with. Because that is as important as the basement of any column or building support. And I think that any new building that needs a special change to our bylaws should have an aesthetic design and it should be pleasant. It should be convenient, functional and pleasant and delightful to look at this building.

I applaud the designers to recede some of the buildings so it looks like three big buildings in the front and not just one horizontal building. However, this facade looks so common all over the world. Could you please change or add something to the facade? We don't want to turn the corner to drive home and see three of the same thing. I find that very monotonous and I'm totally disappointed in the buildings on the compound by Universal City Heights at the corner of Shelburne and Mackenzie. It is not pleasant or delightful to see and just drive by without even looking. Couldn't you do something to it, please? To Garden Head especially?

Please, Councillors do not approve any of these common worldwide plants and designs of facade. Please bring something unique to our wonderful gem of Garden Head, please. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Hannah Brown. Hannah, if you'd like to state your name and address for the record.

Good evening.

Hello everyone and thank you mayor and council for having me today. My name is Hala Brown and I been grateful to be a Saanad resident for around five years now. I live on Lonsdale Place. I'm here today as I am a graduate student at the University of Victoria, part of the board of the Graduate Student Society. In low uncertain terms, there is a housing crisis in Victoria and that is definitely affecting students. It's one of the number one concerns we hear day by day about students having access to suitable, accessible and affordable housing for them. So I want to speak today fully in support of this development.

As you may all know, the provincial government recently rescheduled a large project, 110 bed project till at least 2034 that would have provided 150 graduate student spaces for housing. To put that in perspective, graduates students on campus typically have about 50 residence spaces available at the minute for around 3,000 graduate students. There is also family housing. A lot of our graduate students have families and dependents that move with them, but there's a 16 to 24 month wait list for that residence as well. An apartment building like this would provide really valuable housing opportunities for students, diversifying the type of housing available. I completely hear people's concerns about this should be mostly single family area and it will still remain a mostly single family area just with a diversity of housing being available.

There is obviously a Finite amount of land for development within Saanwich and the Greater Victoria area. So this being five storeys to me seems like a solution to that. They're keeping the tree cover and not adding extra shade to the area. I quite like the design personally, but it's not a big monolithic large building in my perspective and it is switching what would be a few single houses into a 77 occupant area. I also, if we heard, we don't believe it will increase traffic by that amount. I was also met with University of Victoria staff today as they're currently doing their campus transport and mobility plan and are promoting ways for students to get to campus that isn't cars.

The University itself does not want students to have cars. This would have a limited car access if students were in there as well. They're promoting transit and cycling opportunities. This being very close to campus, probably about a 10 minute cycle away. Students in the area could also add to the area economically as well. And just diversifying the amount of people in the area can also then promote people to want to stay and develop their families and build their lives here as well. And just put across simply, this would really help the students in the area who give back to the area and would also, I believe, not set a precedent for other units as this is a very unique lot with the communication hub on it and is not comparable to other units in my beliefs as well.

Thank you for your time today.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Sean Steele. Sean, if you'd like to come up to the MIC or unmute yourself and state your name and address, you have five minutes.

Good evening. Good evening.

Good morning.

My name is Sean Steele, Senate President and the President of Gordon Head Community Association. This application is another example in Gordon Head of an OCP amendment to make a high density apartment building fit in a low density area with single family homes surrounding in all directions. Gordon Head will soon be oversaturated with apartment units. 408new apartment rental units in Gordon Head will come to council next week. There is another building of 150 units being considered for Gordon Head Road that will come soon after. Separately, the University of Victoria continues to explore expanding their residence and all at the same time. There is current double digit rental vacancy at both University Heights development and at the Shelly.

I'd also like to note from the previous speaker that the adjacent bus routes 27 and 28 don't actually go to UVic, they go downtown. Despite the major road classification. Felsom does not meet the major road definition since as another speaker mentioned there's no bike lanes and limited sidewalks to the east of this property. Further, the adjacent Feltham Tindall intersection is not signalized with high multimodal volume and relatively high collision count as evidenced by ICBC crash detection statistics. As the residents have stated in a YIMBY approach, OCP compliant three story structures would be welcomed on these lots. I will note that the correspondence in favor of this application all originates from Edgemont Road which is approximately 3 km away from the site. There is a submitted residential petition to this application.

This fourth iteration of the same non compliant building has actually devolved over time contrary to the presentation with many practical questions that remain unanswered. I'll use parking as one topic. With a 0. 6:1 to 1 resident parking rental stall ratio, where will the other 30 plus resident vehicles park? With a visitor parking variance of 20 less stalls, where will all the visitors park? With no off street loading stalls? Where do the food deliveries, Amazon vans and moving trucks park? That's just one topic. A new question that came tonight was how are tenants displaced when there are actually no tenants on the the property? The projections and lot line setback variances required to enable this large structure will to be built will encroach upon and shadow neighboring properties. As shown in the staff report.

This apartment building rental tenure will bring zero community amenity contributions besides public art that was not proposed in consultation with the community association. Lastly, Gordon Head Recreation Centre is already over capacity, so we will see added strain to local recreation. All these are valid reasons to reject the application. However, if the application is approved, we respectfully request that two covenants be considered for final reading as number one, that Engineering conducts an intersection review of Feltham and Tyndall within one year after the building construction. There is precedent to this request as the same covenant was applied to the approval of 4080 Gordon Head Road number two that an emergency call box be installed on the relocated multi use path.

This has been community request that's been stated several times and for Telus that should be an easy connection. Thanks very much.

Thank you.

I've reached the end of my registered speakers.

Very well, thank you. In that case, if there's anyone who wishes to address Council on this item, please come forward. And if you're on teams please please raise your virtual hand and as you've heard me say several times, you'll have up to five minutes to address Council. We just need your name and address.

Good evening Council. My name is Matt Meechee and I live in the Brayfoot area. I'm speaking out against the proposed OCP changes related to the five story building on Feltham. Once again, Council has shown complete disregard for the OCP that itself has approved. What is the point of the OCP if you don't stick to it? Why did you bother to go through five iterations of the QMP if at the end you, end of the day you can override it? Anyway, my objection to this change is not just about the height to make this development work. Council will also sell to the developer a pathway that runs through the development.

Given that we see lots of proposed paths in the QMP as well as other plans, it is mind boggling to think that you're going the other way with this development. And no, a right of way through the property does not compensate for this path. Does it come at any surprise that a temporary job order is already in place on the property? It would appear that this hearing is just theatrics. The deal is already done. This is just a rubber stamp. Just want to add about the university housing because it's a. It's a thing that is always in the back of my mind. As has been stated, the University Heights is not filling up and we haven't even started to.

I mean they've broken ground on the southern part across from Mackenzie. You know the one I mean next to the fairways, that's another almost 400 units coming on stream at some point. So the need for this kind of housing is not there as well. It's very unlikely that university students are going to be able to afford the rent that's plea charged on this property. So what needs to be done, and we all know this, the government needs to fund the housing that it said it was going to fund at the university. It would create 500 more beds and continue to fund another 1500 on top of that. But that's beside the fact this project is outside of the OCP and it's unnecessary housing, I guess, is what I'm trying to say.

Thank you, Mr. McGeechee. Before you leave the seat, I'll just remind you that while you're certainly welcome to comment, I think it is out of order to suggest that anything about a public hearing is pure theatrics. You and I both know this is a legal process and that there is a rezoning required in order for anything to take place that would change the land use. And an allegation that suggests otherwise is serious and completely inappropriate in a hearing like this. So I suggest in the future, if you wish to address counsel in a public setting that you think through the implications of making those kinds of allegations. I see that there's a hand raised online.

I can't see the name of the individual, but if you wish to address council, please unmute yourself.

You'll have.

We'll need your name and address and you'll have up to five minutes.

Hello.

I believe that's me.

Yes, it is.

My name is Emma Henderson. I show up as Emma Neary. That is my maiden name that I use at work. I am a 10 year resident of Gordon Head and I will also say my kids are around, so I apologize if there is some background noise. I am opposing the proposal for the rezoning. I echo a number of the concerns that have already been raised. Insufficient parking for me is a huge concern. I drive up and down that road every single day. You cannot honestly say that the majority of people who are moving into these units will not require parking. And when you create a new development, that first of all is outside of the ocp, which again, I echo the comments. What is the point of the OCP if we are continually overriding the mandate and increasing the density?

But not only that, I think it's unrealistic to believe that most people will not have a vehicle even if they don't use it to commute to work, to school, wherever they are going, most residents have a vehicle. And when you have such huge development and you don't have enough parking, where are the people going to park their cars? Well, Gordon Head Rec center is just down the road. They're probably going to be parking there. As it's already been stated, that facility is already beyond capacity. The parking lot is difficult at the best of times. I am at that rec center at least three times a week for swim lessons with my children.

Finding parking is already difficult. Trying to leave that parking lot is already incredibly difficult. They will also likely be parking in the surrounding streets, which causes problems for the community there. It's also been suggested that this would not be precedent setting. Respectfully, I think that's completely misguided. Every time council votes to override the OCP and amend what has already been recommended, it creates precedent regardless of the nature of the property. In terms of what is there currently, when council allows a development that is beyond the three stories, it creates precedent. And so I think I would request council to consider that seriously. And again, I'm going to echo some of the comments that have already been made about the development that is already going on at University Heights, the one that is going in across the street next to the fairways, there is already going to be ample, ample units for university students.

If we are going to be creating something here and we are going to be saying it, it is for families. It should actually be for families. It should be townhouse. It should be no more than three stories. And again, I am opposed to the development. Thank you.

Thank you. And yeah, please. If anyone in the chamber who wishes to address council is welcome to come forward. We just need your name and address and you'll have up to five minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor and Council to allow me to speak. We lived in the neighborhood.

We just need your name and address, please.

We live in Kabul and Court.

Yeah, my name is Har Singh and this is Mohini. We've lived in the neighborhood for 46 years.

We can see the place from our back.

So we'd actually. You're both welcome to address council, but we ask that you please do that separately so that we can keep track of your remarks.

Okay.

Sorry.

I think sometimes we get emotional. We've had many sleepless night over this. This is a very serious thing for us. This proposal will be peering down on our backyard. You'll have five stories, people swing, and we'll have no privacy at all. If you take a tour of the neighborhood, you will immediately see there is and you probably have maps and other things you can see that is predominantly a single family neighborhood. There are some townhouses and we realize people need more homes, but for families that are compatible for the neighborhood and the area that is there. And I think townhouses will be an ideal solution for the family's needs.

If there is a big rental building, I can't imagine families living with any children in those small cubbyholes. Very, very. You know, they'll have a very bad life growing up or whatever. So. And the other points that have been made, one is about parking. It's already pretty bad there because there are secondary units and the students. There are some homes that are already renting to six students and there are quite a few. There's not just one isolated case in the parking is very, very difficult in lots of that area. Fairhurst, Fair Homes, Cavalancourt, Cabot Place, you go there. It's a terrible situation, parking already. And in terms of the university students housing points have already been made.

There have been almost a thousand new units created on Mackenzie and Shelburne and there are others already being proposed more. So there is going to be plenty of rental homes for students. And this building, if it is built, it'll be predominantly students partying overnight loud. And there will be constant problems with the neighborhood. Sorry, that's all I have to say. And Moini, you want to add something

so we can treat each of your comments as your own. Five minutes. So if your comments are finished, I'll turn it over to you. But I'll just ask if you could also give us your name just for the record. And then you'll have five minutes to address council. So please, my turn now? Yes, it's your turn.

Okay Mohini Singh.

Thank you.

This five story building will cast a big shadow in the backyards. So where a small backyard we have in Gordon Head. We would not be able to barbecue or anything except people on the fourth and fifth story looking in. We will lose total privacy.

My.

My grandchildren come and play there. I'd be fearful who is watching them all the time. We chose this neighborhood for middle class for people kids can play in the cul de sac for safe environment for rec center closed. Schools close. Now with putting this. You're changing the whole thing. The whole atmosphere of the place which we chose for for 40 years and what we call home. It doesn't look like the same place we call home. And I understand the development which we have done a lot in Chalban. Chalban is lot slower now than it used to be. It takes longer time to go to downtown because the one lane and all those cycle lanes and all those big, big, huge buildings. University Heights they are huge and.

And I have to say that they don't look good to me. To my eyes they don't look good at all. But it is already done. And there are so many other buildings coming on Chalpan 1 across from that University Heights where it was all demolished. And it's coming. There are so many other building. How much more you want you now it's coming down on the Phantom and next the whole area will be buildings and nobody to live. The empty building Shelbourn building. The buildings on University Heights are very expensive. 365 square feet for sixteen hundred dollars. And I don't know whether students can afford it. I was student, I wouldn't have been able to afford it. So you have to carefully.

These buildings would be very expensive for students to afford. Students will be still living in basements, renting one house, living six or seven together. They are not going to be able to afford the buildings you are constructing. We have a house where four or five or six students live. And each house has six cars in our cul de sac it's hard to park for our visitors there. And imagine if there's a building there, where would they park? I have no idea. If you come to my street, Cavern Court, which is just close the in the evening, there's no place to park for any visitors. All the parking lots are taken. It looks like every house is having a party, but it's not a party, it's the students living there and they share the rent and it's more affordable for them.

So I'm saying is townhouses would have been very good for families, for young families, if you wanted to solve the problem. They'll have some good quality life where kids will feel good, they'll feel this home not in clustered in some apartment up there. This is not for the families. There are townhouses before near Feltham, you start and people are live happily there. That should be the norm for affordable and thank you for giving me opportunity.

Thank you, thank you both. If I see there's another individual in the chamber, you're welcome to come forward. And anyone who's online who wishes to address council, please raise your virtual hand and we'll call on you when the time presents itself. Good evening.

Hi, my name is Manuel, I live on Union Road. So I'll hopefully address some of the points raised today and just give the perspective of another student. First, I just want to say that this is a mid rise building, so. So it's kind of compromising already from building a high rise similar to what University Heights is. That's really important because they're already taking into account how this could potentially impact the community and they've proposed some changes and compromised for the community already. Grad students on campus also already have access to cheaper rates for moto, which is the car share they're proposing. And so this is definitely a cheaper alternative and one that a lot of students will choose to use if this apartment does go through. I know everyone's talking about the precedent and how this would set a precedent.

However, this is a unique opportunity. This lot is currently not being used to the fullest and this kind of allows for a unique opportunity in a sense that it doesn't necessarily serve as a precedent setting. There has already been larger buildings that have been recently developed as everyone's talking about in Saanich. I understand this is in a single family area, but this is a unique opportunity that when they're not looking to demolish houses to create these buildings, they're looking to use an opportunity for potential housing. Some people brought up the public funding as a requirement for UVIC to build the student residences rather than us building this residence building. However, it's like we're not the B. C.

government and they are already under limit of budget. And don't worry, as students, we do really want the B. C. government to fund public education because I want cheaper tuition. But we need to provide Saanich residents housing and that's the primary goal in this proposal and something that the Saanich council should think about because this is going to support Saanich residents by a couple different ways. Primarily. Also, I just want to say that a lot of students don't have cars like the majority of students won't have cars. Especially I know when I was 18 I definitely did not have a car and I was walking or biking to school.

I have purchased a car now and I live farther from campus because of it and have to pay more price. However, I know that if this was a potential opportunity when I was in first year, second year, this would have been something I wanted to do. And most of students in the Senich area, in that area do bike to school or walk to school. It's only a 15 minute walk from that apartment building. So it's kind of very accessible and only a 5, 10 minute bike ride, which for me is perfect. I can wake up 10 minutes before class and still make it. The 2019 council also said the climate was an emergency. And so this is also.

If we don't have as many car spots then there may be people that aren't going to be depending on so much on the cars and maybe look more towards that car share programs or biking or walking. So I just want to talk about that. And for the rest of the time I just wanted to say that students need housing. Everyone's been talking about how much all these students are overcrowding the streets like they're everywhere. They're making parties, they're making a fuss. Everyone hates students. But we're going to be living in the community. We all need to go to university. And if a house has six students, that's because the rental market is messed up. So how can we fix the rental market?

Well, we need more houses if we have residents residences with one or two rooms and if there's more of them, that brings the demand down, which brings the prices down. So students can't afford these house like all these single bedroom apartments because there's not enough of them? Thankfully, yes, the University Heights properties, they're going to be, you know, one or two bedrooms and that'll help bring the market down. This will also help make the market down. There will be more availability of houses which are currently occupied by six students all struggling to pay rent. However, if there's more of it's like first year business stuff, demand goes down, then the prices will go down too.

So this issue isn't going to go away anytime soon. The province has already pushed back developments at UVic which we've talked about earlier. However, this relieves pressure in the area just as other buildings are relieving the pressure. And so hopefully there won't be as much partying in the single family houses. Rather they may be regulated under an apartment with lease agreements and clear maybe security or regulations. Whereas the single family houses that are overcrowded and oftentimes hosting all these crazy events won't be as prominent. So yeah, thank you so much and I appreciate the time to talk today.

Thank you. If there's anyone else who'd like to address council on this item, please come forward or raise your virtual hand. Good evening.

Sasha. Izard signage residential items D1 and D2 which propose to allow a five story apartment building on Feltham Road. In May of 2024, Saanich Council decided to adopt a new official community plan a year and a half before a completed OCP was required by the provincial government. Simultaneously, the local area plans, including the Gordon Head local area plan were removed from the OCP bylaw rendering them legally non binding. Now two years later it is being proposed to put five stories in the heart of Gordon Head, outside the primary growth area and in a neighborhood zone. To me it looks clear as to why this is happening.

A new hub and corridor is being born and a precedent for five story buildings is being set for the whole of Feltham. What will be next to me is obvious as well. Gordon Head Road. So Feltham and Gordon Gordon Head Road will be on the march for Vancouverization. What an accomplishment. So why wasn't this included in the OCP when you passed it? The only difference between then and now is that there is a vast oversupply of condo units according to the developers. And the NDP led province is perched on the precipice of bailing out the developers with over a billion dollars of public funds by buying up their empty units.

So why continue to reach for the moon when the scheme of oversupply has already collapsed? Will we the public be on the hook to bail out the developers building this as well? Or property owners if they aren't able to rent out the apartment units? How many apartment units are empty right now? I take one look at the Shelburne and Mackenzie intersection. And it looks like quite a few. So why wreck single family home neighborhoods? A process that will inevitably further reduce the single family home stock, thus driving up prices for single family homes. Are Canadians not supposed to have families now? Under our corporate regime in the 21st century, we've entered a twilight state zone where rather than admit the housing crisis was a fraud cooked up by industry and a government utterly sold out to it, the government is maintaining that we are in a housing crisis while we need to bail out developers with vast amounts of taxpayer dollars on credit because they built so much.

This is happening while various levels of government are giving them vast cuts in developing developer cost charges that could have helped cover the added infrastructure requirements that the public are going to be left on the hook for in the form of skyrocketing taxes, utilities and interest payments on our ever mounting debt. This will drive even more residents out of single family homes and continue to facilitate this process of upzoning. So forget reality. Full speed ahead. Five stories on Feltham. Is that the inevitable before us tonight? If so, this council needs to go. Thank you.

If there's anyone else who'd like to address council on the items scheduled for public hearing, this will be your opportunity to do so. I'll call for a second time. If anyone wishes to address council on this item, please come forward or raise your virtual hand. I see a virtual hand online. I can't see the individual's name. Ms. Da Silva, are you able to see who that is?

It's mehdi Najari.

Okay Mr. Najee, you'll have we need your name and address and you'll have up to five minutes to address council.

Mehdi Najari, 1005 Leeds Place. I have been the resident of Saanich for 30 last 39 years. This is a huge encroachment into the single family neighborhood. For no reason. There is no need. Show us the need that we need to build this housing. There is a huge number of people waiting for housing and we need this. There is no need. We have been told since 2022 that we are living in the midst of a housing crisis. Housing crisis, Housing crisis. And then the boat provincial government and Saanich council and mayor supported that false claim and push for upzoning and increasing the density. The deadline was December of last year.

By the deadline that the government pushed all municipalities in B. C. to change their OCP Official Community Plan and allow much more zoning, much more density. The deadline was December of last year. After the December suddenly we hear the media and everybody else is talking about housing oversupply. What's happened? Was that a big lie? Because it couldn't be. We have. We could not have housing crisis. And then within a month after the deadline is changed to housing oversupply. It was a big lie. And we were told the big lie. In order to allow what the developers demanded much higher density which provide much higher profit for them. Our neighborhoods, our single family neighborhood is being sacrificed to increase the profitability of the development. I ask why, why this happened?

Would you please, Mr. Mayor, ask that question. If we had a housing crisis, why suddenly after December we are having housing oversupply? We see the developers come two years ago. They got permission to build six stories on MacKenzie. And then they came and asked for extension. And they said we don't want to create more housing oversupply. That's why we need extension. We don't want to build now because we don't cannot sell them. Would you please ask that question? The developer in this case is saying that the Feltham is a major road. I ask you, Mr. Mayor and your staff, is Feltham a major road? Then if the Feltham is major road, then Mackenzie is a super highway. What kind of nonsense is this? You are having a side road that going distributing road to the small neighborhoods and you call it a major road.

Now in order to justify these, we have housing oversupply in a way that even the rentals, the building that have rentals in it, they are giving one or two months free rent and begging people to rent them for market price.

The prices are not coming down. Because they are going to keep that prices even if they have empty unit. The prices is not going to come down. We don't need market housing. If there was a need, there was for affordable housing. And you are not building it. We are not building affordable housing. The same government that pushed for change of OCP after December, they stopped funding affordable housing. It was all a trick. And you participated in that. Would you please tell us how was it a housing crisis? Answer that question. Because without answering these questions, the public hearing is meaningless. We had. Our taxes is going up. My taxes last year between 2024 to 2025 went up by 16 and a half percent on my property tax. My water and sewage bill went up by more than 54%. Who is why?

Why suddenly we are paying all these increases?

Mr. Nagiri, you've wandered well outside of the scope of tonight's application. So I'll just ask that you please. Mr. Najiri. I'm actually Making a point of order at the moment and if you're going to interrupt me, that will be the conclusion of your opportunity to speak. My comment and point of order is that the commentary from members of the public is most welcome on the subject of the rezoning application for Feltham Road. And so if you have further comments in respect of the application, you're more than welcome. Other comments will have to be submitted in writing and received as general correspondence.

You are asking, I am asking where is the need for it? Our taxes is going up because of these development. We don't need this development. The reason my butterbeer went up because of all these push for development. We are paying for growth instead of the developers pay. And you are allowing to maximize their development, their profit and destroying single family homes. This development is going to look over many single families. You destroy their privacy. For what reason?

So that. That concludes the five minutes. Mr. Nijiri, appreciate the benefit of your comments and. And then those that were relevant to the application are welcome at this time. If there's anyone who wishes to address council on this item who's not yet had the opportunity to do so, I invite you to come forward or to raise your virtual hand, please come forward.

Good evening, Mayor and council. My name's Trevor Patmore. I actually live at 1783 Fairhurst Avenue. I'm already inconvenienced by the construction where they're digging a very large hole and excavating from 7 in the morning to 3 in the afternoon when they all knock off. Fortunately, my concerns are to a certain extent the development is being done by Telus Living, which is a new enterprise for Telus. Whereas they're trying to develop their property portfolio by using this, the property downtown and also the one on the corner of Quadra Mackenzie to increase their housing stock so they can have a new enterprise with Telus Communications, which has nothing to do with the fact that apparently they want to move their old equipment from the large building into what a very small area underground.

I cannot understand why you need five stories of building on top of that. Can anybody explain to me why you need five stories? No, Nobody's got an idea. Why do you need five?

I'll remind you that I did mention that I will be taking. I'll be writing down any questions and I can put those to the applicant or to our staff concerning the parking

as young students here, which, yeah, they haven't got anywhere to live. Although around the area next door to us there are quite a few houses where students actually rent and Go to university from there because it is a very convenient walk. And unfortunately, when it comes to students using cars, yes, some of them can't afford it. But you're building units with family apartments of three bedrooms. And are you telling me that the mother and the father aren't going to have a vehicle? What, they're just going to have one vehicle and leave the mother there with two children and she's going to catch the bus to go everywhere? I find that rather inconceivable. It has always been.

Even from the beginning, when they put their proposal in, there wasn't enough parking spaces for the amount of apartments that were there. And guess where the nearest bit of convenient parking is going to be? They're going to walk down their nice new pathway and park in nice quiet Fairhurst Avenue, which is already full of cars from the residents who live there. Cannot actually see why. Tell us want to knock down a very usable house that was on one of the lots and was being used for rental, just so that they can place obviously far smaller equipment than they have in the building they've got. If my knowledge of technology development is the same as everybody else, equipment is getting smaller, not larger. So why they need two properties to house what probably sitting in the middle of their building in a very little space?

Nobody knows what's in that building. Does anybody know what's in that building? Has anybody visited that building, seen inside it? They have quite a large parking area around that building which hardly has any vehicles in it most of the time. Yeah. But for some reason they think it's necessary now to buy the property next door, knock it down and then develop it as a five story, as people say, three stories. You could probably live with five storeys. You're just setting a precedent. You know, you've already got the development at the top of Gordon Road, which is going to have apartments in it as well as townhouses. Yeah.

Just can't see why you want to make Telus are richer company at our inconvenience. Unless of course, you want to actually do an application for the Tetherless Living CEO who lives on Uplands. Maybe we ought to build an apartment block next to his house and see how he feels about it. No, I don't see a plan in for that one.

If that concludes your comments, thank you very much.

Thank you.

If there's anyone who has not addressed council on this item and wishes to do so, you would be welcome to approach the MIC or raise your virtual hand. Good evening,

My name is Tara Ward Moran. I live at 1832 Feltham Road. I drive by this proposed situation here every single day. And I've lived in Saanich my whole life and I'm in my 50s now. And the area I'm in is single family dwelling primarily. And when school is in university and Montessori is very close as well. So the gentleman here that lives on Fairhurst or nearby is absolutely right when he says that the traffic is crazy when school is in, both with university students, whether they have cars, most of them do have cars. And all of the side streets inclusive also of Feltham, which should not be considered a main corridor, which is a disappointment. I have that Shelburne is a corridor, Mackenzie is a corridor, Quadra is a corridor.

MacKenzie has been changed so that it's not as accessible for many people to get to UVic as conveniently. So now they take Feltham. So the traffic on Feltham has increased substantially. The light at Tyndall and Feltham, there is no light. You would have to have better safety regulations at that point. That is a high impact traffic area from Tyndall, it's a T junction. There's been numerous accidents and I believe there's been pedestrian, at least injuries there over the years. And that will just be increased as far as I'm concerned. Knowing the street as I know it, the only other comment I want to make is that the community, at least on Feltham. Personally, I can speak for myself. I'm feeling overwhelmed.

In regards to what is being proposed in the area. There are two major construction buildings inclusive of apartments already for Gordon Head. Feltham is a bit of an artery between Gordon Head and Shelburne. So already we have this build proposed. There's another one three houses up from me, proposal of 14 townhouses. There's a proposal at the top of Gordon Head, which you've all agreed to, I believe. It was said it would be a perfect fit. But it's Also again around 100 units on the top of Gordon Head and Feltham. And then at the top of Gordon Head and Fairbairn there's been three residences, I believe maybe four taken out. There's going to be, I believe, 50 to 80 units put in there. It's overwhelming for the area.

It's changing the landscape considerably. And my major concern is for the density is too much. Leave it on Shelburne, where it was agreed to and proposed to be, and the traffic. I'm concerned for safety. Thank you very much.

Thank you. If you're here to share your thoughts on the Feltham application, this will be your opportunity to do so. Please come forward or raise your virtual hand if you are online. Okay. We can consider this the third and final time. If anyone wishes to address council for a first time who has not had the opportunity to do so, please come forward or raise your virtual hand. Okay. As was previously mentioned in the introductory remarks, there is a second opportunity to speak for up to five minutes with new information. And I do want to underline the point that it has to be new information that has not already been shared. Those who wish to do so are welcome to address council a second time. Mr.

Nijiri, I see your virtual hand and I will be listening carefully for new information. Information. You have five minutes.

Oh, thank you. Thank you for carefully listening for the new information. We have the right to speak. My question is this. How much community amenity contribution this development will pay? Second is, do you think student can afford market housing? Those we hear from a student that we need this housing. Do you think they can afford market rental? If you think. Please answer that question. Because we needed in the record that the council and the mayor think the students can easily pay market rental housing. Do you or your staff believe or think that this is not this project, this development is not a precedent setting? I mean the developers is saying that it's not precedent setting. But this is a single family neighborhood.

There is no five or six stories building in this area in this neighborhood. So it is precedent setting. And the fact that we are hearing that he's not president setting is unbelievable. Again, another question I have is what is the need? Please answer this question on the record. Because the people of Saanich need to know what this council think during the year of election for new council. We need to know if you think that we need this. This building and why. Why? What's the reason? And I. I think that's all I. I can talk right now. Have a good day.

Okay.

Thank you. Mr. Najiri. You have a good day as well. If there's anyone else who would like to address council for a first or second time, you're welcome to come forward. Just remind you that this would be for new information as a second time speaker.

Yeah, I just like to share what I remember today from I mentioned the campus.

Sorry to interrupt. I will need your name again.

I'm sorry. Hannah Brown is my name. Campus transportation planning meeting Today they do an annual survey on Ring road of what kind of vehicles are using the area. And for the past few years it. It's steadily been about 54%. If I'm remembering correctly around that amount single use vehicles versus multi use vehicles or cycles or things like that, things that aren't single use cars, et cetera. And I think that puts kind of into scale. We've had the whole lots of students have cars. No students have cars right now on ring Road about 50% of the traffic is private cars and UVic are working on a plan to reduce that.

I also want to make comment around I'm hearing almost a dichotomy of students versus families, but that isn't a separate category. I know a lot of graduate students that have families that require family housing because they moved here with their partner with their children and things like that. So I just want to put that into the council's mind that actually family units such as two or three bedroom units might also be used by students who have families. They're not separate categories. When we think of students, sometimes we think of the 18 year old undergrad, but not all undergrads are 18. And we have a lot of graduate and mature students at the university as well that would benefit from rental opportunities like this. And the comment about can students afford market rate? Well, what are they renting right now?

Market rate housing a lot of the time and sometimes they can't afford it, hence why they have to move further out. But a lot of students are currently renting market rate housing that is further out just because that was what was available to them. So market rate closer could be an opportunity for some students to move back towards the area which they want to belong in. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else for a first or second time if it's with new information would be welcome. I'll pause for a moment. Dramatic pause as I'm not seeing anyone come forward or raising their virtual hand. We can as an and I have called more than three times for public input. We will now consider public input closed. I will invite the applicant to come forward to respond or provide clarity on anything that was provided as part of the public input. And then I will give council the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant or staff. So if the representative from the applicant would like to come forward to provide clarity or a response, you'd be welcome to do so.

So at this point I imagine there's probably a number of things you'd like to provide clarity on. I'll give you the opportunity to do that. And then I've made some notes of things that I'd like to seek clarity on, which I'll invite you to speak to.

Okay, great. I'll restate my name. Lauren Wolinski, LedCorp Property Investments. I'm with the applicant team. I won't take up too much of your time touching on some of these issues. There was a number of comments about the ocp. Just want to remind everyone that the OCP did anticipate this situation. They have a test for this type of situation. And staff has written in their staff report that we are meeting the test. And as well through our presentation I think we demonstrated that we have met that test. So the OCP does contemplate this type of situation. It's not precedent setting. It's a very unique situation and staff and ourselves believe that we have met that test. In terms of the size of units, we heard a mix of things. We heard they're not appropriate for families.

We heard they're not appropriate for students. I mean if they're not appropriate for families, neither families or students. Also being so close to the university, we would not have much of a market here for, for rental units. I just wanted to state that, you know, townhomes are quite expensive. Yes, they are appropriate for families, but so are our rental units. Our rental units. Here, let me just pull it up. You know, three bedrooms range from 1000 to just under 1200 square feet. Two bedroom units range from 880 square feet to 1000 square feet. I know from personal experience, I had a child, raised her until she was two in a two bedroom condo. Love the condo.

Love that we could be in such a central location and it is very doable, especially in a two or three bedroom unit. In terms of transportation, we're not claiming that we're designating Feltham Road a major road. That is something the municipality has designated. So just want to make that clear. And as such we have been asked to install a bike lane adjacent to our property which, which we'll be doing. In terms of parking, I understand the concerns around parking. However, I believe Sandage has instituted a no parking minimum for rental units. So, you know, we are complying with this bylaw as well. We're making a, you know, this development is a major investment in the community. It's a major investment, you know, involves borrowing money.

It's millions of dollars of construction and we will not be doing so unless we believed in this development. And part of believing this development we need to make certain decisions around parking. Parking is very expensive, but we have to be confident in that number of parking because it is competitive out there in the rental market and we will not be able to lease units unless people that want a Parking stall. Can get a parking stall. So we have done a lot of study around this and we are quite confident in that parking number in terms of height. I just want to clarify that a portion of the building we have is four stories, and that was to be sensitive to the adjacent neighbors. That comes at a loss of units.

So that was done at a financial loss. And I guess lastly, I wanted to the gentleman from Gordon Head Community Association. I just wanted to confirm that his two requests for covenant. I'm not sure the covenant is appropriate mechanism for his request, but we are willing to, of course, study the intersection a year after occupancy and are willing to discuss with the District of Sanich and emergency call box. So I just want to clarify that. We are happy to have that discussion.

Okay, appreciate that. Is there anything else you'd like to provide clarity on before I turn to questions?

Not at this time.

Okay. Just before I go to members of council who may wish to ask questions of the applicant, there have been a number of comments raised on a variety of aspects of the application. I'd invite you, while it's not germane to the rezoning, I'd invite you to comment, if you wish, on the relocation of equipment that was raised as part of the public input. Now, just remind folks in the chamber that. If you wish to have a conversation, we'll invite you to do it out in the hallway as the noise is quite disruptive to the meeting. I apologize for any disruption as part of that question.

So I'll turn it over to you if you wish to comment.

So it was about the relocation of the equipment?

Yeah. Part of the public input tonight questioned the need for the relocation of the equipment. And while that's not part of the rezoning application, I invite you if you wish to provide clarity on that point.

Yeah, I can definitely touch on that. You know, this is the last length in the. This is the last step in the fiber build, in the telephone infrastructure. Build, that is installing that is. Sorry, the phone.

There's an echo when I speak. This is the last step in that telecommunications upgrade, is upgrading the building. That building was built 60 years ago, and that building needs to be upgraded seismically. We want to right size the building for modern equipment. Therefore, we'll have a, you know, less of an environmental impact. We can build new H Vac, more efficient H Vac system. So we just want this building is sort of that last step in that telecommunications upgrade that will ensure that this community continues to get stable telecommunications infrastructure for years to come. So really this, the new building, is an important component of that overall infrastructure story.

Okay.

There were comments made in respect of the facade, which I thought might be an opportunity for you to remark on some of the finishings and the art contribution to the development.

We do have the architect on the line, I believe.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

We have the architect on the line, I believe

you'd be welcome to comment.

Can everyone hear me okay?

Yes, we can hear you.

Excuse me, do we also have TAM on the line from a landscape perspective? So your question specifically then is regarding the nature of the materials of the of the proposition. They're familiar materials. I mean, they're materials that are, that are readily available in the local construction industry, carefully chosen to represent just a really simple palette that highlights the individualized nature of the five different blocks, using two colors to do so.

We're complementing some painted fiber cement or pre finished fiber cement materials which are sturdy and durable and have a long lifespan. We're complementing those with some materials that have a wood like appearance. Just to add some additional points of interest and to help scale the buildings. Sorry, what was the question about the landscape?

I would invite you to comment if you wish, on the art contribution as part of the building.

And Steve, I'd be happy to jump in.

That would be great.

Discuss that. So, hi, I'm Tam. I'm the landscape architect on the project. And we've been working with a local emerging Saanich artist to develop the artwork that would be along the public pathway along the side of the project. And that artist. It's been really exciting to see a young artist come up with many different ideas and get inspired by the site. And what they've come up with is a series of art interventions that provides, that is kind of influenced by the Garriol ecosystem and provides these little fun kind of artistic touch points for children as they're walking along the path. So there will be a treatment applied to the path. It's itself that features the artist's work that incorporates things like icons of the native wildflowers and Garry oak seedling acorns, things like that.

And then there's also a facade that's being developed for the kind of the wall for the Tellus enclosure that will feature kind of a laser cut or a cut facade that pays homage to Garry oak bark. So it's been really interesting to hear the artists take on developing that artwork.

Okay, appreciate it.

I thought that that comment around the interest of the facade was a really, really nice comment. It's always good to see people get excited about architecture and request good architecture. I do want to point out that the landscape design surrounding the architecture also will do a lot to create a really unique and memorable and beautiful kind of experience for people looking at the building. So those nested buildings are surrounded by very vibrant and lush landscape that I think will also help with the architectural expression of the building a lot.

Okay.

I appreciate that clarity. Thank you. I'd invite the applicant to remain at the MIC as there will likely be a number of questions from my colleagues that are relevant for your response. I've recorded a number of questions that are also for staff and so I'm going to put those first before I go to other members of council to ask questions. The first one, Mr. Purvis, I think this would be a question for you. Could you help us with an understanding of what the OCP currently allows for this site?

Yes, through you, Mr. Neighborhood or Mr.

Neighborhood.

I don't mind being called Mr. Neighborhood. That's not a bad one at all.

I am right out over front of my skis. Yes, the OCP designates the site Neighborhood, which generally allows for low scale housing forms up to three stories.

Up to three stories. Thank you. You know, I think you have inspired me. When I'm no longer in this role, I'm going to ask that people please refer to me as Mr. Neighborhood. The next one that maybe for yourself or for Mr. McKay is the designation of Feltham. And if you could as part of your response, comment on the need for sidewalks and bike lanes on Feltham

to you, Mr. Mayor. Major roads are typically grouped together where certain thresholds for traffic, volume speed limits are met. There was a comment about whether Mackenzie and Feltham. Why are they in the same group? Well, that's one reason. And Feltham also provides key connectivity to other major and collector roads, despite the volume tailing off as you get closer to the Gordon ahead. And pardon me, could you repeat the second part of your question there, Mr. Mayor?

If you could just comment on the need or future potential for bike lanes and sidewalks on the street.

Feltham is identified as a triple A facility in the ATP and so that is why that has been requested of the developer at this location. There'll be protected bike lanes provided.

And so as part of that

we

can assume from your response and from that designation that there will be a complete protected bike lane all the way down Feltham to Gordon Head Road at

some stage, yes to you, Mr. Mayor, that's correct. There's nothing in our five year capital plan however, providing that cycling facility between Tyndall and Gordon Head to connect the dots between the two cycling facilities at exactly exists on faltering. Gordon currently is a medium term ATP project, so that means completion by 2040.

Okay, thank you. Could you comment? The applicant has responded that they would be prepared to support a review of the intersection and wondered if you could comment on whether or not that's something that could be captured as part of approval for this process and how that might be facilitated.

To you, Mr. Mayor, it could be captured as part of this development, but I also want to note that district staff have undertaken their own review recently of that intersection based on count data from 2024. A signal warrant was not.

Sorry.

A signal warrant was completed and a signal was not warranted. My understanding is that the applicant has also conducted a similar review of that intersection and the conclusions were the same that a signal was not warranted at this time. That's again a reminder that that was based on 2024 data. Now, of course we could make it a requirement of the development today and new counts could be done and we could see where we sit today.

I think perhaps the intent was for that to be captured once the building has been completed and wondered if there was a way that we could ensure that that was done as part of the approval for this process.

Yes, it could be. I believe we could probably secure that via covenant to ensure that's done post development.

Okay, I'll ask the same question in terms of the emergency call box. I think perhaps that's A question for Mr. Purvis, although I don't know if that's yours, but if you could comment on how that might be secured as part of the. The approval.

Yes, through you, Mr. Mayor. Not really familiar with that process or how those are determined, where they go or who staffs the responses and what have you. So if it were to be a request of a desire of counsel, it might best be explored in a motion to say, explore the opportunity for as opposed to a mandate, just in case that there was again, not knowing who the answer of these calls are, who may maintains these informations. Don't have that information offhand, but certainly by all means, we'd be happy to explore that, especially if the applicant is agreeable.

Okay, thank you. Another question was about the. What is the maximum building width? That would be permitted.

Yes. So through you, Mr. Mayor, there should be a variance table on page 13 of the staff report that outlines all the variances. So the building that's proposed is 65. Just over 65 and a half meters meters wide. The maximum width in the zoning bylaw is 55 meters. The reason that we have a building width maximum is for two principal reasons. Number one, it's the long sort of monotonous facades that aren't engaging. They don't promote walkability, they're not interesting as you walk past that. And also there can be wind issues that exist with longer monotonous buildings. This one as proposed, and I think the applicants mentioned this, there's very significant recesses.

There are 8 to 11 meters, I believe, in terms of these. So there's three sort of building chalks, if you will, that are addressing the street. So it was felt that that rationalized the desire for the variants and that's outlined in the report.

There was a comment about the right of way and the multi use path that will be created and I think there was some confusion about the closure of the existing path in favor of the creation of a new one. But wondered if you could perhaps provide clarity on that.

Yes, and Mr. McKay may want to add to what I'm mentioning, but the intent would be that there is a path today and at the conclusion of the development there would be a path. Also it would have a different alignment. Instead of going straight through through, it would loop to the east and as it comes out to Feltham, the path would be as proposed. It would be increased in width to. Increased in width to address some accessibility issues, allow two wheelchairs to pass. And there would also be an art component on the actual sort of light pathway itself as well as on the adjacent benches and the fence.

There's discussions with real estate and terms of the. The sale of this. The intent would be to secure it by a statutory right of way and part of that negotiation would be to minimize to, to an absolute minimum that's possible. The amount of time that the pathway is not accessible. And I think Mr. McKay may have some information about that.

Yeah, thanks Carl. To you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, just some added clarity there in speaking with the developer and I maybe can kick it over to them after I'm done here. My understanding is that their intentions are to keep the existing path open as long as possible up to the construction date that will take place where the path is today. At that point it'll be closed during construction and once the project is largely complete, the new path will be open in the statutory right away that Carl mentioned.

Okay, thank you. Is there anything that the applicant wishes to provide in addition to that response in respect of the pathway?

No, that's accurate and Correct. So for the next two years the pathway will remain open and as soon as it's safe to do so, we'll open it to the east of the building.

Okay, thank you. Those are the questions that I've captured. I'll now turn it over to my colleagues who are free to ask questions at of the applicant and of staff. And the first hand I see is from Councillor Plant online. So I'll go to you first.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you to the applicants for their presentation and staff for their answers to the question. I'd like to just talk a little bit with you, please, about the iterations of the application over time. And while it does appear that there have been changes and I want to acknowledge that, is it accurate to say that the major pushback from people has been the height and that the project in 2022 was proposed at 5 and it still is 5. I'm wondering if you're comfortable saying that's what you would suggest is the public's biggest concern is the height.

So originally the application was five stories and didn't have amenities space on top. And as Lauren mentioned earlier in the presentation, on the east side we've lowered it to four stories and added an amenity on the rooftop. And then we've also reduced the amount of homes from 91 to 77, trying to produce a larger, more family oriented unit mix as well as relocation of the pathway. The pathway you see to go right through the site, it felt like a private pathway that would discourage the public to use it. So it's also been rerouted to the east side.

Just wanted to apologize, Councillor Plant, just wanted to top off on what Maria just said. I think tonight is a good indication of, you know, of the range of comments we've heard. So I think you would agree that, you know, height was mentioned, but it was mentioned amongst many other comments. Comments having to do with traffic, comments having to do with precedent setting, OCP amendment, parking safety, some requests for additional things like emergency call boxes, shadowing. So I think, yeah, height was or is one of the issues and we did, you know, make moves on that by stepping the building. However, there were many of other issues that were brought up this evening as well as prior to this evening, which we have, you know, listened to and I believe dealt with through our design process and through many other initiatives and amendments throughout the design process.

Sorry, just to add on, add on to that. One example would be moving the parkade entrance. So our ramp used to be right by the crosswalk, which I think a Lot of residents had concerns about and potentially being hit on the way out. So right now it's in a safer, more centered location. And then on top of that, through our neighborhood outreach, we've talked to a lot of neighbors. The neighbor to the west was worried about privacy and our internal pathway going too close to her property. So we've moved the pathway closer to our building. We've shifted the patio entrances so they face Feltham instead of their backyards. Another, another residential had an issue with our parcade exhaust.

She was saying when she would barbecue, she would definitely feel the impact of that. So we've also rearranged it onto Feltham and the second one onto our own rain garden.

Can I just ask you to. Thank you for your answer. I'm so sorry you have to look to your right because I'm just looking straight ahead at my screen. I would like then to clarify then you would actually say it wasn't just height, it was a whole bunch of things and you did your best to try and accommodate. Okay, thank you for synthesizing my only other Quite well, actually. One actually arises from what you said, the fifth floor amenity space. Is there any habitation on the fifth floor?

Yes, on the one side of the building.

Right. So just for clarification, it is a five story building with habitation in five. But on the one side. Step back. Very good. I wanted to just seek clarity because the application says five story building. The only other question I would like to ask you, one of the key components of why this is supportable to staff is the public art and some of the other community benefits. And I'm wondering if you can give an approximate value of a bench, a little free library and the art that is being envisioned in the cement. As my understanding, it'll be art in the cement. And I'm just trying to get a sense what is. If you say it's a $5 million community benefit, I know it's not, then that obviously is different than saying it's a $5,000 benefit.

And in addition to that, probably the. The one item that maybe it wasn't on your list is probably the most expensive item is the CNC cut cedar fencing. That is a significant item, especially because we want to ensure it lasts for years to come. We have had a preliminary estimate done on all of these works and we believe at today's pricing, as we know, prices do go up as we see speak, it's about 100 and a quarter. So $125,000 for everything? Yes.

I mean, this is a preliminary estimate. I mean we. We don't have a detailed design yet on the art, but at this point, you know, it's called a class D budget on the. On the works.

I fully respect that you're giving the best answer you can at this time. And I was expecting a detailed line item by line item. But appreciate that My last question, Mr. Mayor, just is through you to staff. Can staff please confirm that because. And this was something I think a member of the public brought up. Can staff confirm that because this is a rental building. There is no requirement of any community amenity. This is something that the applicant is doing in order to meet the OCP amenities threshold. That has been identified that there's no requirement. But then there is somewhat of a requirement because they have to make the case that the OCP is amendment is supportable.

Through you, Mr. Mayor, to the counselor. Yes. The rental buildings are exempt from the CAC policy. And this building is secured as it would be secured at 100% rental for 50 years or the life of the building.

Thank you. Because I'm seeing the engineering gentleman beside you, it made me realize I wanted to ask a question through you, Mr. Mayor, to that person from engineering. While I understand this application does envision the applicant, if they're successful, being required to do frontage improvements including a bike lane. Is there anything that would be done at the same time to close the link between Gordon Head and Tyndall? I'm sorry, I can't talk over Mr. Najari. Aren't we.

Mr. Najiri, we have closed public input on this item. So I'll ask you to please mute your microphone and. Councillor Plant, I apologize for the interruption. We'll return to you.

No need to apologize on your behalf. Thank you. So just for clarity, the applicant will be required to do bike lanes and improvements along Feltham as part of the application. But as we've heard, it is an incomplete current corridor to Gordon Head. Is there anything that will be done at the same time or is it just. This will be another stretch of improved infrastructure for active transportation but will not close the gap

through to the Merit Council plant. The intentions are for the developer.

Yes.

To just do their frontage only. There are no capital plans at this time in the five year outlook to continue those facilities eastward. As I mentioned, this corridor is identified in active transportation plan to have those facilities completed by 2040.

Thank you. That's very much appreciated for that clarification, Mr. Mayor. Sorry I had to bounce around with a couple questions. But I was just bringing My memory as I saw people. Thank you for the opportunity. Opportunity to ask questions. I'll seed the floor.

Okay.

Thank you, Councillor Plant. So, council, we'll look for anyone else who wishes to raise questions of either the applicant or staff. And the next speaker is councillor Phelps Bonderoff.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I also have a piecemeal series of questions that might bounce between the applicant and staff. So apologies if we jump around. The first question I had was just around the car share. I think I know the answer to this, but through you, Mr. Mayor, of course to the applicants. This is an electrified car share spots, is that correct?

Yes.

Yes, thank you. The only other concern I had with respect to vehicular space was the accessible car spot. Parking spot has a width variance. And I was wondering if the applicant speak a little bit to that. I noticed that it's 2. 4 meters when it's recommended to be 3. 7 meters. And I had some concerns with accessibility with the accessible car spot parking spot.

I would like to hand this one off to. To Jason from Bunt.

I'm afraid I've walked all the way up without a real answer for you. Which stall are you referring to? Is it within the parkade?

And somewhere in my notes I had that there was some concerns around the width of one of the accessible car spots. Maybe you could. That was an older version or not, but possibly.

So I can tell you what. So first of all, Jason Potter Bunch and Associates, Transportation Engineering. So we did a transportation report and part of that is we use auto turn. So basically we test the parkade and all the parking stalls. So that's the loading as well. We also test the garbage collection, different types of garbage collection vehicles. So we run the test for all of those and that would have included the parkade as well. So if there were to be a variance for the accessible, that would have showed up in our report. But I'm not aware of a stall that's invariants.

I see your friends from planning.

Maybe they can help me out.

Yeah, through you, Mr. Mayor.

So the.

The dimensions of an accessible parking stall is sort of from line to line. In this particular case, there's a maneuvering aisle between the two stalls. So the maneuvering aisle is a width of a meter and a half. And the reason that accessible stalls need to be wider is so that they can let down a ramp or what have you in order for people to ingress and egress from the car. So basically where that maneuvering aisle can function for both of the stalls that are on either of the sides that that was considered a reasonable rationale for the variance.

Okay.

And just a follow up question through the mayor to maybe both of these fine gentlemen, depending on who would like to take it. This is considered adequate for folks who need to use the stall for accessible needs for lowering ramps and things.

Yeah. So just as mentioned. Yeah. So the. That extra space can be shared between two stalls. So it can be between two stalls and each would be considered accessible.

Thank you very much. The other question I had is maybe for our staff through Mr. Mayor was are there other utility parcels like this in Gordon Head? I don't want to put you on the spot on that one, but it did come up in the discussion. I couldn't. I can think of maybe the ambulance spot on Shelburne perhaps, but I don't know if that's comparable. That was the only one that came to my mind

through you, Mr. Mayor. I'm struggling with my neighborhood knowledge in terms of what I could come up with. Are you referencing. Are there other pieces of land that are zoned with this same zone or are you referencing another piece of telecommunication equipment in a box?

Excellent follow up question. I guess maybe the former.

The.

Any similar zoning in that case. And I might let you look that up while I'll ask a follow up question because I realize that's a bit of a tricky one. But it does speak to some of the conversation on precedent that came up and it might be informative for our conversation. The other question I had which is covered in the report, but it came up a couple times from comments in both the correspondence and from members of the public. So through Mr. Merritt, the applicants just related to you. If you could elaborate on lighting, the lighting situation. On the multi use pathway.

There's no lighting. And in the new pathway we have posts shown all across meeting the district's guidelines.

Thank you very much. And then the last two questions just come from the correspondence and through Mismare. Of course this was covered in the report, but there were some questions about the. The tree preservation. And I was wondering if the applicant could speak a little bit to the efforts that are being taken to preserve the existing trees.

I think one of the major efforts was having a jog in our parkade. As I'm sure you've seen a lot of projects. You typically see, no matter what the shape of the building is, the parade is usually rectangular. Ours has a lot of jogs and those jogs go around the critical root zones which increase the likelihood of those trees surviving. So in the case of this application, all of the bylaw as well as all the municipal trees will stay alive. And we're also planting 31 new trees. So that's, I think the main design consideration that has been included in our application. Just revising our parade extents and I

think we even went so far to even preserve a hedge at the rear of the property which is, you know, quite unusual.

Two hedges on the west and on the south per the neighbor's requests. But TAM is also on the line, so maybe I'll. Unless you find the.

I wouldn't mind some more details if the landscape architect wanted to comment as well. Yeah, please.

Hi, Maria's. Maria's explanation was great. It was really nice to be able to protect the large existing trees on site. There's some very beautiful Gary oak trees and leaden plane trees as well. So those all get to remain. And we're also, as Maria mentioned, we're planting 31 new trees and four of those are Gary oak trees that have a lot of room to grow and will be kind of complementing the existing Garry oaks.

Excellent. And my other question actually was already previously answered, so maybe I'll go back to staff. You may have an answer on the density of utility zoned parcels in the Gordon Head.

Yes, through you, Mr. Mayor. There are a total of 19 P2 zoned properties in the municipality. By a brief look, it does not look like there are any others in Gordon and it appears that the closest one would be in Cadboro Bay.

Okay, thank you very much. That's all the questions I have for now, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much and thank you very much for the responses.

Okay, thank you. Next speak or ask questions I should say. Is Councillor brown off?

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I have a few questions for the applicant and then a few for staff. One of the questions I have is around you mentioned that you would have a construction management plan and I'm wondering is that something that'll be filed with Saanich? Okay. Because I can tell you that I hear this a lot but what happens in the neighborhood is unbelievable. Parking issues by construction crews, whether they're electrician coming in his own truck. So I guess what I'm saying is your plan, if this is approved needs to be pretty solid for this neighborhood.

I believe that was. That was a comment, but I'm happy to answer as well. Of course we have no intentions of creating any enemies in this neighborhood. We are going to be, you know, this goes through even with the existing, you know, tele central office and the new telecentral office. We have been in this neighborhood for 60 years. We have robust plans that we would put in place. A traffic management plan would be filed with the district of Saanich and there'd be a construction management plan that would align with that plan as well. And really what's important for us too is who we work with in terms of a general contractor. We want someone that's gonna be respectful. They. They represent us in the community as well.

So that's another important piece of this. And then, you know, throughout the course of construction, Maria will continue to be a point of contact for neighbors and to share any concerns because, you know, stuff does happen and it's important to that there is that outlet for neighbors and to provide feedback to us if we are doing something that is conflicting with normal neighborhood operations.

Okay, just to end on that, I

have a question for Maria.

I'm sorry, we're not able to take further input from the public at this point, but I'm sorry, we're not able to take further input. You may remember that I did ask multiple times. I'm sorry this is not an opportunity. Opportunity for additional public input. But you may recall that I did invite public input multiple times throughout the discussion on this application. I will now return to the applicant if there. If you wish to continue responding to the question.

The question. The other question I would have is, would you be available for. If this is approved, would you be available for the neighborhood? So if the neighborhood had an. Something that came up as a result of. It could be time consuming trying to reach the appropriate people in Saanich. But if the neighborhood at least had your contact, that might feel helpful to them as well.

Happy to provide my contact. A month ago, a neighbor reached out and she was saying she smelled something. So we moved the porta potty within two days and upgraded it within two days and moved it away from our property line. So this is just an example. We're happy to accommodate our neighbors.

Okay, another question. Will there be any blasting with this development?

No, We've done a geotech analysis. We have a shoring plan. The excavation actually is, you know, in terms of apartments, the excavations is quite minor. It's. It's one story down.

Okay.

So there will a be no blasting. But also, you know, one. Going only one story down makes the excavation a lot quicker.

Okay.

One of the major concerns I have is around visitor parking. Our bylaw requires 24. Four and you're only putting in four and there's 77 units. It's a real concern for me. Because all these neighborhoods, including mine, and I'm on a cul de sac at night, everybody comes home with their cars and all the parking's used. So why did you reduce visitors parking? You know, did your traffic report say that it was okay or did it actually highlight that there could be a problem?

I mean, I will also hand it off to Jason to answer. But our site is highly walkable and transit centered. And I think that's one of the things in the OCP that it's trying to accomplish is to bring people to this area that want to walk, that want to cycle. You've heard students talk today about how they would love to cycle as long as there was rental product in the, in the community. So I think that's part of it.

I can speak to this a little bit in terms of visitor parking. So, yeah, so our. I work for Bunge and Associates.

We.

Could you speak closer to the mic? I can't hear you, sorry.

Yeah, yeah, I work for A Bunch and Associates. We have offices in Victoria and Vancouver and in Alberta, we only do transportation reports and so we have quite a lot of parking data to draw from. Over the last few years, we've been using 0. 05 to 0. 08 visitor stall per unit. And that's based off of a really large sample size of different types of housing. So that's rental tenure, that's ownership. Seniors housing has different types of visitors, but there's a consistency through different housing types that keeps showing that same 0. 05 to 0. 08. So we felt for quite a long time that Saanich's rates are quite high for visitor parking and four stalls for 77 units is 0. 05 approximately.

So we felt that this was an appropriate amount number of stalls for this number of units.

I find it very strange 4 as opposed to something more. The next question I have is really around. It's not about parking or transportation is around and I'm going to say heat pumps, but I know you probably use something else. So within these buildings, I'm looking for, you know, the standard. I know the province requires a certain level. Will all these units be a unit that is supportable under the legislation for climate change? Think 26 degrees is maximum heat.

So I believe you're referring to requirements for mechanical cooling in one room. So yes, we will have cooling in at least one room in these units. Yes.

So not all rooms.

You're just going to have one room at this time. We're looking at one room, providing it in all rooms. Is quite expensive. It's typically done in high rise concrete construction where construction costs are quite a bit higher and where rents are quite a bit higher. In order to provide the units at this rental rate that we're going to be seeking, we will likely only be cooling one room.

So with that comment, I would say there would have be to. To be something in lease agreements to allow residents to be able to install something. And then you look, I'm looking at all the windows on your building. You, you don't think that the units will be hot.

We're actually finding now with a lot of these units that because of airtightness testing and the, the insulation and everything else that goes in the envelope, the rigor that's required with the envelope, that not only are these mechanical systems cooling that one room, but they're bringing the temperatures down in adjacent rooms.

Okay, thank you. That's all my questions for you. So now I'll turn to staff if you don't mind. Can I ask engineering, have we done a safe routes to school program in this area?

Through the mayor to councillor Brown off. If you bear with me, I can look that up.

I have that information.

Can't hear you.

Yeah.

Yes, sorry to look it up. I'll have to look it up.

Okay.

If you give me a moment.

Okay. And to the planner, I guess, can you tell me this, if this, if this project is a approved, there are a lot of windows. Do they fall within the development guidelines for protection for birds?

Birds.

Bird hits

three Mr. Mayor to the counselor. Yes, the development permit application guidelines require consideration for birds. Largely they are. The main focus is on the taller buildings and largely in curtain wall glass situations. So curtain wall glass being that as opposed to punch windows where it's mostly wall and then there's some glazing. The curtain wall glass is sort of from ceiling to floor in almost like an office context. Those are ones where it's particularly important. And you can add fritting and different decals to the, to the glazing to make sure that it's not impactful to birds. In this particular case, given the proportions of openings to wall, it wasn't felt that other sort of architectural mitigation measures were needed.

Just one comment on that then. So for me, I never know if this is a flyway and if it was a flyway, then it would require maybe a little bit more attention. The last question I had. Was it two? No, that's it. Thanks very much. Thanks.

I'll just see if Mr. McKay has a response on the safe Routes to

school

through the mayor to Councillor Brownhoff. Yes, a Safe Route to School map was established for Maria Montessori and the route does fall across the frontage of this property, if that's the information you were looking for.

Yep, go ahead.

Question to planning. So would this project, if it was approved, have any implications to benefit our Safe Routes to School program ahead of time? Like, I know it's all staggered, but would this project benefit it on road

somewhere through you, Mr. Mayor to Council Veronoff? It would, as the frontage is being improved. Along this. This project here there is a sidewalk currently, however, it's not as wide as the new one will be and as well the path we'll see improvements as has been mentioned, with lighting and other amenities.

Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, I see that Councillor Plant has his hand up for a second time to ask questions. I'll just confirm if there are any other members of council who wish to ask questions before I go back to Councillor Plant, as I'm not seeing any. Councillor Plant, the floor is yours.

Yeah, thank you. Mr. Mayor. This, this series of questions is going to be for Mr. Purvis and it's just wanting to confirm my understanding, understanding of OCP amendments because I think there has been discussion this evening about why are we having OCP amendments and clearly there is a process under which we allow for OCEP amendments to occur. And I just want to confirm with Mr. Purvis that the primary three that are being considered this evening are the fact that one, the application needs to advance the OCP's overall objectives and for that one it's largely in the different forms of housing and near transit. Is that a fair understanding

through you,

Mr. Mayor to the councilor? Yes. That the advancing the overall plan objectives is the first criteria for an OCP amendment. And variety of forms of housing on a site where arguably it is a little bit of an island right now in terms of its zoning, it being a utility.

Thank you. The second one is my understanding is excellence in design. And I want to confirm this application in staff's opinion and I assume that of the advisory design panel is that it does have excellence in design, again

through you, Mr. Mayor. I won't go into the detail as outlined in the report, but what you have said to summarized is an accurate assessment.

Thank you. And the last one is, and this is the one that I think is the subjective one and I just want to confirm is the providing of a significant public benefit and that is the test that I wanting to just seek clarification on. That one, that is indeed one of the main three reasons we have to have OCP amendments. And then secondly that the primary significant public benefit in this situation are the art components that have. I've already spoken to the applicant about. Are those the significant public benefits that staff have identified as meeting the criteria for the OCP amendment to be recommended

by staff through you, Mr. Mayor. You are. You are correct that that is the third criteria. It provides a significant public benefit. The formal submission from the applicant has been yes, the. The ARC components and related to the pathway in addition to the. The. The widening and the lighting of that pathway. And yes, that's. I'd end it there.

And so this is where I'm just going to close off my understanding those three things. Advancing the objectives, demonstrating design excellence and significant public benefit. Are there any other tests that we should be considering this evening? Are those the three criteria that bring us forward to a public hearing

through you, Mr. Mayor. It's a big question where obviously the first criteria in advancing the overall plan objectives covers just about. About everything in, in every planning document that that council has so on. On measure. That is what, as you, as you mentioned, OC amendments, OCP amendments are exceptions to the rule. I think that staff has assessed this as this context. Half of the property. The, the. The property currently containing the Telus equipment is a bit of an exception in its surrounding context with its existence owning right now. So the question before council a little bit is to say in that half of the property, would it be the single use of the utility or would you have the utility in addition to the housing?

And it was the staff assessment that that helped. Adding the housing helped accomplish several of the goals that are held within the OCP.

Thank you. But there is no fourth criteria outside of the three that you and I have talked about tonight.

Three, Mr. Mayor. The formal criteria in the policy that you, Councillor Plant, are referencing, those are the three criteria that are stated.

Thank you. Just to clarify on the last one about significant public benefit, my understanding that would be for example non market supportive housing, parks, community facilities. Is rental considered a significant public benefit

through you, Mr. Mayor. There is no definition.

Councillor Chambers.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the questions being asked which are very redundant and very obvious and it feels like Councillor Plan is getting staff to confirm his the way he is going to vote.

I don't agree with the point of order, Councillor Chambers. Every councillor is free to ask questions to help their understanding of whether or not they support the application. And I find nothing in Councillor Plant's questions to be unusual in seeking that clarity. So I will disagree and allow Councillor Plant to Continue.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am always trying to seek clarification before I speak, and I wanted to have these things confirmed. If there is any perception of how people think, I'm going to vote, that's fine. I think at this point, Mr. Purvis has done a very strong job in answering the questions that I had, except for one. And then. And that is just the last question. Sorry, I was planning. I had it written down, but I was interrupted and. Fair enough. Points of order. I just want to ask staff the options if council was to suggest this go in a different direction. Obviously, we are at a public hearing and it's thumbs up, thumbs down.

But if it's a thumbs down and we wanted to give direction or potentially go back to the applicant to say, we want you to consider this, this and this, because we're not going to advance it in this manner. I'm wondering if staff are in a position to provide any suggested course of action, like should we just deal with the public hearing and then if it was negative, refer it back to staff or once the public hearing it's been voted on, you can't refer it back because it's dead

through you. Mr. Mayor, just perhaps briefly, Councillor Plant, there is no definition of significant public benefit, and I will leave it at that. To your question. The answer to that question may depend on how specific an idea council has in terms of the outcome that they want to see in this property. To your point, there are limitations in the legislation in terms of obligations of public notification and also to increase densities or heights. And there are also obligations to have agreement with the applicant to decrease densities or heights. So if council had a specific form, a specific list of uses, specific heights or things like that, it might be.

It might be warranted to provide that direction back to staff to see if there could be agreement that could be reached with the applicant on that. If it was a little bit more ambiguous in terms of what the desired outcome that council were to see, that might be. It's obviously going to be harder for us to predict what would be acceptable on a return visit to council.

Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, staff, for the opportunity to ask my question to Mr. Mayor. For the second opportunity to speak twice. I'm done.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Plant. Councillor Phelps Bondroff. You wish to ask additional questions?

Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor, a couple questions arising from the discussion building on my colleague's Questions when we're considering significant public benefit is the telecommunication elements of the project. Do those factor in any context and this is through the mayor to staff,

Through you, Mr. Mayor. Just to clarify, as in the continued provision of a needed utility.

Yes.

That was not considered as a significant public benefit in the assessment.

I'll ask a question through the mayor to the applicant then. If this project doesn't go forward, will there be impacts to telecommunications in Saanich?

I am not an employee, so I can't not comment on that. But I can tell you that they're currently under construction is a new central office.

That may have been outside the scope of the project there. But I was just curious as it sort of was coming up as well in the broader context of what counts as a community amenity. Question three, Mr. Meredith Staff. My colleague was talking about the guest parking and there's a variance in the report staff report for 24 spaces would be required for guests parking. The number seems high given that we when we redid the parking bylaws, I thought the number would be a lot lower. And I was wondering if this project is being evaluated based on the previous parking bylaws or the parking bylaws that were introduced the last two in the last two years.

So through you, Mr. Mayor to the councilor, staff is obliged to evaluate applications against the zoning bylaw of the day. So the standards that are found in the report and the variances that are required are reflective of the existing zoning bylaw. We are working on actually an update to the parking bylaw and I expect that some of the information provided from the consultant from Button associated is some of the information that I've been hearing on that project and that those rate Sanich visitor parking rates are higher than some of our adjacent municipalities. So that would be something that we would be looking and then seeking the advice of council on when it comes to council in the next term.

Thank you very much. And a question through Mr. Mayor to our senior committee clerk. There was a question raised by the community association about potentially introducing two covenants. And both the applicant and staff mentioned that the best approach would be to introduce said covenants, specifically referring to a review of the intersection of Feltham and Tyndall as well as to explore the opportunity for an emergency call box part of the mup. My question to you then would be if one were so desirous to include said covenants, at what point on our green sheet would you recommend that we include those elements?

Ms. Da Silva, I think they could

be included with where you do the final reading of the zoning bylaw be withheld? Add it as an additional bullet? Let me just get to the actual number. Do it as in between either C and D or make it even E. But I would be very explicit and cautious, especially after hearing from Mr. Purvis about our lack of information around the call box.

As a follow up question through you, Mr. Mayor, would it be recommended that we read that in while reading the motion or would it be better if we read the motion and then amend it afterwards to have those elements? What would be the best course of action here? I know they're both good options, I guess. What would be the preferred option?

There is no preferred. You could do either or.

Okay, that's all my questions. Mr. Mayor, thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions either for the applicant or staff from council? As I'm seeing none. Thank you and invite you to return to your seats and we'll consider the public. Sorry, the public hearing on this item closed and will now turn to council for a motion that would allow for deliberation. And I see a hand from Councillor Plant online, so I'll go to you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I apologize. I'm just having to bring up the green sheet which has been sent to me. So I do want to acknowledge that I am going to move the motion number one of what would be five motions to reject. So I'm going to move motion one that the application to allow a five story building in the neighborhood designation at 1805, 1809 and 1811 Feltham Road be not approved.

Second.

Okay. Seconded by chambers. Go ahead, councillor. Plan.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I really regret not being in the room tonight to speak with my colleagues and the public. But it is what it is and it's just the best I can do. I want to acknowledge that everybody who has spoken tonight, everybody who has spoken and presented and everybody who's been working on this are all trying to do what they think is right and what they think is best for Saanich. I don't think anybody has come into this deliberation with any sense of that this isn't something that we think will make things better. And so then it comes over to council to make the decision.

And as I age, I start to realize several things can be true at once. And what I mean by that, I do think we need more housing and we need more housing types all across the spectrum. But we also have to hold that. It's true that we have community plans that are shaped by the public. And then we have to respect that those plans are what people have faith in. But as you heard through my line of questioning, we also have processes by which we can change those plans. And the criteria for changing plans and making changes to our official community plan are somewhat prescribed.

And in that regard, that's where I'm actually going to start to disagree with staff. And it's not lost on me that earlier tonight on the Tennyson file, that initially started us with us not agreeing with staff, and. And what we eventually did by sending it to the public hearing to support was contrary to staff. So it's not without any precedent breaking that we would maybe not agree with the staff recommendation. And I respect the staff recommendation, and I do accept that the design excellence has been met for this project. But I expect that for every project to come to Saanich, that there's design. I also accept that there is a pursuing of the objective of the official community plan by having a diversity of houses.

But we also have housing, but we also have plans that say we try to protect the character and the integrity of the neighborhood. And that's where there's a bit of a rub. And so I'm not overly persuaded that the objectives of the community plan are being met here. And so then I go to the third component, which is the public benefit. And Mr. Purvis did indicate that there is no clear definition, but in this report, it's pretty clear to me. It's the public art and the aspects of the interface with the project that will be the public benefit. Any project that's going to be in built in Saanich is likely going to have to pay community development charges, and they're going to have to do road work, they're going to have to do the improvements to the frontage, including bike lane.

So really looking at this, the neighborhood says, the plan says this is a neighborhood, it should have three. We're being asked to go to five. Has there been changes to make the five more palatable? I think there have been, but it's still a 3 to 5. And so the value of going from 3 to 5 has to be significant in my mind, and it's not in this application. When the applicant provided a rough estimate, and I acknowledge it's just a rough estimate of what the art was, it would be approximately half if this project were to pay a community amenity charge. And so it's not a significant amount to merit that. So that's one.

Number two, the biggest other reason why I'm not in support of this, besides the fact that I don't think it's met the criteria, is that we recently amended the Shelburne Valley plan. And we may recall that when we did that, we said beyond Feltham, between Shelburne and Larchwood, we would consider up to four stories in that stretch on the south side of Feltham. And so if that plan is to go into an agreement that we will advance that way, we already, down the road 250 meters from Larchwood to Tyndall are saying we're going to go outside of that to have a greater height than what we've already just recently said.

I cannot in my good conscience, a mere two years and four months after the OCP has been adopted already say that this is a significant change that I'm willing to Support. Especially since 2022. The applicant has been aware that one of the biggest issues has been the height. And while facing Feltham, the height may make sense. What I've heard over and over tonight from the public was the context of how it faces into the neighborhood is incongruent with some of our other OCP values. And so while I will end with, I thank everybody for wanting to do the right thing. This is a great project in the wrong spot.

And we have heard very clearly from the public that they don't think it is the right spot. The people who want it are saying they want it because there is housing that is so desperately needed. And I agree.

I'll stop you there.

My mic is up.

Thank you, Councillor Plant. Councillor Chambers is the seconder. You'll have the opportunity to speak next, followed by Councilor Bryce.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank everybody who came out tonight and the applicants for your process. For me, I am not able to support this project. I do not agree with shoehorning it into a single family neighborhood and making amendments to make it fit. For me, the precedent that is really being broken here is the continuous amendment of the OCP as my colleague referenced. It's only been two years and we're already making major changes. And these were already major changes. With Bill 44, the local area plans were decoupled. You know, Those were over 100 years of community plans and charrettes. Those were the essence of the neighborhood. Those were the beating heart of Saanich. And.

And when the Saanish council adopted the OCP 18 months ahead, which I was not in support of, I was not in support of decoupling the OCPs, which I held dear and I still do, I did not support this. So for me, the precedent really is the continual eroding of the public trust in the fact that the OCP is continually being changed and it is causing something in Saanich which I've been trying to address now for a few meetings, a few months, which is restoring meaningful public engagement within our statutory obligations of the province and Bill 44.

Because as we've seen this term, in one term, we've seen the failure of Bill 44 to create affordable, livable, sustainable homes. We've changed the definition of affordability. It's attainable. And I am not voting for any more market housing in Saanich. Market housing is not affordable for the majority of people that need homes right now. We are in an affordability crisis. That's what happens when you have vacant houses and the highest amount of affordability. So my heart breaks for what has occurred this term and I will not, I will not stand myself by breaking any more public trust this term. And I'm really, I'm glad that these covenants and the applicants have worked with the neighbors as they have, I believe, believe that this area is critical for gardening. And these soils in Gordon Head are amazing.

They may not have been captured in the alr, but they should have been or could have been. I know these soils in Gordon Head. And what can we do now when we're blocked out from growing with buildings? You know, everybody has the right to quiet enjoyment of their property. Everybody has the right to grow a garden and feed their family. And so I really see our neighborhoods as something to protect and cherish. And this has been a completely difficult thing to do with the decoupling of the local area plants. So it's been a difficult term. I'm happy to second this motion and I look forward to, to getting back to creating developments which were in the sphere of community approved plans and hopes and dreams and, you know, approving more market housing.

There's no other definition to it. This is not livable. This is not a livable crd. This is not affordable housing. And I'm not voting for it. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Chambers. Next to speak is Councillor bryce.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Like to also thank those who spoke this evening and also to the applicant for a very thoughtful presentation. We recognize colleagues that we don't have many public hearings anymore because of an application as we know is compliant. It does not require a public hearing. Some of us were not supportive of that change, but nonetheless that came.

So tonight we have a project that is not compliant. It triggers a public hearing that makes this evening an exceedingly critical part of the decision making process. The public generally who came to speak at the public hearing through the community association, through Gordon Head, residents generally through the immediate neighbors, were not supportive. Generally concerns as have been expressed before around height and traffic.

If we are to give the respect to the public hearing process that it is supposed to have these words spoken to us tonight have to have significant meaning. As was said by Councillor Plant, many things about this project, commendable, but wrong location, those were the words that I had put down myself before he spoke them. So despite some sort of interesting aspects of this project, it does not have my support. I think that when I'm thinking of amendments to the community plan and I know staff can tell us sort of chapter and verse how they fall in the legislation, generally speaking, I would say would be to not significantly vary from the intention of the community official community plan, but would allow for some flexibility.

Going from neighborhood to five story building does not meet that definition in my opinion. So I will not be supporting the project. I am supporting the motion on the floor.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Bryce. Next to speak is Councillor Phelps Bondroff.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. We made some progress this term. Housing prices are down for the first time in a very long time. I saw a news story on check the other day. They're down 2. 8%. Rents are down for the first time in 20 years. And some might read into that that it's time to take our foot off the pedals and say we've solved the housing crisis and throw up our arms. Or some would even deny that there is a housing crisis in the face of all possible evidence. But we're not. We still have a high housing need in our community and we have a need for a diverse type of housing. Saanich is a beautiful community that is often only found with two types of housing, apartments and condos.

Single family homes. In some communities there's only one type of housing available. In this case we've heard from residents that there's a lot of single family homes in the neighborhood and that doesn't provide a lot of housing diversity. We heard from students who are looking for student accommodation. We've also heard from. Well, we haven't heard from families who would like to move here because they haven't moved here yet, of course, but we do know that their families have a desperate need for three bedroom units. I see 12 three bedroom units and 30 two bedroom units as a very strong benefit to our community. Particularly when we have people who want to raise families.

I think it's also worth noting, I think, underscoring and highlighting in my favorite barrel 449 highlighter that you can raise a family in a condo or an apartment. I think that anyone who would question that doesn't understand the world and doesn't understand that people have diverse needs and that people have diverse housing needs. Now, maybe it's just me. I've traveled a bit. I have a friend who raised a family of two in a tiny condo in Hong Kong. But I also acknowledge that not everyone

can afford a home.

Not everyone wants a home. But I also acknowledge that there are seniors who like to downsize and move into a home in their community and not have to move tens of kilometers away from their friends and their neighborhoods. When we create a community of only one housing type, we limit only a specific narrative range of folks who can live in those homes as opposed to, say, a more diverse type of folks as our lives change. So if someone wanted to downsize in this neighborhood, they would be forced to move out. And I worry that that of course is going to break community, lead to isolation and social loneliness, which of course has an impact on people's health and well being. You've heard me wax poetic about that many times.

So I'm a little disappointed to see the direction that council is going on this one. When I looked at this project, I see a project with lots of family units. I see good outdoor amenity space. I see an MUP with decent public art. I haven't seen the public art subjected, of course, but it looked quite nice. I see decent massing with differentiation between the buildings. I see once again, oh, I've gotten my notes seven times. 54. 2% family sized units. And then we come to this question of the ocp. Now, I agree with my colleagues insofar as we want to have a certain threshold for amending the ocp. I think we have amending criteria because that means we should sometimes evaluate times when we want to amend it.

We have three goals here. Advances OCP objectives. I think this project does that by providing a wide range of housing and much needed housing during a housing crisis in a community that needs diverse housing types. Architectural excellence, again, subjective. Not a fan of, say, brutalism. So maybe this building is not my favorite building, but I think you do see differentiation and a lot of effort to incorporate feedback from the community, particularly efforts to preserve those significant trees as well, which I much appreciate, and then significant public benefit. And this is of course again subjective. So it comes to this council do we consider what's being proposed here to be a significant benefit? And I guess we will all likely have different opinions on this.

In addition to the MUP with lighting and widening, which I think is definitely a benefit, especially when it comes to safety and accessibility, we have public art. The telecom elements, as I mentioned, may or may not be part of someone's factor into that, but we do need to have a functioning telecom system, but also a wide range of rental properties in different housing types. I also see benefit. So for me, I think the project does meet those three tests. And so I won't be supporting this motion. In particular, I'm looking forward to some additional comments if folks have any other takes on this. But I would also add that it's, you know, my name is Teal, my parents are hippie artists and I know the art world tangentially or maybe obliquely.

And I do know that the price of a bench or the price of a painting is not the value that's derived from it. So when we're designing a third space, you might put a bench on a corner, but that bench might mean something to people as it forms community. So hard infrastructure isn't what makes community, it's the people who use that hard infrastructure and engage on it. So I think doing a price tag value on things like public art or benches is maybe too esoteric. We should be looking at how the space shapes the community itself and how it connects people. And so that's, I think maybe just a point on whether we consider the public art and the public MUP and those other elements to be an amenity to the community that is significant. My take is that it is.

My take is that we do need housing in the community. And so I'll be voting against this motion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'll also be speaking against the motion. Gordon Head is an incredibly family friendly neighborhood, close to schools, a variety of parks, shops and other services, well serviced by transit. And you know, one of the trends that's happening is quite clear. A lot of people cannot afford to own and are looking for rental opportunities. It's no surprise that there's a lot of rental homes in Gordon Head that are incredibly insecure because they're not purpose built rental that's protected over time. And so you have a lot of of existing families who may be looking to downsize. There's kids growing up in these neighborhoods looking for a way to stay near the people in places that they love and Their options are fleeting. A new detached home on Feltham sells for $2 million as the normal price.

Older detached homes on Feltham range between 1. 3 and and 1. 6 and beyond. These are out of reach townhomes similar. While they serve an important need and I think people rightly highlighted the way that they meet the needs for many families. Many families cannot afford a million dollar townhome either and they're looking for family suitable rental options near schools, near the parks that others enjoy. This application is an opportunity to do that. And while I can appreciate concerns around character and integrity in a neighborhood, it's also important to emphasize the characters, the individuals and the security of our fellow neighbors in our community. It was mentioned several times in the presentation how this project itself does not contain displacement.

What I think was not highlighted but is an important public benefit is that this project would actually prevent displacements that are ongoing within the neighborhood as various rental homes are sold and the rental stock decreases in the area. These are absolutely essential. And so while, you know, we're very intentional about the planning that we do in Saanich, I don't think that that means that you can't consider a change. Council frequently considered sweeping changes to land use in a variety of settings, either in amendments or in the planning process itself. This is looking at an individual site making a specific change on an individual location on a case by case basis as opposed to looking at large swaths.

And so on balance, I think that this project is very supportable because there's such a need for family suitable housing. And, and we know that the majority of income earners at this point can only afford that four to six floor form. And so I, you know, I think you're going to see a generational shift here. Obviously folks who maybe have more peers who are struggling for housing in our community and are active actively being forced out and squeezed out left, right and center. And it's because of decisions like this over a long period of time that we haven't had an adequate amount of housing for people growing up in our community and those working hard to join our community as well.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next to speak is Councillor Westhaver, followed by Harper.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you to staff for your time here and the applicant. These are all difficult ones. I do appreciate how we begin public hearings with explaining the process and Councillor Bryce really reiterating the importance of why we have a public hearing is to hear from the public. And I know right from the beginning of this term there was for me Personally, being the first time going through this, there's always a bit of pressure when I keep hearing variants or going against the oc, ocp. And the OCP really is the bible. And I really appreciate Sean coming forward and representing a large population of the area of Gordon Head. And I take that with such strong value and respect.

So I will not be lending my support to the accepting of the. I'll be lending my support to the motion that's on the floor because I appreciate the people that have come out, the many emails we've received. I do appreciate the time that's been put into the application. But we need to find the right spot to do that, and I think Saanich can offer both. But right now in Gordon Head, we need to listen to the members of the association and the Gordon Head residents. So thank you for everyone that's been here today.

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

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. And as everyone has said, thank you to everyone who's participated this evening. And I have to say that in many ways, I feel extremely conflicted. I did hear from the public, and I understand what they're saying. I hear comments like, we need to find a better spot. And yet when I look at the spot involved, it truly is unique. I can't imagine it setting a precedent because of that. But when we listen to the public, I also, as a counselor, feel that I have an obligation to look to the future. And this neighborhood, which I have been through many times, and it was pointed out in the presentation, isn't only single families. There's churches there, there are seniors residences there. So it's not completely out of form for something like.

Like this to be there. However, I think. And of course, there's the park there. And in terms of whether it's a significant amenity or not, it is rental. And I guess one of the things that I struggle with, because we hear comments about developers making gazillions of dollars, for example, but this is a rental project, and rental projects have very different finances. They are not something that the developer walks away from, and they have made all their money. They are in it for the long haul. And so that's another component that I sort of turn my mind to that is the long haul is important to Saanich as a whole as well.

And when I look back to my experience of having been part of our housing strategy, that strategy, which this council adopted, calls on us to encourage and enable rentals. So I'm not saying that this is perfect, but I would Point out that what would we have gone for it if it was four stories rather than five stories? And yet going from five to four does create a layering that makes it not very visible in the neighborhood from that perspective. I was reviewing our housing needs report while I was sitting here at one and we do still need housing. I'm answering the question directly that was answered. We have.

Just because we are in an economic downturn doesn't mean that housing needs have disappeared. I remember last election at UVIC that students were still living in their cars in September and October because there weren't places for them to live. So one of the concerns of the neighborhood, which I absolutely appreciate is that many single family homes have multiple numbers of students living in them. They have cars and so on and so forth. But the reality that they're doing that because there's no place else for them to live. And so if this, which would be creating new housing, not displacing any housing, came into being, that's a place that some of them could in fact be living. So I can count. I know what's going to happen here.

But I do think that one of my concerns is that when we're trying to plan for the future, we need to be sometimes more nimble or recognize the exceptions to the rules. And so to me, this lot was probably the exception to the rule. It would definitely not have created any precedent at all in my mind. And I would see it as being the absolute end of where any type of, of anything over three stories came. And it's because it was zoned as a utility and it is quite different. And when I look at what's currently there, it's certainly not particularly attractive, I have to say. So all apologies to Telus, but nonetheless. So as I say, I was conflicted.

If there was the ability for us to send it back to staff to work the proponent, and maybe finding some things that might make it more palatable to all, I would be willing to do that. I think it's rather because one of the things that I do worry about when we are looking at this type of situation is will anything at all now happen on this site? Or will? And I suspect the answer to that is no. And so that way everybody loses, all of us lose. And in terms of whether it's students or older people moving into the community, I'll react. To reiterate what I said at a previous meeting. At one point, my mother stayed in her house till almost the bitter end because there was no place in her community which was Cadbury Bay for her to move into.

I'm not saying she would have lived longer, but she sure as heck would have lived happier if she could have stayed in that community. And so I, maybe this came to us too. And it seems odd after all this time to say it came to us too quickly, but. But I do think that maybe we could have found something that would have allowed us to get to something that would in fact move forward. Because I'm very afraid that nothing's going to happen here now. And that will be a loss to everyone in this community. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Brownhoff. You haven't spoken to the motion yet. Okay, I'll go to you before I go back to Councillor DeVries for a second time.

Thanks. Mr. Mayor, really. I'd like to ask question, question of and I'm not sure if it's our clerk or planning. I know that we have in previous years been able to, instead of rejecting a project totally, which means the applicant will lose all their fees and everything and the community could lose anything happening on a specific property. We've been able to, to, and I don't know what the word is, is send it back or have a postponement and let the applicant and our planning staff have a meeting to see if there's anything that could be done to reduce obviously the height, because the height is the issue in this neighborhood.

But I don't remember how we used to do it.

So I'll take that as a procedural question, which I think at this point we are, we can ask for staff support. So I'll look to our Ms. Da Silva, if that's something you're able to help us with.

It would depend on how. If you already have something in mind, if you are already specific and you're prepared to make an amendment to the bylaw, or if you are going to say something in general, like in order for an application to come back, it needs to be substantially different for it to come back.

Right.

Within the next six months. Other than that, on a bylaw, council only has the option to approve or reject.

Not postpone.

Not postpone.

So what will happen? Obviously, this application's going down, but the applicant will lose all the funding and have to reapply with a totally different project within six months.

Just a moment and I will find you the legislation that was just looking for.

Okay, thanks. So I'll just speak to it. I, I, I, Obviously it's been the height. I had issues around asking about traffic, but Mr. Mayor, you asked those all. I do think that the idea of the pathway, everyone keeps focusing on the artwork, but the pathway is going to be wider, so that's a benefit as well. I'm. I'm very concerned that total rejection, obviously that's where it's going, but total rejection might see this site not get any, anything done to it for years because, you know, Telus owns it and they have a zone on it that they can continue to operate on.

So, yes, the height is the issue. I had some other issues with the project as well. I was hoping that we wouldn't be able. We wouldn't have to reject, but we could send it back and see if there was some way of negotiating something that would fit the neighborhood better. But obviously that's not going to happen. So I will support the motion on the floor. But I really want to say that I think the applicant has done amazing work with the design, with the amount of amenity space for people who will call this home within the project, like within the building, on the land, on the rooftops.

I mean, there's just so much positive within the project for anyone moving into. And yes, I totally understand not putting this kind of density on Feltham because all you're going to do is create more traffic and Gordon Head is getting hit with a lot of density and one of my former colleagues would say we never know how much that density is going to cost down the road.

And it's with respect to recreation, parks, traffic, all those sorts of things. But at this stage, this project isn't ready to go forward. Thanks.

Thank you. I'll just pause to see if Ms. Da Silva has been successful in finding the necessary part or the appropriate part of the legislation. I think, Councillor Brownhoff, you may be. My recollection is that in the past council has opted to adjourn the public hearing with specific direction to staff. But I don't know that we've had anything other than approval or rejection. But I could be remembering that wrong as well. In the meantime, As I see Ms. Da Silva is still looking, I will go to Councillor devries for a second time.

Thank you. You know, I think, you know, I can count too. I think this decision in many ways is going to send the wrong message around design. Responding to public input and providing significant amenity space as well as responding to signage policy around focus on family suitable homes. You know, this project is something that's gone through many iterations that has considered a variety of feedback that actually led to quite an expensive design that was quite attractive and an offering of much needed family suitable homes. As well as amenity space focused on livability. And I guess what concerns me here is there's. Sorry, Councillor Chambers, could you not interrupt me, please? Thank you. Where was I?

Okay, well, I'll just take a moment to intervene. Council, I remind our each of us at the start of every meeting that we're going to treat each other with kindness and respect. That involves listening respectfully and not interrupting. Regardless of the nature of the interruption. You can see that the effect is that a member of council who had the floor was unable to continue their train of thought and requires additional time in order to regather those thoughts. So I'll just remind each of us that we're going to listen respectfully, as always, the expectation in the council chamber. Apologies for the interruption. Councillor Devries, the floor continues to be yours.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And so I don't know where we really go from here or what we expect to come back other than I think just bring it more into uncertainty. And I think what's really unfortunate is there are a lot of people in this neighborhood who are not represented here this evening. And it's not a reasonable expectation to expect. Folks who are renting are looking, or children who are growing up in our community, seniors who are looking to downsize an age in place in their neighborhood, or families who are looking for that extra bedroom or den or something that better fits their needs and not wanting to leave and go further from work.

And what we're doing here by rejecting a proposal like this is we're really limiting who can live in this neighborhood by wide margins. And I just think that as someone who is always looking for opportunities to ensure that every level of income earner can thrive in Saanich, I cannot with good conscience go the direction that, that the majority of council is going to go in here because I know how many people are looking for rental options in this community and I know that this would end the housing crisis for 77 families in this neighborhood.

And that is something that I think is a public, significant public benefit and will stand behind. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Councilor Devries. Ms. Da Silva, I will look to you for any clarity you're able to provide on Councilor Brownhoff's question.

So it's in our land use procedures bylaw. It says after considering an application under subsection 2A of this bylaw and following any required public hearing, council may adopt the bylaw or subject to section 471B of the Local government act, alter and then adopt the bylaw or defeat the bylaw when it refers to alter and then adopt the bylaw, that could mean altering the OCP to fit what you would consider more amenable.

Okay. Appreciate that clarity, Councillor Harper. I will come to you. I think perhaps you're going to make a motion to extend and I'm grateful. You read my mind. So I'll go to you to do that as it's just about 10 o'.

Clock.

Yes, because I think we're going to need a few minutes at least. I would move that. I would move that we extend the hour of adjournment.

Seconded by Phelps Bondroff. I'll call the question on extending the meeting. Those in favor and opposed? None are opposed. That's carried. Thank you. Oh, you still have to stay. You can vote against it if you wish, but you still have to stay. Let the record show that Councillor Westhaver was opposed. I will go now to other second time speakers to the motion. Councillor Phelps Bondaroff.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A couple of my colleagues have mentioned what kind of signal this vote might send. And I'm also very conscious of what kind of signal we want to send to the applicant. I can also count, although I hope my speech will will be persuasive and maybe sway some folks. Perhaps sisypheanly. But I guess one thing we should articulate as a council is what kind of things we would consider significant public benefit. Because otherwise we're effectively sending back an applicant who I suspect will come back with another project. I hope it'll have an equal or equivalent amount of housing, but they don't have any direction as to what constitutes significant community benefit. As I'm voting against this motion.

I'm not one to speak to up in this case, but I might suggest a couple of solutions for folks. And I do have a question through you to staff and I don't know who this is best directed to. My understanding is we can't change use or density. Could we ask the applicant to make 10% of the units below market rental?

That doesn't change use or density.

Okay, so for those folks looking at the room here, I can't make it given the the nature of the motion. But that might be something that I would certainly sweeten the pot for me if I was on the fence, which again I am not. But I think that's worth noting because I'm worried about with the applicant going back and to me, housing. Empty field with utility shed housing for people who need it for families and different types of housing. Utility shed. I wanted to amend My previous speech because I realized I gave an example from Hong Kong which is a buddy of mine I talk to regularly but. But I also forgot to mention my own building.

I live in an apartment building and there's lots of families in our apartment building. We actually hold a movie night last Friday of the month. We project movies in the side of our building and we don't have kids come out to that because it's too late, it's dark. But we do have a bunch of young families in our building. We're a two bedroom, I think one and two bedroom condo building and people are happily raising their families in that building right in the heart of Saanich. Walk score of 85. 5, right next to the best splash pad and Saanich a fantastic park with a pink elephant and I hope folks will come out for music in the park.

But I think it's worth noting that there's a diverse type of people in Saanich. They need a diverse type of housing and this project proposes just that. Now repeating myself. So I think I would like to see my colleagues iterate some of the things they would like to see which would tip the balance in favor of significant public benefit. Because so far all we've heard is less height and that's about it. But I'm also conscious of what my colleague has mentioned, one of my colleagues mentioned, which was the voices who aren't here. We were talking about a public hearing, but we did actually have some students come today who talked about the need for student housing and I thought provided quite a nuanced analysis.

A, there are students who have families that might come as a surprise for some folks. B there are students who need housing which will not come as a surprise to any folks. C the reality is the government has cut funding for housing on EVIC campus. So there is a more pressing need for housing. And this is housing which is within a very short walk walking distance of UVic, which to me is a significant public benefit as well. And also again to reiterate how we got into this problem in the first place, the problem being a housing crisis, which is notably that we've said no to too many projects over the last 35 years.

And so I think moving forward we've done a good job this term saying yes to housing. It's strange that we'd say no now on a project that solves a lot of the challenges and has a significant public benefit, architectural excellence and does it answer OCP objectives, particularly around providing community housing, family housing that is, and I'LL leave it at that. But I would like to hear people articulate what they think would constitute a significant public benefit.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Phelps Bondroff. Before I go to Councillor Bryce, I'm going to go to Mr. Purvis with what I'll consider a procedural question as it doesn't relate specifically to the application, but may provide some guidance in terms of what council can direct. I wondered to Councillor Phelps Bondoroff's point in terms of altering if council were to direct a change to this application's density or height, is that something that would be would have to be discussed with the applicant before it can continue to proceed? Or would council be able to move forward with the readings of the OCP AMS amendment and the applicant would just have to go along with that?

Yes to you, Mr. Mayor. My understanding is that council could give readings of the bylaw subject to receiving the owner's consent to insert council objective here, be that height or other. At which case, because the Local Government act requires that it requires the owner to consent to any change that would push the density down after the public hearing begins, if council were to pass that motion to say, giving the giving readings of the bylaw subject to receiving the owner's consent, if the owner does not consent, the file is dead and that's the end of the process.

And alternatively it would come back with said consent at final reading.

Okay, so if I understand correctly, Council could make that amendment as part of the readings of the OCP bylaw subject to staff seeking the consent from the property owner, which would then result in, I guess, concurrence and final reading occurring. But otherwise it just never comes back. That doesn't become a reality. Okay, Appreciate that clarity. Thank you. So more food for thought for council if you were wishing to direct in the language that was used, alterations that could perhaps make it more suitable or amenable. Councillor Bryce, for a second time.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would urge us not to start throwing in our wish list on the fly without any input, plus any feedback from the public on what they thought about the input. But this just reminds me how important committee of the holes were before we went to public hearing because that was when we hashed out all of this sort of thing. Now that's retrospective, but it's just we're in a process here. I think so far down it now that to start just putting out ideas at random, I wouldn't support that.

Okay, thank you. Are there any further speakers to the motion which is to defeat or not approve? I haven't had the opportunity to speak to it and so I do wish to provide a few remarks. It's very clear where this is going to end up. We've already had, at least we've had five speakers from council express a particular perspective that would support this motion. So I think we can all read where this is going, I believe. I feel like the audio cut out there. To me this one doesn't, doesn't feel particularly egregious while it is outside of what the OCP contemplated. As a resident of Gordon Head, I'm not in the immediate area but I've spent a lot of time walking, biking, busing, driving around this neighbourhood and I can tell you this is not some far flung part of the municipality.

This is well within walking distance of the market. The future shopping that will be at University Heights, schools, abundant number of parks and on the 27 and 28 bus route it turns the corner right in front of where this building would be located. So to me, you know, while five stories was not properly contemplated as part of the OCP when it was adopted, it also doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. I do think this is an area where we would probably describe this as a secondary corridor and five story apartment building for 77 units that would provide homes for 77 families or individuals or a combination I think is entirely appropriate.

I can certainly understand that it's a big change from what's our around the area, but this is very much an area that's in transition. We've seen that happen down this street and down adjoining streets that single family homes have become apartment buildings and townhouses and multi unit buildings. I think that's the reality of a growing and changing community and I do find this one to be well suited to the area. And I say that as both someone who's presided over meetings that have decided on land use applications and as someone who has been a resident in the area for eight years. I also want to push back against this continued misinformation that the OCP was approved 18 months ahead of schedule.

It has been repeatedly clarified that it was a two and a half year process in which council and our staff received thousands of points of There was nothing at all rushed about Saanich's official community plan process. Yes, lots of things changed over the course of this term, but none of it was ever something that was pushed through with any kind of haste. And I think that's a disservice to people who participated in the process, including our staff who worked very hard to bring Forward drafts of the plan that were reflect both public input and our vision. So I regret that this one seems to be not going forward. I can understand where folks are coming from and why five members of this council would choose to vote against it.

But I also think there's an awful lot going for this application. And rather than defeat it like others have suggested, I think it would be well worth looking at ways that it could be altered to meet the expectation of what might be more suitable and perhaps more closely aligned with the ocp. Clearly there's not an appetite to do that tonight, but I think it's a missed opportunity. It'll be months or years before something else comes forward here. And as others have said, that leaves 77 future residents and families without an option in a neighborhood that would certainly be a true desirable one to move into. On that point, I'm going to call the question.

This is on the motion to not approve the application. Those in favor and opposed, Councillor Phelps, Bondoroff, myself, De Vries and Harper are opposed. The motion succeeds and the approval is defeated. Can I go to Councilor Plant to make the second part of that of that motion or the next motion for rejection?

Yeah.

My understanding, Mr. Mayor, based on the green sheet, that there are five motions required. So I will move motion number two of five that the application to rezone lot one, section 58, Victoria District Plan 34089 known as 1805 Belcom Road from the PT Uzillity Zone and lot 11, section 58, Victoria District Plan VIP 66313, 1809 Feltham Road and lot one, section 58, Victoria district Plan 6378 except part in Plan VIP 66313, 1811 Feltham Road from the RS6 single family dwelling zone to the RA11 apartment zone not be approved.

Seconded by chambers and Councillor Plant, did you wish to speak to it before calling the question?

I think. I think, Mr. Mayor, given how our practice has been this evening, to just have spoken at the first motion, it would be inappropriate. But that's not my role.

Yeah, I appreciate that and respect your desire to have. Having had all the comments collected as part of the first motion. So with that in mind, Council, I'm going to call the question. Those in favor and opposed. Councillor Phelps, Bondroff, myself, Devries and Harper are opposed. The motion carries. Councillor Plant, back to you.

I move that the first reading of Bylaw 10309 be rescinded.

Seconded by chambers on rescinding first reading. Now that's Got to be rescinding. Oh, yeah. Two different bylaws. My apologies. Rescinding. First reading of 103. 09. Those in favor and opposed. Phelps, Bondroff, myself, DeVries, and Harper are opposed. The motion carries. Back to you, Councillor blant.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Sorry for cutting you off. I move that the first reading of bylaw 10310 be rescinded.

Seconded by chambers on rescinding that first reading. Those in favor and opposed. Phelps, Bondroff, myself, DeVries and Harper are opposed. The motion carries. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move that development permit DPR 00990

not be approved and seconded by chambers on not approving the DPR. Those in favor and opposed. Phelps, Bondoroff, myself, DeVries and Harper are opposed. The motion carries. I believe that's the last of the motions for that item. I'm getting confirmation from Ms. Da Silva, in which case, I think the appropriate motion is one of adjournment. And I'll take that from Councillor Harper. Yes, go ahead. Councillor Bland. Go ahead.

Yeah.

Mr.

I apologize on a point of privilege, more than anything. I just want to. I don't think I heard us say after the other three public hearing items that we could no longer receive information, and I'm just wondering if you could clarify that. On the first three items on the public hearing this evening. We are complete. Let's. If people did want to talk to us about the fourth item, because that has been rescinded, it is now open for discussion.

Yeah.

Thank you. Important point of clarification. So that would certainly be true for item one on the rezoning and mapping. Item three. No, not. Yes, item three, which was Tennyson, has not received final reading, and we cannot receive input on that. Obviously, Feltham's not going forward, so folks are welcome to provide comments on that if they wish. And the other was a cannabis license does not require a bylaw amendment, and therefore, public commentary is welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Apologies for interrupting you. I'm in support of adjournment.

Okay, thank you. That was moved by Harper and seconded by Westhaver on the question of adjournment, those in favor and opposed. None are opposed. The motion carries. Thank you, everyone. I will say, impressive that we're done at 10:12 with a public hearing of four items.