Transcript: Regular Council - 13 Apr 2026

Mhm.

Mhm.

Mhm.

Hello Councillor Pierson, we can hear you. You can hear me? Can you hear me? Hello? Let's see if I can find the microphone. Can you hear me now? Yes Councillor Pierson, we can hear you. Thank you.

Mhm.

Mhm.

Okay, good evening everyone and welcome to our regular council meeting of Monday, April the 13th. I know that counselor Pearson is joining with us online. So we have all of members of council present tonight. I do wish to begin by acknowledging that this meeting is taking place on the traditional lands of both the Sauk and Shianu Nations. And before I look into approval of tonight's agenda, I just have a few remarks to make that as since council met the last time, unfortunately, our community has endured some very challenging times. Uh starting off with a tragic house fire uh within this neighborhood. We also parted ways with Peter Faulkner, whom you may know was well-known uh solicitor here in Sooke. Uh his celebration of life was held this past Friday. It was well attended by many Sookites near and far. Um sadly, we've also learned also of the sudden passing of our former base commander uh Steve Wright.

Uh in addition, and I'll ask uh counselor Titus to say a few remarks about uh Steve in just a moment. I also recognize there was a significant event uh in regards to a homicide that took place over this weekend. So, I do wish to acknowledge all of the first responders that who have attended to this. I'm also aware this is uh 911 emergency awareness week, just recognizing those taking the calls uh when we call in that number. But also that many families, friends, neighbors, and the like have been dramatically impacted by these events. And so I just wish to let everyone know that we are thinking, you are in our thoughts, and I wish you well. And I'll turn this over to Councillor Vetos. Thank you, Your Worship. Yes, I'd like to acknowledge that we lost a valuable member of our community on Friday. Steve Wright passed away from a tragic accident Friday morning, I believe.

Just a reminder, Steve was a retired detachment commander for the RCMP. I think he came here in 2009. And I believe after he liked it so much after he retired, he stayed here. And that was our gain. He joined the Soo Lions Club. He's been a pillar in the Soo Lions Club for for many, many years now. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and to to Elsa, his wife. And they've asked for some privacy at the moment. And this is shaking our our group. Oh, damn it. Yeah, anyways, uh our thoughts and prayers go out to his family. He was also there in the Tour de Rock.

He was a rider and a well as a support for Kids for Cancer. So he's going to be sadly missed and hard to replace. So uh That's it. That's tragedy I can speak to. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Vetos. Council, I now like to draw your attention attention to tonight's agenda. One change is 8.1. The report regarding our sister city agreement will take place at our next regular scheduled meeting. So that will be removed. The rest remains. And so I'll look for approval as the agenda to be adopted as presented. Moved by Councillor McMath, seconded by St. Pierre. All those in favor. That's unanimous. Thank you. We have meeting minutes here for adoption tonight, March 23rd regular, April 1st special, April 1st 2026 special budget revisions, it says. Move adoption by Councillor St. Pierre, seconded by Councillor Beddoes.

Anyone opposed? Seeing none, that too carries unanimously. Item six, or pardon me, item five is our report of the chief administrative officer. The written report follows under the consent agenda. I'll just ask Ms. Gray if there's any highlights she would like to speak of at this time. Um at this time, just similar to yourself, I just wanted to thank the first responders for their support over the last um week here. It's been a little bit of a challenging uh environment, so I just really appreciate the mutual aid and um all the first responders that have helped uh the community out. Thank you, Ms. Gray. I'll turn our attention now to item six, which is our public question and comment period. So, this is reserved for anyone in tonight's gallery that wishes to address council. This will be the one time tonight to do so. Uh should you have any comments to make, uh if you could please come forward, turn on the microphone if it's off. If

you could please give us your name and then just the agenda item you wish to speak to, and then every speaker will have two up to two minutes tonight. Uh William Wallace from uh downtown Sooke. How's it going, eh? I'm just practicing my Canadian talk. Uh I tried this last time, but uh the subject wasn't on the agenda last time. It was a mistake on my part, but anyway, you said we might get answers. Given the proposed zoning regulations for Air Nan, what are the maximum number of dwellings that be constructed given the current OCP and provincial directives? Uh number two question is, can you explain the major differences between the current and the proposed zoning?

Number three question, what is the maximum number of dwellings in Sook that right now could be built that meet our OCP zoning allowances both in and outside the sewer specified area? I know that parcel were recently mentioned and I assume secondary suites were are identified as dwellings. The future is unpredictable and there is no assurance on how fast or slow developments in Sook will happen. We saw how fast Sunriver on ALR land took off, how quickly secondary suites were added, and smaller cul-de-sac developments sprung up. So, I hope those are my three questions. Okay, thank you. We'll look to address those when the staff report comes forward later tonight. I was told last time that someone would have the answers. Okay, we're going to ask staff to do that when we have the report in front of us. Other speakers tonight?

Hi, Jeff McDonald, 2075 uh Harbour View Road. Um completely out of line here. Um this is about uh agenda item 7.5 and uh that um there's going to be a request for reinstating a provision for a number of dwelling units in the ALR. So, uh we've had the property since 2019 and we've sort of been uh um hovering what waiting for harmony regarding housing allotment uh on ALR properties in Sook since 2019. So, uh everybody knows they made changes in 2019 and then it took them a while, took them two or three years to finally kind of nail down where they were going to land on housing. And for a brief period of time Sooke was harmonized with that. So there was a provision in the bylaw that allowed that allowed for three dwelling units on ALR properties.

But sometime in the last since I guess last February or something, that got dropped. And so I've been in touch with planning about it and they're going to be putting forth a recommendation to as a house housekeeping item to correct this. But it's going to take till October. But if it's corrected, I guess. So I'm here to advocate for the change to get it back to to harmonizing with that. And then second for some haste. It just seems absurd to me that it's going to take eight months to correct something that was already in place and we already had harmony on. Thanks. Okay, thank you very much. Others will address that too. Other speakers, please?

Alan Lowe's, I'd like to address um [clears throat] 9.1 I believe our land estates. Not necessarily just that but the cost of all roads, parks and boulevards become a district taxpayer liability. So I would hope that we re-look at how much we ask of developers for for boulevards and the like that because it becomes a park addition and it increases our taxes. Um Also I want to talk about the insurance for the homicide that uh it it was discussed before as now we have a homicide and how is that cost recovered in with the RCMP that we have come in from uh out of town. Um uh I would also ask with uh for the budget that we recruit volunteer firefighters instead of hiring another two.

And no more fire trucks until we deal with um province and what's been happening. We all know what's been happening with the our staff doing um ambulance work. Uh and speaking to that, um we should have a nurse support with the RCMP whether it's for mental health and or uh mostly mental health and addictions. And medical staff at the Hope Center, we should be looking at that. And no more uh part-time staff added this year and freeze hiring. And let's half the furniture budget. And uh And also the effective higher taxes on community on uh commercial properties. Commercial uh people already struggling and we've lost businesses because of of costs. So, we really have to reconsider how we um it's not just it's not just residential people that are suffering, but also commercial. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Other speakers this evening? Veronica Pembridge and Billing. I live in Sook. Um is it turned on? Yes. So, I wanted to thank you all for the work on the budget, the budget open house. I wanted to say it was great to speak to the people that were there. I really also appreciated it felt like some economies been putting in place. I felt that that the handouts were see just seem more workable and economical and I appreciated that instead of lots of high expense. Um I want to one of the things that uh uh I'm committed to and many of the people that I feel I'm speaking on behalf of is that the community association be funded as fully as possible. And one of the suggestions that came up at one of our meetings was to limit the number of staff and counselors that go to the conferences. I don't have all the acronyms before me, but I sent a letter to limit the number of people that

attend the various conferences to two people, either one from council and one staff person or two from council. And that those people be specifically charged with reporting back to council. And that any savings made in that respect be given to the community association. And I realize there not may not be a substantial amount of savings to meet the full request, but it would meet some of the request because that's a volunteer organization. I wanted to reiterate what Mrs. Lewis said because it has become apparent to me, this has been as I've become more involved in trying to understand the budgeting processes. And I really feel for you because so much of what comes on my assessment is not part of Sooke. So, I understand that. But I also want to say it is such a concern for me that the tax base is getting more and more compressed because it is the property owners, the homeowners, and it's and and now if as we build rentals, as we have more parkland, as Mrs. Lewis said, more

services, more everything demanded, it's more and more from this small tax base that's getting increasingly compressed and pressed upon. So, I wanted to also look at how we're funding the parks and uh how we're funding everything with respect to we can't keep putting that pressure on as we're building rental housing and all of that. So, I wanted to underscore that. And then, while I may not have a direct uh answer to this, I understand that many of the fire call outs are emergency, are health related. And that those calls we could get reimbursed from the provincial government if we kind of organized. I don't know if this is true. This is my understanding and I wanted to do some more, but I think we need to do in-depth looking at every possible creative way that we can reduce. And I think you're doing a lot of that, but I wanted to underscore going forward. So, thank you. Okay. Thank you. Other speakers this evening?

Is there anyone else? This is the only time on tonight's agenda. You have a second on the vote? Sure. If you like. I'll have a second by Councillor Bill Ego Booth. Sounds good. I don't see anyone else making their way to the microphone, so Thank you very much. Something new, Bill? We don't need the same thing. It's with regard to the Heron Ann development. Okay. Okay, I'll try to go quick. Heron Ann and other proposed major developments, such as Mountain Heights, may be allowed, but are not the major goal of our OCP for higher town town center density or with the provincial government goals of transit hub residential growth. It is an undisputed fact that large developments outside the town core are more costly for taxpayers to maintain and service. Option one, road frontage improvements recommended by the staff, are the District of Sooke's municipality standards developed after much consultation with residents and the building community. They are best practices that will keep us out of the problems that we all see with cars, parking, and pedestrian

safety at odds. We're now seeing Heron Ann and all other major developments happen without any assurance of federal or provincial infrastructure grants for growing needs, such as roads, bridges, a new sewer treatment plant, expanded sewer lines, and probably a new police station. We all need to face that Sooke has no money and a tax problem. Kicking future infrastructure costs down the road is not a responsible physical strategy. We either ask developers to pay now for the infrastructure costs of their new developments or ask Sooke taxpayers to pay for it in the future. If the developer can't afford it now, it is very unlikely that taxpayers will be able to afford afford it in the future. I believe that Mr. Butler is a community minded resident and I appreciate his efforts of his six cement plants to sequester carbon in their cement to help address our climate emergency.

It is a responsibility of the government and the politicians to ensure that best practices for pedestrian safety are followed by developers. Sooke spends a major portion of our tax dollars on professional staff for planning, engineering, time performing, two more sentences and grant writing. They are They were chosen to guide and inform and so why ignore this costly information and have council go make a deal? I believe that option one is the way to go. Thank you very much. Thank you. And thank you, sir. You'll just need to turn the microphone back on. Yeah. John Pimm. Hello, everybody. I know what's uh I know that there's a lot of pressure on everybody, especially these days.

Um I but I I really struggle to see how developing and developing and building and building has in any way enhanced uh the lifestyle of anybody living in this community. Also, I I don't understand why developers are asked to make a contribution to infrastructure when they should be made to as part of the deal. This is how much we want. You're You're coming in here, you're building, you're leaving with money. It's costing the the citizens more money the bigger we get. That's not the idea. Either your goal is to you know have a fist fiscally workable a community and if that is the goal, then obviously there's some level of failure here. Uh and the other thing is if the goal is to ensure to some degree the uh the the the the the style of life the lifestyle of the community then also that is a failure because the more we're getting crowded the more we have to pay for the crowdedness I don't see a success here. I know I know this pressure's coming

from above. But if you're working for the community I it's supposed to work up from the bottom. I know there's people that are higher up politically and that have a lot of to say and put a lot of pressure on you. But I think if you'd be acting on our part if anybody here had the had it in them to say no. If the province says we'll come in and do it anyway, you say go ahead. And we'll back you. I know we'll back you. Do it for us. Stick your finger in the dike. It's late. I know the horses are out of the barn. I know you inherited this problem. You didn't invent this problem. Keith, thank you. We're at time.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Do I have any other speakers? Please refrain from clapping. This is meant to be an environment where everyone can express views both for and in opposition to. Hi, sir. You'll need to turn the microphone back on again, please. Thank you. Doris Picalin. Um I'm a resident of Hanlin and I've had about 8, 10 years of blasting and gravel shattering above me. Um and now this development down beside Aaron and is that going to make just as much noise again? I don't see why I should pay my taxes. I'm getting nerve damage by the noise. It's bad for your health. It's stressful.

Um [sighs] I have mostly questions about this like the shaded area. I don't know how to refer to it as a lot number and beside that the white area on the plan above the already built Aaron and estate they're working on roads there, too. And how can I see exactly the plans for these two lot areas, the shaded one? And I just wonder if anybody has done environmental assessments. It's a watershed to Ella Creek and to Campbell Lake or something like that. And I walk there. There's cougar, there's bears, there's spotted owl or horned owl or both. Uh there's otter. There's mink. Who's taking care of that?

And will there be in if there is environmental assessments for that area, who's checking up on that? Like on Ella Creek, do people ever check if they uh fulfilled the conditions? Anyways, those are questions for the new development. I know I should go and connect with the staff. the people here. Um, public trails, I mean, they make these hard to walk on roads. How many trees are they allowed to take out of there? I mean, it's all nature. So, those are my concerns. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Are there any other speakers this evening? Oh. Okay, thanks. Um, so Veronica Pemberton Billing, I live in Sook. This is about the Throup Road Connector project because That's not on our agenda for this evening. It's part of the budget, though.

So, I'm bringing this forward as part of the budget because there's items for that in the budget. please. So, thank thank you. So, it's in there and I understand you've got a big agenda. So, it's in the context of the budget is that I understand that there is a major report on the viability of that project coming forward on April the 23rd. And I'm just wondering I because I also understand that there are things in the budget about that project and that it seems to me that that report would impact the budget. So, that if the if the project is considered not viable, then maybe we wouldn't need those expenditures in the budget and that could go to lowering the tax increase. So, it I just wanted to suggest that it could we could uh postpone the final reading of the budget till after that report and see if that affects the budget and therefore would if it affects the tax increase. And that just seemed that we could do that and the public

could engage with it and the staff that would be the responsible thing to do. And that the budget I do understand the timeline of May 15th and it seemed like that was still possible. So, I wanted to put that forward. And uh and then secondly, I know the budget encompasses everything. So, I'm going to say this is about I continue to continue to be concerned about the climate action plan and the climate goals. And I'll tell you why. First of all, we're trying to reduce emissions as we're trying to do all this development and cut down more trees, which will only create more emissions. So, the the whole contradictory thing of the very nature of them concerns me. But, it also concerns me that we're given the number for Sook emissions, but it specifically does not include the amount of carbon that's absorbed by the carbon sinks within Sook, and that's defined as the carbon thing. So, I one last statement, I would like Sook council and staff to

request that we be given the actual number, which is emissions minus what's absorbed by the carbon sinks. Okay, thank you. And then, Ms. Loris, did you want to speak again? Thank you. Ellen Loris. I I wanted to talk to again to the road costs um [clears throat] >> developing roads. With what we've got in our plans, we've got these super roads with two sidewalks on either side with boulevards, with bike lanes. The cost of building those is way beyond, and it's not Sook. Anyway, it's like big city stuff. It And so, what I propose is that we look at doing one sidewalk on one side, make it wide enough that you can put a line down the middle, bikes go on it, too. And um Yeah, just and because it's not just building it, cuz it also drives up the cost of the housing, it's also maintaining it. Again, it's it's a way of doing things better. I'm a farmer, I have to think like that. Otherwise, it

well, still not making it. Anyway, the density [clears throat] in the OCP, also, that high density is really costly. Um costly for us. Well, I won't go on with that. But anyway, it's costly because we have to have more roads, and we're looking at through road again, which is another exp- And there again, through road, what's what's the design on that? Is that again with two two sidewalks and and bike lanes on both sides that have to be painted every 6 months cuz the paint runs off and all that sort of thing. It's maintenance. Uh and um I would say remove the climate language uh in in um as well because the costs in the OCP because the cost to imple- implement climate um whatever that is, uh to make it more climate resilient, whatever that is, uh that money is drying up. So, we need to be looking at things a lot more um realistically.

And do we spend money to save money or spend money to make more money or or spend money to waste more money? Okay, thank you, Ms. Pierce. Okay. So, I believe that's everyone. So, we'll move on into our Okay, go ahead. Our final speaker tonight. Um You'll need to turn on the microphone back on, please. There. Can you hear me? Yeah, so I would just like to know Introduce Give us your name, please. John. Okay. Go ahead. >> John Wolf. Been moved here since 2008. Moved here cuz a smaller town it was attractive. Now, not so much. Traveling in and out of work for every day, you know, um price of gas, traffic backup, um the the cost is outrageous. My my property tax almost doubled since I've lived here.

Um, so, you know, what was it last 3 years? It went up 30 36% or something like that. To to to add another 10 to 12% on top is outrageous. What are the people seeing for this cost increase? What do the people of the town get? More traffic? More builds? There's tons of units sitting here that aren't being sold and we're still pushing builds all over the place. There's there's no um way to solve this traffic problem. Like everything that's come out is [snorts] not doable, roadblocks, costing people money. So so where do we go from here? How much money did the town bring in from permitting in the last year or two? Where's that going?

Where is everybody's money going? Cuz I don't see it. There there's no resolution here, you know? What are the people that are paying for this getting? It it's just it's becoming too much, you know? So, what's inflation going up? Two 2 and 1/2%? And our taxes are going up 10 to 12%? Not happy. Okay, thank you. Okay. I can turn microphones off. I just can't turn them on for you. Okay. So, Council, I'll turn your attention to the consent agenda. So, that would be that the following items be adopted by consent. 7.2 correspondence, 7.3 report of the Chief Administrative Officer, 7.4 Land Use and Development Committee Committee meeting minutes, 7.5 the zoning bylaw housekeeping amendments, 7.6 density bonusing provisions the zoning bylaw review and proposed repeal.

The remover for consent or someone looking to pull anything. Councilor Betos, okay, I see hands here. Councilor Betos and St. Pierre then Bateman. Go ahead I'd like that of correspondence like to pull 29 E, please. 29 E? The elder letter. 29 E of the correspondence will be pulled. Councilor St. Pierre. Okay, I'll come back to you Councilor Bateman. Yeah, I'd like to pull number 17 request for support pedestrian safety improvements on Highway 14 sent by CAO Gray to MLA Laginess. Okay, so that's pulled. We'll follow the next meeting. Is anyone else wishing to pull anything from consent? 7.5? Well, it's up to you. Councilor McMath is pulling 7.5.

So, there's some correspondence in 7.5. Otherwise, Councilor St. Pierre, I will turn to you to move the remaining items. Is moved. Is there a secondary for the remaining items? Councilor Bateman. The rest will be resolved as stated in their particular items. So, everyone in all those in favor, please. Anyone opposed? That's unanimous. Councilor Pearson, I cannot see you. So, in the event that I miss you, just please speak out. Otherwise, I'll deem that you I'm waving. Okay, but I still can't see you. So, thank you for waving. Okay, so moving on into our agenda then. Sorry, yes? I can't hear you in the microphone. In the past, we've been able to see uh Zoom participants in the upper left of the screen or upper right. I don't know why we can't do that any longer.

I don't know. That's an IT question. staff, why why is this not possible? I think they're looking at that right now. So, Counselor Pearson's camera is currently off, so I can't grab his screen. Here we are. Give me one moment. If the camera's on, they can. I think if the camera's off, they can't. Well, I usually turn it on for the votes, so. Yeah, because when we're looking at a PowerPoint, it's When the procedure bylaws states the cameras must be on during um these meetings. It does state that. It's just sometimes when you're looking at a PowerPoint, someone's yawning at the camera. I think when you're speaking, yes, but otherwise Okay, can we move on into our meeting and then we can see We'll see that Counselor Pearson is visible to us when he wishes to speak.

Okay, well, now we can't see the screen, so. Okay, I think you Counselor Pearson. He turned it off. I think it's the case like for tonight when Counselor Pearson wishes to speak, then we'll move him forward. Otherwise, we know that he's there because then we can't see the screen unless we pay to get more screens, which doesn't make any sense. Okay, so we're going to move on. Uh item 7.5 will fall into our next It'll be under item 13 as 7.5. The correspondence will follow to the next regular meeting. Okay, so that moves us to 8.2, which is a request for sponsorship from the Suit Bike Club, the Enduro race event. Uh recommendation is that council consider the that council sponsor the event from the Suit Bike Club for the Enduro race event 2026 on May the 3rd in the amount of 750 to come from contingency. Uh we needed to identify the source.

I'll pick that. Councilor St. Pierre, are you prepared to move that? Yes, Councilor Heldaen is seconding that. Would you like to speak to it? Uh it seems honestly good for the community and a good way to test out our part of potential partnership in the future with the Suit Bike Club. Um the letter makes clear some of the economic benefits to the community and that all of it is going into amenities for the community, so that makes a lot of sense. Uh I would suggest it come from sponsorship until sponsorship is exhausted and as previously discussed in other similar situations, at that point we can look at council contingency.

Okay, so you would like it to draw out of out of sponsorship until that is flat. Okay. All right, that's fine. Councilor Heldaen, would you like to make any comments? Yeah, sure. Um normally I I'm okay with it being kid stuff, you know, but something like a bike race where they bring in lots of people for riding the bikes, but they also bring in lots of spectators. That stuff is good for business, for our downtown, for small stores and so on. And I think for $750, it's it's a a good bang for our buck. I mean, again, I don't normally push this sort of thing. I mean, pickleball is different. I mean, it's just a bunch of people playing their own event. This will have a broader reach for people, business, and everything else. And I think we need to support more things going on in the community, even if it is spectator sports and things like that, too. So, I'm uh I'm voting for this, so. Okay, thank you. Anything from anyone

else? Councilor Bateman? Yeah, so I'm in support of this. That this money will go to hiring professional first aid services for the event. And as Councilor Haldane says, it's not a a simple sponsorship of a of a pickleball tournament or other other such uh community events as Councilor Haldane mentioned last month when we rejected that sponsorship application. Uh these are not the times to uh we have to be very careful with how we deliver our money. Yeah. So, that's that. Okay, thank you. Anything from anyone else? Okay, I'll call the question then. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Seeing none, that carries unanimously. Thank you.

Next up is nine bylaw section 9.1. So, this is the zoning amendment for 7350 West Coast Road, bylaw number 935-600-115. So, there is a suite of recommendations here. Some of these have come through from the land use committee. Uh and then there was one that they forwarded up to council directly, but I'll turn it over to staff to take us through the report. And then I understand the consultant will follow with their report after our staff report. So, over to staff, please. Thank you. Great. So, yeah, this presentation summarizes the supplemental report um for 7350 West Coast Road, specifically the outstanding issue of the Highway 14 frontage improvements. So, its purpose is to walk council through the revised options, explain the key policy and implementation considerations, and seek direction on what frontage framework uh should be secured prior to bylaw adoption.

At the March 3rd uh LUDC meeting, uh staff uh presented the broader rezoning application together with several Highway 14 frontage improvement options. Uh the committee made no recommendation on the contents of the Highway 14 uh frontage improvements, instead leaving that matter uh for council's consideration uh today. Since that being the applicant has submitted a revised version of its original alternative, as well as a new second alternative. The supplementary report is intended to be read together with that earlier LUDC report uh that is included on the agenda, but this will focus again on the outstanding Highway 14 uh issues. It's not working. Clicker's not working. Oh. You're good.

Thank you. Okay, so the principal consideration for council uh is determining the Highway 14 frontage improvement framework to be secured secured through the rezoning process. Notably, the options uh before council differ in four main ways. Uh the extent of frontage to be improved, uh the timing of delivery, cost responsibility, and the road cross-section components. Uh council's direction would inform preparation of the Section 219 covenant together with any required development variance permit prior to the bylaw adoption. For clarity, the frontage under consideration has been divided into four segments uh from west to east. So, segment one uh extends from the western property boundary to Aaron Drive N East. Uh segment two extends from Aaron Drive N East to Aaron Drive N Segment three extends from Erin Glen Boulevard to Grant Road. And segment four extends from Grant Road to the John Muir Elementary School Crosswalk.

Uh the policy context for the frontage issue remains uh consistent uh which was set out in the earlier staff report to LEDC. The official community plan supports active transportation, complete streets, and safe connected uh conditions for all travel modes. Staff have linked the frontage improvements to broader transportation objectives including school access, multimodal safety, and connected walking and cycling facilities. Staff view these works as growth-related infrastructure that should be considered in coordination with residential growth. Following the March 3rd LEDC meeting, the applicant submitted two revised alternatives for council's consideration. Alternative one is a revised version of the applicant's original proposal and increases the proposed contribution towards segment four from 35% to 50%.

Alternative two is a new option submitted for to staff on April 7th. It applies uh to segments three and four with its construction triggered at the 91st lot or subdivision of the first lot within phase five, whichever occurs first. Uh the frontage components uh of both alternatives are shown in the later slides. In summary, the report presents five options for council's consideration. Option A provides full frontage improvements to the full SDS bylaw standard. Option B reflects the applicant's alternative one revised following the March 3rd LEDC meeting with a limited extent, modified cross-section, and cost-sharing approach. Option C uh reflects the staff-supported modified frontage framework along the full extent of the frontage. Option D reflects the applicant's alternative two uh with a reduced modified cross-section for segments three and four and a later delivery trigger.

Option E would postpone the decision and direct staff to return for further refinement. Um notably, since publication of this report and agenda, the applicant has requested to present an additional option, alternative three, option F, for council's consideration. This has not been included here given time constraints. However, the applicant has requested to present following staff's presentation. Starting with option A, it would secure full frontage improvements along segments one through four from the western property boundary to the John Muir Elementary School crosswalk. The timing of construction would be triggered at time of subdivision following phase one or pipe pole located north of the existing Aaron Estates development.

Cost responsibility would rest with the applicant. In terms of the cross-section, the option reflects full compliance with the Highway 14 standard in the SDS bylaw. Uh this standard includes a center median, travel lanes, bike lanes, curb gutter, boulevard, sidewalk, street lighting, and street trees. Option B reflects the applicant's revised alternative one. It's limited to segments three and four. Segment three would be delivered at the 131st lot, while segment four would be subject to a five-year repayment condition following subdivision of the 131st lot. Cost responsibility under this option is split. Segment three would be funded by the applicant. Segment four would be funded 50% by the applicant and 50% by the district with the contribution repaid if segment four is not built within five years of that 131st lot. This option uses a modified cross-section, the same as option C, which we'll see in the next slide consisting of travel lanes 1.5 m shoulder curb gutter 2 m Boulevard or ditch 3 m multi-use pathway and street lighting.

Can you guys forward the presentation, please? Thank you. Option C secures a modified frontage framework across the full Highway 14 frontage extending to the school crosswalk. It applies to segments 1 through 4. Recommended timing under this option would result in earlier delivery of segments 3 and 4 following Pike polar phase 1 of the development. With segments 1 and 2 deferred until subdivision of the 91st lot to coincide with the secondary access requirements to be located approximately 550 m west of Aaron and Boulevard. The cost that responsibility would rest with the applicant. And in terms of frontage components this option uses the same modified cross-section as option B.

Consisting of travel lanes 1.5 m shoulder curb gutter 2 m Boulevard or ditch 3 m multi-use pathway and street lighting. Next slide, please. Option D applies two different cross-sections for segments 3 and 4 presented on separate slides. So starting with segment 3 located between Aaron and Boulevard and Grant Road this option would deliver frontage improvements with subdivision of the 91st lot or the first phase within phase 5 whichever occurs first. Cost responsibility would rest with the applicant. The cross-section approach for this segment is a modified cross-section but it's reduced from the options B and C. In terms of frontage can you pause? Sorry folks, if you're having a conversation, can you please take it outside because I can't hear our staff if other people are talking at the same time. Thank you.

So in terms of frontage components, segment three a cross-section includes travel lanes, curb gutter, a 3-m multi-use pathway, and street lighting. But notably, it does not include a shoulder or boulevard ditch separation between the travel lanes and multi-use pathway as presented with the other options. Segment four of option D is located between Grant Road and the school crosswalk. Its timing trigger is the same as segment three of option D prior to final subdivision approval of the 91st lot or first phase or for subdivision within phase five. Cost responsibility would also rest with the applicant. Uh the cross-section approach for segment four is also a reduced cross-section.

Although it differs from segment three uh with the inclusion of a shoulder and boulevard. So its components include travel lanes, a 1-m shoulder uh reduced from the 1.5 m in options B and C, a 2-m boulevard, curb and gutter, 3-m multi-use pathway, and street lighting. Option E would postpone the decision on the frontage framework and direct staff to return uh with a revised option uh for count for the council consideration. Uh because it is a deferral option, the extent, timing, cost responsibility, and cross-section approach would need to be determined through further refinement. Uh the report notes that this may allow for additional clarification on timing triggers, cross-section details, design constraints, and implementation. It would also, of course, delay uh direction on the frontage issue and delay covenant refinement and bylaw sequencing. As noted previously, the applicant has requested to present a third option uh not reflected here. So a third alternative, option F.

In conclusion, a staff's preferred frontage option is option C. As set out in the supplemental report, staff consider option C to provide the strongest alignment with district policy objectives, to secure the school connection at an earlier stage, and to maintain continuity along the broader Highway 14 frontage. Staff also viewed as a more balanced and implementable approach than the SDS bylaw standard or option A. If council is not just not uh prepared to support option C in full, a staff's minimum supportable outcome would be a direction that secures segment three and four uh from Erin NBoulevard to the school crosswalk. Uh at it it would be at also at the applicant's sole cost and with an early trigger. Uh ideally uh following pipe pole or another equivalent earlier trigger. Uh this report also states that staff do not support a frontage approach that relies on district cost sharing uh for the school connection, or that introduces reduced cross-section standards without appropriate horizontal separation uh between the vehicle

traffic and pathway users. [snorts] >> And the recommendation before council is shown on this screen as drafted in the supplemental report. Uh if council selects an option tonight, that option will replace the placeholder in the second clause. Uh and staff would then bring forward the draft section 219 covenant and any required development variance permit prior to bylaw adoption. Uh this concludes my presentation. Thank you, and the applicant as noted is uh is present and has requested to present a subsequent option for council's consideration. Okay, thank you, staff. Before I go to our applicant, um there were some questions that came up in the public uh Q&A or question period just about this development in particular, asking about the maximum number of residents, the current and proposed zoning, how many units could be done both in and out of the sewer specified area, uh and a few others uh that I may have missed, but I'm wondering if you have any response back to uh that query that came forward earlier. Yeah, I can I can respond uh briefly

here. So, um the first question regarding the the number of dwellings in Erin and right now we have uh conducted studies uh to consider 331 ground-oriented uh residential uh forms of development, including 1,800 square meters of commercial space over the 41.3 ha uh CD area. So, the uh differences in the zones basically uh the RU2 zone is a rural residential zone um with minimum parcel sizes of 4 ha. Um these this of course can be subdivided with uh the 41.3 ha on on septic systems. Uh however, the CD16 uh would secure much smaller parcels of 500 square meters or slightly larger um uh in three different areas. Uh area A uh would permit single-family dwellings as well as small-scale multi-unit residential dwellings, so that would be uh up to four units on a single parcel. Uh area B would also uh permit the same uh thing as well as townhouses. And area C uh would be the village center, which is uh the core area within the the West Erin and area, which would

support uh townhouses as well as commercial development, which would be consistent with the commercial or community residential land use designation within the OCP. Okay. And just procedurally to our corporate officer, the uh readings there the recommendation that came to the land use is still below. So, we still need to move through those readings, if I'm not mistaken, rather than going straight to what's on the screen. Uh thank you, Your Worship. Yes, the uh items which uh the So, this the recommendations in this begin with the recommendations made by the LUDC, which traditionally would have been in the consent agenda, but were moved out in order to keep the entire item separate. Okay. The uh the bylaw um the three readings to the bylaw uh separate from the adoption of the uh covenant proposals um which uh could be as long as the uh you hold votes on the covenants before you do the adoption of the bylaw, then it would all be consistent. Okay, thank you, cuz the uh the one the

one that's outstanding is more related to the second paragraph part of the option B, determining that option. Okay. All right, just procedurally so I know what to do here. So, I will now invite the applicant, if you would like to please come forward for your presentation, please. Thank you. Just need to turn on the microphone. Turn on the mic. There you go. >> My apologies. Um I'll start over. Uh Madam Mayor, members of council, my name is Dean Strongafshar. I am a planning consultant, and with me this evening is the owner, Brian Butler, and and other staff. Um I would just say as a comment before getting into the specifics which relate to the actual road frontage, um that this has been a vision uh of the Butler family for generations. Uh I know I did some preliminary work on the vision of this back in 2008, which culminated in terms of what the overall plan is today. Um there is uh the actual application for rezoning is only the west side of the property. Uh there is

one lot that's about 176 acres. The west side is just over 100 acres. Overall, in terms of just a comment back from um um comment made by uh members in the audience earlier that about 36% of the of the site will be either parks and or open space, which is a combination of detention pond and riparian areas. As it relates to specifically park dedication, about 20 26% is actual park. It substantially exceeds the 5% park dedication as required by by the local government act. There is an extensive key to this is maintaining as much of the natural site as possible. There is 4.1 km of trails that have been identified, which also then includes both nature trails in terms of keeping keeping the natural environment as as as much as possible as well as urban trails where um they're more in keeping with the kind of the village center and and surrounds. I would also just say that as we've gone through this process with with staff over the course of more than 1 year,

several years. And yes, there has been some toing and froing in terms of coming up with the package and in terms of the many a package which includes contribution to the to a housing agreement and so on. We have basically come to a consensus on all of those issues in terms of the development and really the one outstanding item relates to relates to the highway frontage. And I I would I would have to say to council I'm sorry if we have so many options that there's possibility of confusing you, but I I'll just go through my I understand I should say if you can be confused.

I will just say before just going quickly going through my presentation now as I basically said it without going through the presentation is that the reason why we've come up with this last presentation very recently was a combination of obviously the meeting that we had with the planning committee, which we realized that there was some very good discussions about there possibly coming out with which was then described as alternate four. And then also in other discussions and and in receiving the staff report that that we received on Friday in terms of being available to the public, we then did make a couple of minor tweaks in terms of for example the width of the of the shoulder for example to more correspond with um with uh with with the comments in the staff report. So, perhaps with that context, I will just as very quickly go through and uh just hit the one arrow to the right I guess. We'll see what happens here.

And we all know where it is. I won't I won't belabor that. I'm sure you've been through there and you can see kind of the lower right-hand corner there. That is the 63 lots. It is the current Aerodrome. And again, I just the whole point of the uh what we're trying to achieve is just simply mirroring what you see already at Aerodrome. And so, that is kind of the that is kind of the the bar in terms of what we want to achieve. Um and again, this is off a small writing. But again, this goes to the land use committee recommendations. And as you can see the larger point, no recommendation was on on uh Highway 14.

Um and uh we did make our position I think quite clear at the planning committee. And I can say uh at certainly times uh prior to that in terms of our many conversations regarding highway frontage uh along Highway 14 in terms of what was what was doable and what isn't. Um Um so, options A and C, option C which is recommended by staff would require a full frontage uh of of improvements uh along the entire frontage of West Coast Road from the very westerly end of uh of Aerodrome which is down by the by the the driveway that goes into the marina all the way to John Muir School. As you can see from this picture, it represent it you can see the substantial amount of uh rock face as you go down the hill towards the Marina property and the road called Butler Maine. It is in it is in approximately 1200 meters long. In terms of our engineers West um um our civil engineers I should say they have determined that the estimated cost

for that is in the order of $6 million. There was a staff a staff going back about a year ago when they had estimated cost of about 3 and 1/2 million. Um Um but with the extent of actually rock blasting moving hydro lines and so on and so forth the estimate from the our civil engineers in round figures $6 million. And and I'll be very candid is just it's it's it's a not feasible not sustainable not financially sustainable not feasible. Um and so we were looking at looking for alternatives that we thought would meet the spirit and intent but which would also make something that would would be financially feasible and would provide a suitable set of pedestrian and and biking lanes. Um And so you can see it's hard to see in this picture but Aaron and Boulevard comes down and all of Aaron and Boulevard is all access through as I say through the main the main spine which is Aaron and Boulevard it all comes down to the current intersection.

Um our our proposal was is to extend pathway all the way from Aaron and Boulevard capturing all of current as well as future residents of Aaron and and make a pathway between between Aaron and Boulevard to Grant Road as well as from Grant Road down to to the actual school school crosswalk. Um Uh yes and so two I'm sorry to the point that was made by staff, what was before you before was that there was a a combination of contribution to the second half of it by the by the by the district and we did hear that that may be an issue. So we've looked at some other another option.

And if I go to option D which is and I've now called it option F because it's just slightly different than what was in your package and the only reason for that is that we've extended the we've extended the shoulder between Aaron and between Grant Road and the crosswalk at the school to 1 and 1/2 m wide. We showed 1 m wide and in the staff report it did mention about being 1 and 1/2 m wide. And in the option F in terms of the the um space between Aaron and Boulevard and Grant Road uh we have also provided and again this is awfully small but we've actually provided and again one of the things that was requested that the original plan had simply a curb and a 3 m pathway. We've now actually incorporated a boulevard or a space between the travel lane and the and the 3 m pathway. The the uh pathway between Grant Road and the and the and and the school is actually a wider and there's a wider distance between the

travel lane and the pathway. Part of that is geography. It's it would be easier to do but much of it is that really in terms of the school population going to the elementary school an awful lot of them way more than is coming from from Aaron and comes down Grant Road catch the catchment area. So, we've tried to make a a significant push to make sure there is a there's sufficient distance between the actual pathway and the actual road road lane. Key key difference between either our prior option to now is that number one 100% of the cost would be paid for by Aaron and by so 100% of the cost be paid for Aaron and according to those plans that you see right in front of you in terms of the cross sections.

Um the timing of it it would all be done as I say at the start of phase three which is effectively the 54th lot. So, whereas before we were suggesting that the time would be in phase five or the 131st lot, we've also recognized again from some of the comments that were at the planning committee that there was an an interest in trying to [clears throat] sort of speed up or expedite the timing in which this would take place. So, I think the result two key things is what you see here now which is unfortunately referred to as office option F. It really is tweaking what is already on your agenda and it really reflects comments that were in the staff report that's presented to you. So, there is a as I say a a boulevard between the curb and the pathway between Aaron and Boulevard and Grant Road and and then there's an additional wider shoulder between Grant Road and and and Aaron and Boulevard. It will be all lit

and will be a significant improvement over it is to over what it is today and I think just in terms of being practical in terms of finding a solution along with all the other amenities I I believe that Aaron and will will provide to both residents and the community that this is a reasonable albeit still not inexpensive solution in terms of providing that continuity between Aaron Ann and and the elementary school. Um I think maybe I could perhaps just leave it at that point and there may be some questions. Um Does that No, I think you're good. Thank you very much for the presentation and it's we have also the materials here. Staff gave them those to refer to. So I think should matters as we get into the dialogue amongst council if there's anything else I'll invite you back. Just so you don't have to sit there the whole time.

Okay, so members of council I'll start at the beginning here and that'll be starting with the land use recommendations. So that would be that council give first, second, and third reading to zoning amendment bylaw number 935-600-115 2026 to amend zoning bylaw number 600 by rezoning a portion of the property legally described as lot 2, section 18 and 19, Sooke District Plan 46871, 7350 West Coast Road from rural residential RU2 to the Aaron Ann Estates Comprehensive Development Zone CD16 as shown in schedule A, attachment 02. CD16 zone. Councillor McMath will move that. Councillor Saint Pierre is a seconder. Would you like to speak to it, Councillor McMath? Councillor Saint Pierre? Uh yes. Actually these were discussed at length in the land use committee and the concerns that were brought forward by staff were mostly to do uh with what staff should be doing which is basically protecting the taxpayers and making sure that amenities that were agreed upon would be built.

Uh it was felt that what the developer was asking for given the the developer's track record was something that would happen and that um this is where we could actually be flexible. So, the flexibility is not in terms of uh any less in the way of amenities, but more in terms of the delivery of the amenities, uh parks and so on and so forth, and when they happen, and in what quantity, and that sort of thing. Uh I don't I I know there's always concerns that uh you know some kind of deal was made. In this particular case, it's simply that we're extending trust to the developers that this will happen because they have an excellent track record with the district. So, I thought I should just mention that. Um and I can answer any questions if I can.

Okay. No, that's fine. Um is that Counselor Pearson? Yes, Counselor Pearson would like to speak. Go ahead, please. No, um I I I I was kind of holding my hand up to make the motion, but no, I'll be supporting this motion. I think it's um a long a long process to get to what I think is a good spot. Uh a developer who has lived by his word, um says says what he's going to do, and then then puts action to words. So, everything that uh I've seen from Arbutus uh in history, um and is is is a very positive step towards a good quality development. Um it should be noted that um this this uh this development has bought into the sewer specified area a number of years ago, and it it's always been in the plans to to develop this property. So, it's uh it it's actually really exciting to see this finally uh get to this point. So.

Okay. Thank you, Counselor Pearson. Are there other Go ahead, Counselor Beddoes. It's Counselor Beddoes. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Sorry, Al. Okay, Jeff. It's all right. So, WE'LL GET BY. [laughter] YEAH, ANYWAYS, UH THANK YOU, WORSHIP. UM UH I'm I'm in favor of this. I just want to draw back in about 30 years ago. I'm just guessing, could be 28. Uh I was on the advisory planning commission that was struck before incorporation. And at that time, uh, it was approved this area was approved for 350 lots. So, I see here some many decades later, it's now at 331. But it was recognized back then that, you know, where we wanted to see some of this, uh, housing. And I understand people don't necessarily want to see more housing and I can sympathize with that. Um, but it's least it's on the side of a mountain. It's not it's not farmland. And that was one of the main reasons why back then, uh, the committee, advisory committee, uh,

made recommendations that this go through, uh, was for that. And, uh, I've seen, um, you know, what's up there now. And they're wide boulevards, they're nice houses. Uh, certainly might be out of my price range, but there is a market for those housing. So, I will support this. Thank you. Councillor Bateman. Yeah, I'll I'll support this as well. It's a very significant, uh, rezoning to enable, um, the build-out as presented tonight. I think it was noted earlier that the OCP is very much focused on, uh, smart growth in the town center. However, the OCP also very clearly states that development is to happen within community residential within close proximity to existing infrastructure. So, we do have the West Coast Road available at the doorstep. And we also have the sewer treatment plant nearby.

So, as much as some projects might be, um, anyway, that's all I've got. Thanks. Good. Thank you. Anyone else? Go ahead, Councillor Haldane. Yeah, I mean, like pointed out by Councillor Bettis, I mean, this project there in an area that's been going on for 28-ish years and it's taken that long for these build-outs to happen. These buildos, it I mean, when you talk about two and 300 lots, it sounds like a a ton of properties, but if you build it out over 20 or 30 years, and then you you divide that up, you know, that we're not talking about thousands of builds here over the each year. So, this is going to be a a probably a 30-year project, would be my guess. But what the most important part for me is we're talking about 20,000 square feet of commercial space. So, that commercial space is pays four times the tax rate of single-family homes and and residential. We're desperately in need of commercial space here, but more importantly, we're in desperate need of commercial space

within residential areas. When you get people out of cars, and you get people so they don't have to drive to our roundabout in the middle of Sooke, this is the kind of stuff I've been looking at for a long time, and and we've neglected to do this type of development for some time. Sun River should have their own big commercial area, and people should be able to go to a pub and a restaurant and a grocery store somewhere close by where they're not coming up Sooke all the time, but anyhow, I'm in favor of it because I think the commercial component is fantastic, and we need more stuff like this, so I'll be supporting this. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. So, to close off this portion of our discussion on this development tonight, I I add my support to this as well. Uh this has been an active development, as we've heard, for several decades now. Uh and in terms of folks that are concerned about the environmental impact, there are studies that are done, and the developer has been keeping on top of that. And as far as I'm aware, there has not been any com- nothing of uh there hasn't been a conflict with what has been planned or what was said to be done over all these years. It's been done in good faith, uh as we've seen. The houses that are built allow for builders to showcase their craft, excellence in design, unique character throughout, and an opportunity for residents to build out a and realize the dream home as they see fit. No two are the same.

And and I it it's very attractive to look at. So, I know there's other parts of this that we will be getting into next, but in terms of what's been done, this is one development and that in my time sitting here I've never received a complaint about and I cannot say that about every development around our town. And when there has been concerns raised, the in question has attended to those rapidly, quickly, and effectively. So, I'm very confident that the rest of this development will continue to be built out under that same guidance and that same approach that has been done for several decades now and as been stated by others, this is one when the District of Sook established the sewer specified area, it was known this development was known and has been active in seeking sewer services as needed as the phases come to the table. So, I'll leave it at that.

And we'll call the question on this particular motion. All those in favor, please. Is anyone opposed? None are opposed, so that carries unanimously. I'll go to the next part here and this is where we can get into some questions and that would be that council receive the supplemental report dated April 13th, 2026 titled 7350 West Coast Road PLN01660 supplemental report to council on Highway 14 frontage improvements. Yes? I apologize. There's just a few of recommendations from the LUDC section beginning with the section 219 covenants. So. So, not this part because I was looking to put to receive both of these first and then council can ask questions about that because there's a option listed out that would be blank in that particular recommendation. That works too if you would like to got it. If you'd like to take all the section 219 options together after you've built the final one then sure that is viable. We just wanted to make sure you didn't inadvertently skip one.

No, not missing them. I'm just trying to I know that council has questions and will want some time to be able to deliberate on the options. So we'll look to receive that as well as the developers presentation the Aaron and development rezoning application presentation that was put forward today. To receive for information. This then will allow council to ask questions should they have any. Okay, so look to receive counselor St. Pierre and counselor Haldane as a seconder. I'm going to open it up to questions because then the rest of this as we get into the 219 will indicate an option of which we have many to consider. So I figured this would be an opportunity to put these on the table now and then council can ask staff and or the consultant any questions they have and that will hopefully then shed some light on where we proceed from there. So counselor St. Pierre.

I was hoping to maybe move one of the options forward so we could discuss an option in particular to begin with just to simplify the process a little bit because I think there's Well, then in this case then I you can just ask me to call the question then we can go to the next part. Then perhaps I will do so. You just want to call I think others will have some questions and I would like to have time for others to be able to do that before we get there cuz I see counselor Bateman I think wants to ask some questions. No? Well, sure. I I've got questions. I'm a little confused as to to where to start asking. Are we talking about the section 219 covenant first before the frontage? Well, it's it's the options. You've received a report on options and our staff presented a report on options and the consultant gave another report with another option. So, that's why it's receiving all of that and then you might have some questions about those options.

Okay, I'll model on as I tend to do. So, I'm curious here. Um My first question's is section 219 covenant. I did ask this at the land use committee. It regards the affordable housing contribution. And in in this agreement we are um getting 5,000 per single family detached dwelling prior to subdivision approval up to a maximum of 250,000. That um seems like a very low number given that there are I believe you said 231 or what the 331? 331. Yeah. So, at 5,000 per single family lot that comes in at um let me do my math, 25 homes. Not too So, and I believe the answer I received back at the land use committee was this was a staff recommendation. So, I'm through you to staff, please explain that to me.

Yeah, through the mayor. So, without a defined policy for affordable housing contributions, we have typically taken $3,000 per lot being subdivided. Given the projected timeline of this development proposal, we thought it was pertinent to a front-load the affordable housing contributions and because of the scale of development we settled on a negotiated number of $250,000 rather than leaving that number hanging in perpetuity for the entire development. So, I think this was taken generally from how our affordable housing policy is drafted, which would be for proposals of this size and scale, um would be a negotiated number versus a per unit or per lot amount. And uh given inflation and uh potential uh construction over maybe 15 up to 20 years, um we thought that yeah, it was important to increase that number and to cap it at the $250,000 mark. Um uh and front-load.

It's my hearing or my capacity to understand things that I'm losing as I turn 70. Um So, at each at each phase, you will seek additional affordable housing contributions. Is that what I got? Or for the full seven phases, the $250,000 is the the max. So, as as recommended, we've asked for $5,000 per lot, and so that would be going through the first phase of subdivision, uh basically. So, um $5,000 up to $250,000, regardless of phasing. Once we reach $250,000, it ends. extent of it. Okay. Well, I dare say that it's it's strange. I mean, if at even $3,000 per lot at 331 lots, that's a million dollars, and we're we're taking a quarter of that.

Anyway, that that's been the discussion, and I defer to your wisdom on that. So, I have other questions, or others may want to jump in at this point. Okay, well, you can ask your other question if you like. And go to Councillor Betts. Staying on the theme of money, uh the applicant has told us that the full frontage option A would cost 6.3 million. I'm wondering about the cost in today's dollars for sections 3 and four, as proposed in options D and now F. Do you do you have a price tag on what what this will be? Through the mayor, I don't I don't have a price tag. Uh sorry. Perhaps our applicant can speak to that.

Okay, maybe just some if you just hold on that, I'll call the I'll call your consultant up when there maybe other questions you can answer them all at once. Okay. Well, I'll just pause for a second. Otherwise, you have to sit up and down. Anything further for our staff? Well, yeah, I I was curious in the Aaron and West rezoning application on page 31 of 131 of tonight's agenda, there's the statement, quote, "The existing shoulder along the north side of the highway will be improved to 2. 2.0 m with reasonable variances when when this is not fully possible." So, that's taking us to the western extreme of the development.

That's a question for your Okay, we'll have we'll have them up answer that all at once. Cuz the 2. Anyway. Um That's all for Okay, thank you, Councillor Bettos. Yeah, thank you, worship. I just have a quick question. I I've had a second look at the property and actually walked through it and had a really good look. And my concern like with this last option, which is either D or F and which it is we've settled on, the last one that is proposed here, which I am sort of leaning to, but I see that the work in front of the school doesn't happen till 54 lots are sold. Is that correct? Can you tell me to give me an an idea of what that time frame is? What What do you expect? I mean, I know it's not an exact science, but is it like 3 weeks or 3 years or 30 years or I can respond. Sure, please. Somebody. Yeah. So, with phase one, Pike Pole,

that's currently 31 lots. So, feasibly, phase two is where this number would likely be reached. And I would say roughly maybe the applicant would be best to answer the projected timelines. But, maybe in the course of two to to five years. Okay. The The reason why I asked that is that like I say, I had a look at that this other sidewalk and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. But, what does make a lot of sense to me is in front of that school. And it's imperative to me that we get that built out sooner than later. And it it's it's a mess there. And it's dangerous. So, I'm not really I'm I'm leaning towards the D, but I'm not leading leaning towards doing it in the 54 lots. I would want to see it done sooner. So, I'm just wondering if the applicant would be willing to make those improvements before the 54 lot. Can I ask that question?

Yep. I will ask the consultant or on behalf of the applicant to please come forward. There was just a few from Councillor Bateman and then this one in particular as well. Thank you. You'll just need to turn the microphone back on. Um through the through the chair, I get to the first question, the cost of doing option F, which is just a tweaking of what you call I'm so sorry. The just it was actually expanded a bit is between 700 and 750,000. Um Now, the the 54 lots, that is actually Pike Pole subdivision has been a subdivision been in the work for many years. So, the first actual phase of Arbutus West, which is what the subject of the rezoning and again, I don't want to confuse phases as well. But it's phase It would be the second phase. The 54th lot would be the second phase in Arbutus West or what you've got in your report just to be clear, it's the third phase.

I think it would be you know, somewhere in the order of 5 years. Now, it is I I'm going to be very a bit careful cuz it is sub obviously subject to market conditions in terms of but that that would be our estimate of the timing. Um Again to to counselor um The reason why we put it phase three is that we you know, there is a substantial it still is a substantial amount of money and so that then did allow for the second phase, which is 22 lots to be developed. They're obviously in that there is trails that are required. There is actually a washroom that is part of the phase two in which will be in the come and there are each phase has a number of associated improvements and amenities and costs obviously. So, it was identified as phase three or the 54th lot, which is the beginning of phase three, so that there would be you know, it was kind of the second

phase within the Arbutus West development. So, that was the that was the the reason the reasoning behind it. Yep, go ahead. Um yeah, but I I see it a little differently. I I see that if we were going to not go ahead with the the $6 million one, which is just absolutely going to rip up Highway 14, which you're going to rip up in 10 years anyways, uh and you're getting a trade-off for $750,000. Uh That's my understanding. Is that correct? That's yes, that's yes. It's Then I would like to see that done sooner. The sooner I mean, this is all about a trade-off and and my job is to try to extract as much out of you as possible for the community for amenities and that is an area that I have been very concerned about over the years.

And I like I said I had a look at Aaron Anne and the big wide streets development up there now would to me satisfy the streetscape that we're looking for in communities. So I'm willing to let the Highway 14 portion go providing that there's that some amenities for our community and our kids and for a dangerous situation in that front of that school. So I'm hoping you would reconsider that timeline. I know it's still a lot of money but it is a big project and sometimes you have to put some money up front as you know. I'm okay with the last option but I'm not option with the timeline. As as to the chair and again I mean to speak to to the owner but is the may I ask is your the key concern is from you know cuz there's there's segment four segment three and segment four there's from Aaron Anne Boulevard to Grant Road and Grant Road to the school and you you

made reference to the school so is the is your your primary concern is that Grant Road to the school in other words if there was perhaps some additional phasing and again I don't want to not here to negotiate with you per se but I'm trying to getting an understanding some clarification and I'm willing to give it. I'd be happy if tomorrow you started on the section from Grant Road to the crosswalk for the school in that area. The other section from Grant Road to an Aaron Anne front driveway that can wait for three three years as far as I'm concerned. I've noticed up in Aaron Anne there's not exactly a whole lot of kids running around up there. But there is a whole lot of kids that come down that Grant Road. I know it's not necessarily your responsibility but again our job here is to extract some something for the community and I think that would be a better amenity. So again, if that's a possibility, then I'd look

more favorably on approach the D version. Where F D F F F F gives you a little more actually. Yeah. So you might want to consider that. Okay, thank you. Is there any other questions for the consultant that's here? Counselor Helwig. Yeah, so given what Counselor Meadows is talking about, is there something significant that we could come up with if that was to start right away cuz I understand what's going on within the subdivision itself building parks and trails, bathrooms and stuff like that. And maybe would suffice if similar value for that cross-section of road going to John Muir School, we could put some bathrooms and some parks and trails in later on in that phase to cover something happy happening earlier on the section between Grant Road and and the elementary school. Yeah, so phase phase two which I mentioned also has has got a what referred to as a major trailhead. So major trailhead is larger amenities than a minor trailhead.

And then there are the the the the pathways. Um So there are there are certain things that are associated to say with phase with with with phase two. Um the extent to which there may be a trade-off at some point time. I'm sure the municipality wants to see all those trails and those those And that will but this is just all because you guys are going to be expected to pull in a lot of money going all out your pocket before you get any money coming back in. It's all Maybe there's a way with between us and district staff that you can put the amenity money towards the connection to John Muir School before you do some of the other stuff within the subdivision itself to try and help get kids moving on Grant Road down to the elementary school sooner and we'll worry about the trails and the stuff at a later portion of of another phase in in exchange I would say so then the

money is still you know you got a bunch of money coming out at the same time. I think it's I'm yeah I'm not sure how to put it. Thanks for that. I'll go to counselor McMath. Just for a clarity here with the the council's recommendations to you is it something that before we go ahead with a motion that you can resolve with your client? I could have a conversation. Okay so perhaps we should have a break. Well right now we're still just receiving for information and so I can also before we go to the next one I can move on to other items and return to this one. Okay.

So we're just right now receiving for information the reports that came forward to consider. Okay. Okay so on this particular one um I appreciate the options that staff have put forward and as well as that of the applicants. I I'm open to looking at a different option as opposed to frontage all the way to the far end of the subdivision. Uh simply because the road is very narrow and then the highway narrows considerably on from there. So to blast out that whole section in order to make the frontage down to the westerly end I think would be particularly challenging and may cause concern to either the residents that currently live there or others that would see vast amounts of that hillside and the like taken out.

Uh in terms of the subdivision of Aaron and itself I recognize that it isn't necessarily a family uh uh, first time home buyer. Uh however, it is full of vehicles that drive past an elementary school. So, that's why I would agree that there needs to be some improvements towards, uh, the the pedestrian traffic from Grant Road over. I know a large number of parents that drive their children every day because they are concerned about the speed of traffic along the highway because there is no school bus, because they are in proximity of walking distance to the school. So, they cannot take a bus there. They do have to walk or get a ride. And if you're there at drop-off time, it's very busy. So, having a safer option along that crosswalk, uh, and then something I think I'm sort of online with Counselor Beddoes here in that I would like to see this section advanced sooner. Um, but in terms of the trail network and amenities, that's what would make this a desirable place to live. So,

those things need to happen. Like, you can't trade them off because otherwise, why would you want to live in the subdivision if there's dead end trails and no movement? So, I hear your point, Counselor Haldane, but they it kind of needs to happen as part of the phase, which would then make it an attractive place to live and buy and invest into all those things. So, I think that would just be confusing if we looked at amenities within the subdivision to flow. I think it just needs to It seems like our staff and the consultant have come up with a timeline that's agreeable to both parties and resolved to get it done in in a certain way. It's just the frontage here in question is what we're looking at. So, on that note, what I'll do is I'm going to call the question on receiving this.

I will allow the opportunity cuz there's options here for council in that we can defer this to the next meeting. We can move it and move the cover and then just defer a vote. It doesn't require any advertising or any delay except for 2 weeks. Or we can return to it a little bit later tonight and see where we land. So, I'm just going to on this note call the question on receiving information. Okay, all those in receipt? Anyone opposed to receiving and no. Okay. So, I understand that the consultant and the applicant would like to deliberate. So, I'm going to ask you to take your conversation outside just so we're not having two meetings at the same time.

Oh, they're done. So, that's all the talking that I heard. Would you like to come back forward? Okay. All right. Need to turn the microphone back on though. I I thank you to the chair. Um so, yes, uh we would be prepared to advance uh the uh improvements to the pathway to the school. Uh in doing so in terms of looking at the the comment uh that was made uh in terms of uh looking at for example uh option two. It's not like we're saying it's not going to be done. Uh but when the covenant comes back to to council, uh it has it love outlines every phase of development has a whole shopping list of things that are supposed to occur or not shouldn't supposed that occur during during that phase as a condition of that phase of work. And so, I think when I say it's easy enough, but we could reverse it so that in fact we could uh uh meet the the request from uh Counselor Beddows in terms of uh advancing the

the road improvements to the to um John Muir Elementary School and make it as part of phase two. But say it but not to eliminate all the other things that are important part of the entire uh development and vision. Uh it's just that that just in terms of the Excuse me, the the timing of that we would just adjust. Okay, so when you see phase two Mhm. So, I've written down two phases here. So, phase two which means you would start it like before it was at the 54th lot, but now three. That's phase three is the 54th lot. So, phase two is the very first phase in Aeran An West, which is actually the land subject to the zoning and which you're obtaining the amenity for the for the for the pathway to the the school. So, it actually ties into the first phase of Aeran An West, which is the area that is subject to the rezoning. So, then it would be after the

first lot. Like with the first lot. it's part of that. Yes. Okay. We have Pike Pole subdivision is doing it seeing it's in Aeran An West Aeran An East is not subject to any zoning and this would be then subject to the first subdivision in Aeran An West subject to it being rezoned. Of So, once all that goes in potentially we may see construction this year then. Like there's some processes that need to be ironed out. No, it would still be I mean I got to be clear. You know, Aeran An Pike Pole subdivision is underway right now. But so that will take a couple of years. So, it would it's likely still at least two to three years because the first phase in Aeran An West which is first phase or phase two that is when it would that's when I'm suggesting as opposed to phase three which is the 54th lot. It would be actually in phase two which would be the start of the

effectively if you're including Pike Pole the the 32nd lot. Okay. it advances it an entirely by a phase. Okay, I see. I'm sorry. I hope I'm not too confusing. Yeah, because you're still finishing the first phase. Yeah. So, once that is done which could take another year or so then we see the call which is not subject to the >> Right, which isn't part of the discussion that's underway right now. So then once the next phase that this is a subject of, which is about two years out, begins then this work would commence. Yes. Okay. Okay, so thank you for that. Uh so we've called the question there, so I'll go to counselor St. Pierre who wanted to move a an option. Go ahead, please. Well, it's the option we mostly be discussing, option F.

With adjustments, uh but it was just been mentioned moving it forward one phase in terms of when it happens. Um so you know, I don't think enough has been said about it. If anybody wants to talk further No, I want you to read the motion out. I can do that, too. That's why I went to you. All right. Uh the council received the supplemental report dated April 13th, 2026 titled 7350 West Coast Road that one. It's the next one down. Okay. The prior to adoption of zoning amendment bylaw number 935-600-150, 2026 the section 219 covenant for the rezoning be prepared to include provisions securing Highway 14 frontage improvements generally in accordance with option F. As outlined in this report, F.

Is it Is it option G now? Cuz it's been altered again. F, still F? No, it it is it is F. As outlined in this report. Thank you. Okay, is there a seconder? That's seconded by counts Oh, hold on a second. Just a second before we go to a second. So yeah, just to clarify, option F still had the later um time frame for this the for the frontage improvements, so uh I guess we could say option F with uh the frontage improvements from Grant Road or the frontage improvements from Aaron Anne to John Muir being done It was it was me. >> of the second beginning of the second phase. Well, my understanding it was John Muir to Grant Road. What? to be done at the start of the second phase and the remainder from Grant Road to Aaron Anne Boulevard to follow at that 54th lot phase.

So, one portion would be done first and then that other portion would be done at the 54th stage. It'll be broken up into two. So, that's what we need the motion to read. I don't know who I'm going to look at. I'm just looking at the staff. Um I think it may be helpful just to see that all on the screen just so that we're clear. Okay, over to Ms. Nancy. I'm with Pearson. I know, but I just I thought you had your hand up because you were amending the motion. Okay, I will get to Counselor Pearson in a second cuz I think Counselor Haldane had his hand up first. Um two notes and advice for all of this means.

I'll just check with Counselor Haldane that that is what you were seconding. Yeah, that's what I was saying. I was going to say we're going to do the amendment. Same thing. Well, it doesn't need to be amended because it's being read in. So, then this way we can Yeah. have to amend it. You can just second it that because that was what Counselor St. Pierre intended. long as option F includes the changes that we that we Absolutely, yeah. Right. Okay, we're we're on the same page. So, is that clear that All right, go ahead. Worship, so what we've done there is add up on screen because the option F wasn't included in your agenda pack. Uh Mr. Riley's come up with wording which as uh up on your screen there which essentially lays out what is included within it. Um I think um I sure the applicants, the planning staff, and council are more familiar than I am with which bits are segment three X and segment four compared to the

sections that you were all just describing in terms of where they were from and to, but I just want to make sure that everyone agrees that that is the wording that you are actually looking for in terms of timing and expectations. It does not include the timing. It doesn't add that it does I think section three is So yeah, we have new wording there on the trigger for segment four to be constructed [snorts] prior to final approval of the first subdivision lot in phase two and segment three to be constructed prior to final approval of the first subdivision lot in phase three. Yes. Okay, but stay tuned for a second. I And I'm no note your hand, Councillor Pearson. I'll turn to you in just a moment after the mover and second.

microphone

We're good? Okay, so this is what staff believe they have heard from members of council that council support the applicants option F alternate alternate three and require that prior to adoption of the rezoning bylaw section 219 covenant be registered on title to secure the design timing and delivery of the highway 14 improvements including segment three which is the John Muir to Grant Road with no shoulder, a 1.0 m Boulevard, a 3.0 m No? The second three is from inches to whatever the the three votes inches. Got you. And segment four is in front of the school. Okay, I stand corrected. Segment three, thank you, is Grant Road to Aaron Anne Boulevard. Right? Yes.

With no shoulder, a 1.0 m boulevard, 3.0 m multi-use path and lighting. And segment four is John Muir to Grant Road with a 1.5 m shoulder, a 2.0 m boulevard and a 3.0 multi-use path and lighting with segment four to be constructed prior to final approval of the first subdivision lot in phase two and segment three to be constructed prior to final approval of the first subdivision lot in phase three. So, one in phase two, the rest in phase three. Okay, that's what you're moving, Councillor St. Pierre and Councillor Haldane, that is what you're seconding. Okay, would you like to speak to it now? No. Okay, after all that, Councillor Haldane, go ahead.

Um, I'm I'm just going to support um everything that we just talked about in this section and the fact that I'd love to see the John Muir school component done. So, if there's some trade-offs that work here and everybody's happy with this, I'm positive and I'm all for it, so. Okay, Councillor St. Pierre is the mover, does have a comment, go ahead. Um, I like this alternative a lot. It does provide security for the kids in the school and moves it forward. Uh, one of the concerns that came up at the land use committee was also around uh basically um cycling traffic that would be heading you know, down towards Shirley in parts.

Uh, I would love to see I I understand at this point that it has nothing to do with you, but I would love that staff and everyone keep in mind that it's going to take probably CRD, Ministry of Transportation, us, and everyone else to figure out how to get cycling traffic down that way cuz it's going to want to come down Grant and so on. Uh, and now we won't have that little bit, but I do appreciate the work that Elbert's doing on making what making the school safe. Okay, Councillor Pearson online? After all that, I have no comment. I was trying to second the motion.

I'm in I'm in favor of this motion. Okay, but you're good. Okay, thank you. Uh Counselor Bateman. So, yes, I think this is this is working out well. Thank you, Counselor Beddoes, for for accelerating that stretch. I I do have some residual questions, which um one of which is regards segment three. Now, I noted in the staff report there was concern around the lack of a horizontal separation along that that stretch to Erin and Bovaird. I do note in the applicant's package they talk of a raised and paved multi-use pathway. So, my question was is that raised portion of the multi-use pathway not in fact a kind of horizontal separation on a on a road, of course, which has no horizontal separations from Maple Avenue South West to um I don't know where. But, there's nothing.

But, yes, back to that raised multi-use pathway, Mr. Riley. I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? Is is Well, the question is simply the does the raised portion of this multi-use path in fact serve as a a form of a barrier between the the travel lane and the Yes, Mr. Marshall. Yeah, sorry. I think I can understand what you're saying, but you can see in the in the motion there there is uh including segment three with no shoulder, but there's a 1-m boulevard being and and sorry, this this is because there's so many iterations of this the applicant's latest iteration did add a 1-m boulevard boulevard. So, there is a physical separation between the road and the pedestrians and bicyclists.

Option F. Um my my other question, which I asked earlier, regarded the um this is the watch report discussing improve the existing shoulder to the highway standard of 2 m paved with a solid white line, which we see I see the applicant shaking his head. I'm I'm just curious about that. That was that was an option at one point in this discussion clearly if what brought it forward. Anyway. Can I say something? You'll need to come to the microphone now so that everyone can hear you. Sorry, Mr. Butler. To add to your earlier question, there's a curb there, Jeff, too. Be between the pave between the path and the pavement. So, it's definitely separated. Microphone, please, so council Arnon West to the extent of the property. No.

Okay. We're not proposing We're not proposing anything to the west. I'm curious in in the first phase of Arnon back when you were approved, did you were you required to do that frontage that Not at not at all. There has been so much added. We did the first phase first rezoning in 3 to 6 months. This has taken 4 years. Right. Okay. All right. So, you weren't required to build the highway standard 2 m paved shoulder. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, if I'm commenting Yes. Yeah, I Yeah, I'm absolutely in favor of this. I I do want You know, it's such a big project this. We have to get things right. So, I'm apologize for the nitpicking questions. Um Yeah, I as the applicant stated, it's a practical, usable, safe, and financially realistic proposal.

Um And I think that investment of 750,000 is is absolutely on point and uh it's a a welcome addition to the community. Thank you. Okay, Counselor Beddows. Yeah, I'll be supporting this motion as you probably figured out, but um uh yeah, and I I'm glad uh this dialogue came up and uh cleared up some confusion and uh we're able to move ahead and the kids get some good roads, so that's good. Okay, anything from anyone else? I'm like, no. I also want to acknowledge the work of the Land Use Committee. They worked their way through the earlier parts of this uh this of this with the motion that we had passed previously and left this one for us.

Um I can appreciate that our the policies that we have would suggest an alternative, but this does take us to the far end of our municipality and beyond that the road narrows, it's outside of our jurisdiction, and it leads largely to a very rural uh parts out west. So, I do find this to be something that works as I said earlier, while there may not be a lot of kids living here, there's certainly a lot of people driving, uh and the speed does pick up as you head westward along the highway uh because either coming into Sooke or heading out that way. So, this is a way to keep and hopefully attract more users over there. So, I appreciate where we're at and we'll add my support to this. So, thank you, everyone. I know that there's been a lot of back and forth over the years, so this is a significant milestone uh that the developer has reached this evening and our staff have

done considerable work as well to get us to this point. So, on that note, I will call the question. All those in favor, please. And that's unanimous. Thank you. Uh there's a few more parts to this one. So, that was the zoning. This is the covenant This is the covenant now, right? Okay, there's another option in here, but I I think we like this one. That's related to the parks. Oh, that's related. That's right. There was a couple parks related motions in there that will seek council support to pass cuz they weren't passed passed with the consent agenda. So, that one's related to parks. Okay. So, this one here then is that prior to adoption of the bylaw section 219 covenant be registered on title to secure the phase delivery of statutory parkland dedication and open space trail and park amenities, infrastructure works including emergency egress or access in highway 14 frontage improvements, and affordable housing contributions generally in accordance with the phase development framework and staff

directors of option 1.1 park dedication timing option B flexibility in dedicated parkland allocation set out in attachment 10. Moved by Councillor St. Pierre, seconded by Haldane. Any comments, Councillor? The other Councillor? Anyone else? Okay, I'll call the question. All those in favor, please. And that's carried unanimously. Uh the second part then That's this part. And that prior to adoption of the bylaw This is not the same. They're different. Okay. Why should they be different? Yeah. Okay, a section 219 covenant be registered on title to secure the phase delivery of statutory parkland dedication and open space trail and park amenities, infrastructure works including emergency access in highway 14 frontage improvements and affordable housing contributions generally accordance with the phase development framework and staff directions of option 1.2, parkland dedication flexibility option B. Allow for flexibility flexibility in the amount of dedicated parkland per phase set out in attachment 10.

With my counselor St. Pierre and seconded by Haldane. Any questions about that? They are different. I thought they were the same. All those in favor? That's unanimous. Thank Thank you. And then one more. And that prior to adoption of the bylaw a section 29 s I apologize your worship. The last one is now the section at the bottom of the supplemental report. The directing any required development variance permit and draft to a 9 co There we go. Okay, sorry. I was looking at the screen and that council directs staff to bring forward any required development variance permit and draft section 219 covenant for council's consideration prior to bylaw adoption consistent with council's direction.

Right? That's in your agenda. It's the last part of this cuz we just did the We did the frontage. So is anyone prepared to move that? Okay, counselor St. Pierre is moving it. Counselor Haldane is seconding. Good. Questions? No. All in favor? And that too is carried unanimously. Thank you. Okay, so that is done. For Aaron N development. Okay. Okay, there's been a request for a bio break which sounds good. It's 7:52. So we will reconvene in about 10 minutes at about 8:02. Thank you.

Mhm.

Mhm.

Mhm.

Mhm. Hi Nancy.

Final financial headed and as it stands it feels more like an ideal version of what we'd like to do rather than what's actually achievable and I'm not convinced it lines up with what's sustainable for Sooke residents mostly because of affordability of course. At the end of the day the financial plan has to reflect what people can realistically afford and I think we're missing that mark. Um this five-year five-year plan isn't in stone so in future um over the next five years future councils will be able to maybe make some changes that might make more sense for me anyway so um I I won't be supporting this. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Other speakers?

Councilor Bateman? Unless Councilor Pearson would like to jump in. I'm sure he's online poised for comment. I I'm going to stick with my vote um in favor of this uh budget. We we have spent a lot of time working through the uh Darn, I had some comments here. Can't find them. Yeah, we we have um we've listened and we've weighed a lot of options. Um staff started with a range of 10 to 18%. Uh and the first pass with this we've got it now down to 10.5. Um as I've said before police, fire, asset management and union contract increases for um CUPE and the IAFF. Um we have made it we're we've um retained our commitment to 24/7 uh police and fire which we made in 2023.

Um we're slowly but surely moving uh to the complete um 19 and 20, respectively, for police and fire staffing. Um we we are we did not lose any uh percentage from the asset management fund. As I said last time, Blythwood, Due Four, and Good Meer at Brownsey are all in things that have happened in the last 3 months. We need a um reserve to handle those issues. Um what I'm particularly pleased about is we have retained uh continuing support for our community nonprofits. Um the community service agreements with the Sooke Food Bank, Sooke Chamber of Commerce, Sooke Region Community Health Network. I'm going to cite them all because it's important to note this. Sooke Community Association with the community hall, Sooke Region Tourism Association, the visitor information center at the museum, the Sooke Lions Club.

We also renewed lapsed agreements uh service agreements with WildWise Society, Need 2 Suicide Prevention, Amber Academy, Harmony Project Sooke, Sooke Family Resource Society, and it's prenatal and youth navigator um services. So, I think this is a budget that has a heart um for the community at large. Yes, people are going to Some people, it's always important. There's a spectrum of people in this community. Some are comfortably well off and some are on the edge. And those who are particularly on the edge do have the option of the property tax deferment program. They do. Age 55 or older, a surviving spouse or person with disabilities, families with children program allows homeowners with children under age 19 to um and I know changes have happened in the 2026 budget. Ms. Pemberton, as you nod your head, and yes, there's a different system today, but that remains an option. if you are unable to pay your taxes you do have this get out of should I say jail now? I won't. Good choice. Not a good choice.

Anyway, I know it's it hurts some but at same time it's it's a mature responsible budget I believe that reflects our growing community. And um yeah, so I'll vote in favor. Mr. Pearson. Okay, uh Counselor Pearson is next. Go ahead, please. Thanks for the intro, Jeff. Um I know that the district has to operate and there has to be a budget in place. Um I look at the five-year plan and and many parts of it as Counselor Haldane say are aspirational. Um those are numbers on the wall. We're we're kicking this down the road to to a new council. Uh hopefully they can look at the the year-over-year uh fiscal responsibilities.

Um I still um I'm strongly uh opposed to 10.5% because I don't I don't think that we got a great look at things. Um and I know we debated and and and and again democracy um out outvotes me. Um there's things in our budget that we didn't address. You know, office furniture, travel, uh expenses, climate change, all of those things that I think are really nice to do not have to do. And um I have to I have to look at the five-year budget with with skepticism uh looking at those huge numbers at 52% and it just means that future councils um that we know the councils are changing um are going to have to sharpen their pencils. They're going to have to do something. The current trend that we're on 21 to to 24, that you know, 43% and and a projected now 52% well, you're looking at over 100% increase in from 2020 to to 2030. That's not sustainable and it's not fair

for the taxpayers. We have to figure out a way as council members to lower the tax burden. Again, it's not on us right now because we've got you know, 6 months left in this term and and 10.5 again, I'm saying the same thing again and um you know, I've got two or three minutes to talk here. Um it's it's it's it's atrocious. 10.5 on top of 15.39 last year. That's 25% in in in a little over 12 months that people are going to be paying more. I can't I can't I can't take it um without us tightening our belt. No, it sounds like I'm preaching and I'm standing up here saying it, but there was more we could do and we should have done it. Um I will be supporting the 5-year financial plan because the district has to operate and I know I know that. I don't like an aspirational plan, but I also know it's not carved in stone. So I think I've said my piece on the 10.5

um and and and we didn't do enough. Anyways, that's it for me. Okay, thank you, counselor McMath. I do see both sides and and as they say like the road to hell uh is paved with good intentions. One of the challenges though that I also have with the 5-year budget plan is I do especially with our new OCP see these as we've had downloads from the province These are of these unexpected costs that are going to come. And so some of those pieces that I see coming through the OCP are staffing. Although we've said we won't hire anyone for this year. It's going to be inevitable and then we recently have a homicide here is another unexpected expense. So how long do we go down this path of using those pieces to justify this percentage of increase. So it's such it's such a challenging time right now and so I won't be supporting this five-year financial plan. I do think we could have trimmed in other places and that that falls to

all of us and I think we had a bit of a different process this year. Um and I do think we should have some people call it in Scrooge McDuck. Um but I do think going line by line and piece by piece as a group would have been the better route. Um I'll leave it at that for now. Okay, thank you everyone. So in terms of where we're at, we are looking at a 10.5% tax increase. So based on the average home that's about $210.48. Uh the main way that this breaks up is 3.04% for fire which is the addition of two career firefighters and to remain emergency response capacity. 2.6% for two additional RCMP officers and one to be a school liaison service. 2% towards asset management which is our capital infrastructure, roads, bridges, culverts, sinkholes and the like. Your general municipal is 1.81%.

That is the ongoing cost to run all of our municipal services. That includes parks, roads, bylaws services, other legislative requirements, hosting of meetings, open houses, development uh as we have meetings and so forth. 0.97% is for ECOMM 911. That's a bit of an overage that came forward to us from the province. 0.08% for debt servicing. Uh council had made the decision to provide 24/7 emergency services to our community a few years ago. A service that I feel is necessary and one that uh needs to continue to be sustained. Um it's very unfortunate timing due to tragic events that impact our community. We don't know when these events happen, they just do. Nothing is ever planned, they're purely accidental. And I for one, having needed to call either of those services in the past have been grateful that A, my call was taken in a kind and responsive manner. And that secondly, the services arrived at my household or that of my parents in a very short period of time. Uh we don't know what's coming our way, but

it helps to be prepared for these items. I also am aware that this has any events have a serious impact on our on our first responders and the work that they do. They also have families, they also volunteer and dedicate time in their community. They know many of the members that they are responding to and there's an impact to them as well, which is why the sustained uh sustaining these services and beyond is also incredibly important. In terms of what council could have done to make any change, you could have reduced the services that you wish to provide. But at no point did I hear a member of council wish to do that. In terms of trimming away, you could turn away at our general municipal fund, uh which is all of 1.81%.

Uh but we already trimmed back at start of another police officer, which our base commander would also in time many times presented was also desperately needed. In terms of services that we have, just to respond to members of our community that spoke earlier, we do not get reimbursed by the province for attending to medical calls. That is a service that we provide. Uh we still have just four ambulance uh responding as we had when we incorporated. We've advocated to have more services provided out this way. Uh we have not received an increase to those services. We are aware that when those cars get pulled, they get pulled out of our community to service the demands that are elsewhere within the core, which is why our I'm grateful that we are responding to medical calls in the interim until a car an ambulance car can return back to us.

So that is a reality. We are not reimbursed for that service. I think there are other local governments that are keeping track and potentially invoicing the province for those services. I'm not sure if anyone has been successful in receiving payment back. Um certainly would have heard something. In terms of a serious incident where the Vancouver Island Major Crime Unit comes out, that is not a program we pay into. That is not something that the province is accepting. Uh it's closed. So in the event of these investigations, we pay for them as they happen. And there's certain criteria that triggers when an invoice is sent our way.

In the event that we were to be invoiced for such, we do have reserves in place uh particular to the RCMP that potentially may help to offset that. Just the same as when our share of what we pay for increased as our population increases, there was revenue smoothing that came out. That was all funds that we know about that we put surplus into every year that we prepare for uh because we know about them. Where we were not known was the cost of the 911 and the the burden that that has placed on us, but that is where we join with other municipalities, particularly the 10 South Island ones, uh to advocate for another funding stream, mainly through the mobile phone.

Majority of calls come through the cell phone, not through a landline anymore, and although we receive a portion of landline revenue, many of those services are being discontinued. Uh that's just the natural progression of movement from a landline to a cell phone. Some still have both. Uh if you have one at home, I think you pay around 76 cents a month on your landline bill. Like that's what I looked at, but it's declining because everyone's moving to cell phones. So, I'll leave it at that. Um uh next council when they onboard may decide to cut a particular service. Maybe they wish to enhance one as we did by adding in the school liaison uh officer to start this year or an additional RCMP officer. Uh and they'll have that opportunity to meet with our base commander and to do so. In terms of travel, that naturally works its way out. Not everyone is available or wants to or able to attend everything every year. Uh but again, even if you eliminated that that, it's

uh I don't know that it would make a material difference given that general municipal operations is only 1.81% of the entire overall budget of that 10.5. So, I'll leave it at that and I'll call a question. All those in favor? And opposed are Councillor Haldane, McMath, and I don't know where Pearson sits on this. I'm assuming he's in favor because he's not stating otherwise. So, that passes on a five-to-two. Next up is 9.3, our property tax rate bylaw, and that is that council give first, second, and third reading to the bylaw cited as property tax rate bylaw number 941 2026. Moved by Councillor St. Pierre, seconded by Councillor Bateman. Uh there is a report. It's pretty straightforward. Any questions from anyone? Okay, I'll call the question. All those in favor? And opposed is Councillor Haldane and McMath. Not hearing from Councillor Pearson, so that Oh, he's opposed. Okay, so that is still carries on a four to three. Thank you.

No new business that I'm aware of, but I am recall there is two notice of motion. So, we'll start with number one from Councillor Bateman. If you could please read yours in. So, procedurally, for those watching, these are items. This is how councillors can get their items to the agenda. They are read into the record tonight to be debated or considered at the next regular meeting. So, Councillor Bateman, please read it in. Okay, so whereas 82.9% of District of Sooke voters on November 15th, 2014 were in favor of developing local multi-use community center facilities serving seniors and youth. And whereas the District and the Sooke Region Communities Health Network have worked extensively on plans to establish the Sooke Gathering Place multigenerational center on lot A in the town center. And whereas the community has res- responded strongly to multiple fundraising efforts in recent years that have raised $293,979 to date towards construction of the Sooke Gathering Place. And whereas this funding falls substantially short of the TBD amount that will be required.

Next page. I'll carry Oh. Therefore, be it resolved that District of Sooke provide voters with an opportunity to respond to the following question in October 2026. In your opinion, should the District borrow up to $5 million to construct and operationalize the Sooke Gathering Place Intergenerational Centre on Lot A in the town centre. Yes or no? Okay, so that And further Sorry, you know, it's it's one of mine, so they're going to go on forever. Not that much longer. And further, that council direct staff to report on the Sooke Gathering Place Intergenerational Centre on Lot A in the town centre, including the steps required for inclusion of this question on the October ballot and the taxpayer implications based on current municipal finance authority rates.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Bateman. That has been read in and we will deliberate on that at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Councillor Haldane, I understand you have your notice of motion. If you would like to read that in, please. Yes, thank you. I'm not as clear and concise as the rest of the council in their motion. So, I wrote this one night. If if we're making changes to Bylaw 600 Okay, you can't motivate. You just need to read it in. Okay. Um If we're making making changes to Bylaw 600 zoning bylaw, then I would like Oh, you're going to give me one? There you go.

That's your one. A council instructs staff to bring forward a report on floor area limits on detached suites in zoning bylaw 600, including potential amendments to the zoning bylaw to remove or increase the current limit. I'd just like to remove it, so if they could take that out of there. Because the BC building code Okay, so I'm motivating but I No, like what is it that you want removed? I would like there to be no minimum requirement for a detached suite. So, for the reason then, if people want to move into the detached suite, it can be 1,100 square feet, not 968, which is the requirement in Sooke zoning bylaw. So, to read it to remove the current limit, period. Yes, to a to follow the BC building code standard for size. Okay, so then to have it to remove Remove the limit. the current limit like cannot We can read the same thing.

Potential amendments to zoning bylaw to remove the current limit of 90 square meters and to match with the BC building code standards of today. Okay. Which is any size. Current limit to match the build the BC the current BC building code. Yeah. Okay. If we can just have that all that that way we just know that it's correct. We just need that other part edited. It's coming. Do I have to do something else? I just want to make there just adjusting this so then I just need you to verify that that's what you want to remove. to the Remove the current. Yeah. Your current limit of 90 square meters cuz it can be it can be smaller or larger. It Okay, so that's what you're that's that's what you're looking for. Okay, that's fine. Um Do you need to put so of of but also and to match with the BC Oh, sorry and to remove the current limit of 90 square meters and to match

and align perhaps align with the BC building code standards. would work. And align. And to align with the BC building code standard. Okay. I'll phone Councillor Bateman next time to help you with this. Probably a good idea. Okay, so that's read into the record. And as Councillor Mass said there's two ofs in that second last line. Limit of of Yeah. Oh, yeah, limit of There we go, 90 square meters. Okay, so that's read in as well and that'll come to the next scheduled meeting. Okay. Uh now we're moving on to item 13. Which has 7.5 Oh, sorry. Nope, we have item 12.1 first. Sorry, which was just an item that I wanted to highlight here for your information. Um at the December 10th regional board meeting, we received a delegation from the honorable Christine Boyle, Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs around homelessness and as such they are working with the capital district looking for suitable sites. Um at that time, the question that I raised was that we are looking for expansion to

Air Manor, particularly for those on the waitlist to access complex care, which is increasing uh every day. It's up to 3 years now. Uh but this just here is again to where the concerns were some have raised. Uh we don't have a lot of services to offer here in Sooke and many of our services are provided by volunteers. And so expanding a service that we cannot currently deliver uh is a tall ask for us to deliver. To me, we can't meet the province's ask in this, but I just wanted to highlight this letter. Councillor Helday So, I'll just put forward, sorry, to receive this for information. By Councillor Bateman and St. Pierre, but go ahead, Councillor Helday. Yeah, just a couple comments I wanted to make. And I I I'm all for increasing the size of Air Manor. I think the seniors components of our affordable housing here have been have been missed and all the other stuff is going towards, you know, fringe people and and I understand that but that comes at a huge cost to us. I mean

if we had more stuff going on for the people who put in 30 and 40 years of working capability and then take care of them, I would appreciate that a lot more than the CRD downloading a lot of this other housing on us at our cost cuz I was looking up and I was going to bring it up during the budget part but I thought well I didn't want to take on too much of it the $217,000 that we give permissive tax exemptions to to Drennan and Chartwell's and Hope Centre and so on. That's $190 per household per year that we're taking up in taxes because we're giving that away. If that if we talk about downloads from the province, if we didn't allow that and we had to said no to that, the province would have had to make up that shortfall. They would have had to pay us that tax money but that means then all of a sudden the amortization is over the whole province. So instead of just suit people paying

cuz suit people are paying $190 on top of their tax every year to be able to house all these people. If we had have said no to it then the province would be doing it now it would be provincially everybody. What would that work out to? Maybe a couple of five or $10 per household, you know, amortized over the whole province. So I don't agree with the permissive tax exemptions for that's that type of supportive housing because I think the whole everybody needs to pay for it not just suit people need to pay for it and I was going to bring that up during the budget part but Yeah, I'll just respond though that that is being phased out. Yeah and I I appreciate that it is it is cuz they do need to adjust and we do have and and those providers are doing that and they are aware of it. So it is being phased out but this is another ask for a

service that we don't have the resources to provide all of it doesn't come with a package full of of amenities for us. This should come with gifts. They should say, "We're willing to pay this much of your tax base share." And Sooke's always going to be the one approach for this type of housing because we have the cheapest land in the CRD. So, in the end Sooke people end up footing the bill for what's either a a capital region issue or a provincial issue. And that's where we need to come to terms with some of the tax bill that is being covered by people in our town. But again, I think if we were putting this towards senior housing, I get it. They put in 30 and 40 years of of work and they pay all their taxes and they do all the stuff right and there should be something at the end for the seniors over just regular housing.

Well, and that is that is what we have defined through our housing needs reports year year over year supporting seniors is the supportive housing that we need. Air Manor is a logical fit given that they've been I mean, they're at this point they're not even renewing their development permit. We've renewed it so many times that they are required. They do need the operational funding from the province to be able to expand and that's where we have waitlists of 3 years. So. Yeah. Councillor Betts. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify something for Councillor Haldane which was I might have been misunderstood when the Drennan Centre came forward first of all, there was 271,000 in taxes that were due on that and they they they got the exemption. And then Council looked at it and said, "That's not good enough. They have to pay for fire or police and everything else do." But then the province turned around and redid their assessment. So, all we would get out of that would be $90,000.

So, they already cut it down from 271 to 90 and so now we're phasing in that 90,000, but that doesn't even come to paying for the services that that that unit those units use. So again, you can thank the province for coming through and sticking it to us to pick up the slack. And we looked at it very very deeply and that's why uh our financial person came up with this plan to phase it out, but uh we are. So just a clarification that Yeah, they did do We did it and then they screwed us, so. Councillor Bateman. Yeah. Yeah, thank thanks for those comments. You covered a lot of ground there. The permissive tax exemption as we see in in the budget open house report um for 2026, the historically applied exemptions now that we're phasing them out, we've uh saved approximately 286,000 in retained revenue from that decision last on September 8th, 2025 as it says here. So um I think a couple of points here.

You mentioned fringe people. I I always get a little wary when I hear expression like that. If if you're referring to the tenants at the Macolla housing projects um there are 245 units. I don't know how many people in total. Um there may there may be some some troubled people within that context in that mix, but I think that they're not many. And so I think we have to be careful of how we stigmatize and characterize people living in supportive housing. This this request from the CRD talks about and we've talked about this at the Sue Homelessness Coalition. We this very report. Um it talks about seeking trying to decentralize and this was something that came up at UBCM last year. One of the the the executive resolutions was that um regions have to look regionally at the homeless problem and uh um boy, I'm losing it here. I'm What's my point?

Yeah, so support that supportive housing. We have it we have our Sooke shelter. Um the there is a gap in the regional picture from from Sooke to downtown Victoria. There's no shelters. So Langford, Colwood um need to to step up and fill in those regional gaps. Um the key point around uh supportive housing such as the M'akola projects um the uh Greater Victoria What are they called here? Sorry, gang. Yeah, the Greater Victoria Housing Association. Um it it attends our Sooke Homelessness Coalition meetings. Uh they have taken over uh the operations of what was once known as Talc Place which has uh 15 duplexes over 6 acres.

Um that's 30 units in total. They have they have property there where they might potentially expand. So if if we are sending back any recommendations to the CRD um that one might be uh cited. It's now known as Sooke Place. And I I believe the association is interested in uh expanding in Sooke. But I would just add though that the M'akola projects aren't necessarily supportive. They are a mix, yes, you're right. They are the case where it's housing from market all the way to subsidized. In terms of supportive is where there are health and mental health uh and other types of services provided to address uh the needs of the tenants, but in this case all of these folks live independently.

There's just a range of um of units from families to individuals uh and they live independently within those units. So, none of those Sooke does not have any supportive housing other than what may be provided at Hummingbird Place. So, subsidized would be what is uh in place at others. Uh we talked a bit about the impact and what's changed with permissive taxes, but uh otherwise they're individuals and families that go about their daily business and there's a range of of rentals to accommodate those particular uses. Supportive housing that we do have would be potentially complex care at Air Manor, of which we have a 3-year waitlist for. Councilor Saint Pierre.

Worsening. I just wanted to comment that when deliberations were happening over those two projects, we carefully asked, is this mostly going to be for people that are in Sooke and that need it? People that need affordable housing in Sooke? And the answer was yes. It was going to be targeting people in Sooke that need affordable housing. And everybody knows that the price of rent, the price of housing is has been going up like crazy. A lot of people are just a tiny bit away from basically landing on the streets, but once they do, if they land on the streets, our policing costs go up, everything goes up, and it's a tragedy because sometimes it's entire families on the street. Uh these projects have had their uh nothing's perfect. But I would say that on the balance, Sooke as a whole is saving money and preventing a lot of tragedy by making sure that we actually have affordable housing or some affordable housing.

And that is just another way of looking at it. Uh if we don't have it, we need more police. And we need more emergency services to pick people up off the roads. And honestly, people don't want to be homeless. Uh when I worked as an employment counselor down on the east side, the first thing you had to do was get housing, otherwise you couldn't get a job. Uh almost any anyone could be a taxpayer and work a good job if they have housing. And if they don't have housing, then they're basically a burden on the taxpayer. So, it's just critically important. And I wish the province hadn't pulled a fast one, but Okay.

So, on that, I will call the question. It's just to receive for information. All those in favor. And that's unanimous. Thank you. Okay, next item are is our items that have been pulled off the consent agenda. So, that is 7.6, the density bonusing. Nope. Sorry, am I reading the wrong thing? 7.5 is the zoning bylaw housekeeping amendments is what was pulled. Yes, that's what I circled. In this case, we did receive hear from a I'll ask staff this question just early on. We did have a resident speak on this particular matter. Uh and it's regarding to lands in the LUR into harmonize the changes. So, could staff potentially provide an answer? And the timing as as well. And when will this all happen? So, maybe could staff please provide some comment back about that particular question and the timing of events.

Yes, thank you. Um so, we we did go to the LUDC and received direction from council uh shortly thereafter uh this month or last month um to proceed with some amendments uh to the zoning bylaw to basically reinstate the uh additional residence in the ALR. So, that is what we are doing. When I spoke to the gentleman who spoke during the question and comment period or or just communicated by email, I noted that we would be moving these forward in advance of of October at at least at the latest. So, I I didn't want to over promise a date necessarily, but these things obviously require some consideration internally by staff about how they function within the new SMU small scale multi-unit housing framework where we have some new restrictions that have been added to zones just to be consistent with some of the zones that don't necessarily uh are ineligible for the or not required to have the three to four unit units per per parcel that are otherwise

serviced. Um so, we would need to consider these amendments more detail and bring them forward to LUDC, then LUDC to council for first and second reading and then schedule a public hearing. Anyway, there there are a lot of steps involved with the adoption. So, I do envision this coming well before October, but again just moving these these things along. I did not want to over promise a date when it comes to expediting this, but we will do our best to to move things forward as as fast as possible. We also have quite a a few other zoning bylaw amendments that we're working with too. So, just from a staff capacity perspective and prioritization, we'll likely because this would require public hearing as well. So, we would likely try to consolidate a few other zoning bylaw amendments just to reduce costs as well with notification and and setting up that meeting with the other bylaw amendments that require a public hearing. Okay, my understanding is the the land

use and development committee will term is only until June. So, I could be wrong on that time-wise, but um council then meets in July and then September, October, we only have a few meetings scheduled cuz the nomination period opens. So, Okay. So, anyway, it is it's moving as it can. I'm just going to put the motion on the floor and then I'll turn to members of council. So, it'll be that council direct staff to prepare amendments to zoning bylaw number 600 to reinstate one, reinstate provisions recognizing an additional residence on parcels located within the agricultural land reserve in the RU1 and RU3 zones in accordance with the agricultural land commission act and agricultural land reserve use regulation and two, remove section 3.24 steep slopes setbacks from zoning bylaw number 600. Okay. So, that's moved by counselor McMath. I'm going to you cuz you pulled it and seconded by counselor Haldane.

So, did you have question or comment? Go ahead. So, maybe just for for context, how was it pulled originally? Sorry, I I I suppose you through the chair you mean how was it unintentionally removed? Correct. From the zoning bylaw, yes. So, during the small amendments, uh small scale multi-unit housing amendments, uh we were directed to limit uh the number of units on or sorry, permit two you dwelling units per parcel that didn't meet the small criteria. So, those uh that were on service or outside the growth boundary. So, it was uh affecting these rural zones uh such as RU1 and RU3. Um so, there was a use in the accessory uses uh that stated additional dwelling in accordance with the ALC regulations. Um that was removed unintentionally uh by our consultant. It was not caught by staff when that went forward and uh it was just because uh it was basically making changes consistent with all those zones that did also have some additional language saying a maximum two dwellings

restricted per parcel, uh one principal building, and something you see throughout the the zoning bylaw amendments that we made uh at the end of uh or the beginning of 2025. Okay. So, I can see I can see how it happened. Um but for me, I'd rather make this a priority because it's a we're having these unintended consequences from this this accidental easy to understand how it happened. Um but for me, I'd I'd like to triage it and put it right up to the front. So, is that feasible? And what does that look like? Yeah, we we can certainly uh move this to the very front if if that's the direction of council. And what are the impacts if you move that to the front of the line? What falls? Uh it would just require reprioritizing uh some other items um such as our short-term rental modernization, um as well as uh agritourism agritourism accommodation uh uses that we're looking at for zoning bylaw amendments, which

which both require um public hearings. This one is a lot less uh substantive, so statement, right? It's a little bit more than that because of some of the other regulations that have been put put in place, so there'd be a I believe a a condition of use uh to the zones um and probably some uh perhaps a definition. Uh so, I I I don't know 100% where we're landing yet with these changes, but it it could be done relatively quick, but it would just require us to delay some other things. Okay. I don't know how everyone else is feeling, but like I'm comfortable with that. So, we we've made a bit of a an an error easy to see how that's happened, and so I think it's would be beholding for us to to push it back up. So, I'm not sure if I need to amend the current motion that's on the floor. Is it a friendly amendment. Um Hm? Well, no no, I mean it's it's up to you

to amend as you please. You have the floor, you could go ahead and do that now. Uh then I want to see where I would put this. You could just add something. Or you could amend it and direct where it says at the start the council direct staff to prepare amendments, direct staff to prioritize the reinstatement. Yeah, these are You could add something like that. enough? J- just a Sorry, can I just make a comment here? Just regarding timelines, I think it will take us probably a week or so. I'm just thinking about the scheduling of the LUDC agenda, which happens at the first Tuesday of each month. So, if we miss this next Tuesday, it would it was planning to land on the June agenda anyway.

So, again, if that would just be our our timeline for this. So, yeah, if there's urgency around this matter, then then we could drop other things to make sure it was it was expedited for the May May agenda. I suppose that would be possible, but anyway, the plan was to bring it on the June agenda LUDC. Yeah, and and just again for clarity, what is it that you're dropping? Uh we have a range of long-range items that have been presented to the LUDC over the last couple of months. And there's no way just to have this as an additional item? As an additional item? Yeah.

Like I mean, for your workload, you're having you're saying you're having to drop these projects or these pieces. It's just reprioritization. Okay. Okay, so as it stands right now, it would come forward in June and then it would advance to the July meeting and then we would schedule a public hearing. So it would still be ahead of October and we're halfway through April now. So it will come forward in June or July. It's up to I mean, I don't there's other things that are in the land use meeting that were also before council asking to move, but I'll go to the chair of that particular committee. Thank you, sir. Uh as it happens uh the land use committee and a lot of the motions that were brought forward had to do with actually helping people in very similar ways to that gentleman.

Uh it would be preferable to actually move them all forward at the same time and I think that at this point staff knows that this wants to be prioritized, but it would all like for example, the specifically the uh the on the for on the on farm ALR uh regulations around uh housing. That strongly affects uh some people that had brought it forward uh that have I There was a presentation at the last uh Suquash regional system from Josh from Woodside Farm. Uh they're looking forward to this happening so that they can actually make their operation sustainable and work with the entire community on this stuff. All the stuff that was brought forward that would be essentially bumped along is going to affect people in very much the same way as the gentleman that we're speaking. I would prefer if at all possible that in order to keep the taxes lower we don't actually have two public hearings and we just keep it tight and make everybody happy or at least equally unhappy. Well, are those other

pieces reinstatement pieces or they new pieces? Okay, so now if counselor McMahan, if you would like to move your amendment, now would be the time and then we could see we've heard from staff that it would the impact of that. So this would be your time to test an amendment. Yeah, is it coming onto the screen?

We just have to get the amendment on and then we can second it and see where it goes. Okay, so the amendment is that council direct staff to prioritize bringing forward these amendments. Is that Not what I don't understand too.

Do the May land use meeting, right? Wait till it's on the floor, then I'll entertain them. Yeah. Councilor McMath is moving this. So once it's on the floor, then I'll call for a second. Okay. Okay. I think she just may want the date of uh to zoning to the May land use meeting. LUDC committee meeting. Okay. That's your motion. That's moved by Councillor McMath. Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Haldane is seconding it. So, on the amendment, go ahead, please, Councillor McMath. I think I've said most of my piece. It's It was an error by us, so it should be course correction by us as quickly as possible.

Okay, Councillor Haldane. Um yeah, but the only I don't understand is if we do make mistakes, why do they have this long drawn out process going through even land use? Why wouldn't we just bring it forward to council, vote on it, and get it passed reinstated? Through the chair. Because that's where we have delegated and formed that committee to go through that particular process. Otherwise, it brings the argument why have a committee. Councillor St. Pierre is the chair. Um I agree with Councillor Haldane. In this particular case, this item has already come before the committee. Committee already has agreed with staff's recommendation to put it back in place the way it was. There's no reason to send it through land use again. It's just rubber stamping for the sake of rubber stamping. Uh I would prefer that if we want to speed this up in a way that doesn't cost us, we could just have it come directly to council. Okay. So, then you can amend me the amendment.

Just Because that's what I heard was the May land use and development kind of that's why I was trying to Well, I just one speaker at a time. So, amend the amendment. You know the process. Yep. Uh Councillor except to the next available regular council meeting. So, when would that be? I don't know, but I don't know if it needs to be specific. It should be the next one that is possible. Okay. Uh Mr. Lewis. Uh thank you, Chair. I just wanted to um let council that as a amendment to the zoning bylaw, we will be required to post statutory notice on this. So, um if we're going to be picking a specific date, we'll want to confirm with calendars just to make sure that we uh we know the exact dates that we can make um having hits the notice requirements under 94 of the community charter. Okay.

So, I would need uh staff to reply back and assume what date that is. Yeah. Well, it has to be advertised, so it can't be the next scheduled council meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Lowes. My apologies, Your Worship. Um yes, we believe that May 11th is the next possible council meeting to bring this to. Okay, so then why don't you amend your motion? You can make the amendment, Councillor St. Pierre, uh to strike out land use and development committee and replace it with 11th regular council meeting. That's your amendment to your amendment, okay? So, is there a seconder for that amendment to the amendment? Is that Pearson? Okay. Um so, I'll call the question on the amendment to the amendment. All those in favor? That's unanimous. So, now on the amended amendment, um I'll call the question on that, please. All those in favor? Any opposed? That's carried unanimously. So, on the amended motion which would be all of this including the steep slopes.

Because it's all together, I think in the end we just want to have one public hearing on this, one set of advertising on this, uh rather than two. So, on the amended motion as it is, all of them in favor? Oh. Councillor Pearson wants to speak. No. No, no, I don't. He doesn't want to speak. Okay, for sure. It is voted. Okay. I want to bring something up in a little while. I need you to call get get a hold of me, so All right. I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? That's carried unanimously. Uh okay. Uh we'll move on. Council reports. Your worship, if I may. Yes. Uh just before you move on to another item, there's an issue on that I need a procedural ruling from the chair, please. A procedural ruling, really?

Yes, please. Under under item 9.2, bylaw 940. Uh as you're aware, under the community charter section 123, uh all members are required to vote on matters, and anyone who does not indicate how they vote is required to be recorded as voting in the affirmative. And under our procedure bylaw section 30, you are required to announce the results of the vote, and I am required to record in the minutes the results as you recorded them. Councillor Pearson has now emailed to note that he intended to vote against the bylaw adoption of bylaw 940. Uh so, I need your ruling on whether or not to accept that in a and to enter that into the minutes instead of the result that you announced at the time the vote was taken.

Interesting. Uh [laughter] >> Well, I'm I I could rule you out of order. This is what happens when you don't follow the meeting Councillor Pearson, but fine. I am fine that I will put you in opposition to it. Yeah, and and and and I apologize to the chair is I'm turning my camera on and off. And I and then and then all of a sudden I'm turning the camera on and off and and I heard you say I thought you said that Pearson was opposed because people were laughing and then and I didn't really get it. So then I thought I better go back I just wanted to clarify it because I did vote against it. So so I know fine. I didn't hear anything from you and we didn't see you. So when you and I'm turning my microphone and my video on and off at the at at each time, right? So and and and that's that's my fault for not being there tonight. So I'm I'm sorry, but

I'm I'm not technologically challenged. I'm just it's it's it's kind of fussy how I turn this on and off each time. So and I do apologize. That's totally fine. Thank you. Thank you. Council verbal reports. Is there any reports from members of council? Councillor Bateman. Well, I've had a busy couple of weeks since the council meeting on March 23rd, I think it was when we last reported out. I attended the CRD parks and transportation meetings in in the mayor's absence and I just like to share around the transportation meeting was particularly interesting. Um I don't think I've got anyone's attention here, but maybe I do.

The transportation meeting. So there there's CRD is beginning work on a new regional transportation plan to follow up on the 2014 version. I think the interesting things there are um it will include [clears throat] a reference to the the new reconciliation corridor initiative, which will explore rail connection between West Hills and downtown Victoria along the Island rail corridor. And that that's a bit of a game-changer if you need link BC Transit up with that uh West Hills station. Uh also discussed um a presentation on electric 12-passenger on-demand fast ferry within harbor areas, Esquimalt Harbor, Sooke Basin, and Victoria Inner Harbor. And this is from a group called Future Marine Incorporated who our CED officer Gail Scott's been working with. Uh she's been talking to them about a larger 30-passenger piloted vessel that could link Sooke to Victoria's Inner Harbor in under an hour. So, these are uh those significant things. I was also, and I know a number of you were at the Royal Oak open house. And I I don't know what you have to say

about all that, but I'll speak on the subject. Um uh it was um what I heard among concerns mainly was regarding the exit onto Eustace. Um which would require some major road upgrades in the area including perhaps serious consideration of extending Gatewood so that it exits onto Grant Road West. Um but that that's a significant issue for the people who live on what is currently a sleepy second road secondary road. Um and I did want to mention that in the original presentation last year there was a roundabout as an entrance to the mall off the West Coast Road just west of the Sooke Shelter. It's now to be a signalized intersection. And what the applicants told me there there was some confusion over whether or not it was the ministry uh was insisting on a signalization uh and had ruled out the roundabout or whether this was a district staff decision. So, I'm not I'm not clear on that, but I'm really looking forward to the development permit coming to

council. Uh they are a motivated developer, which is um given the current situation, that's something we should, you know, embrace. Um and uh encourage onwards. Um Finally, anyway, that that's all I got. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bateman. Over to Councillor St. Pierre. I just remembered I did do something useful. Um I attended the Sook Regional Food Systems Network meeting as the council liaison uh along with um Ms. Mog. And uh it was an excellent meeting well attended by um Councillor by sorry, our MLA uh Lacroix Ness. Uh Kent Mullineaux from uh KPU. Um Mrs. Ms. Lowres, of course, is at all meetings. We never miss her.

Um But the important thing I think at the end of it is that all these people got together and uh decided, I believe, that one of the top priorities was going to be developed in consultation with the public a food charter that could actually uh guide the vision of food sovereignty for Sook. And um sadly missed the last part of the meeting, but um a good meeting. Thank you. Comments from anyone else? So, I'll just thank members of council that uh covered off meetings in my absence. Uh I in March was rather busy as I was in St. John's, Newfoundland for part of it attending an FCM board meeting. So, I'll share that the meetings happened in sort of a two-part phase. Committee meetings happened uh prior and then the board meeting follows. So, at the board meeting itself, a lot of it focused on the vital role municipalities play in Canada's new economic landscape. I'm reading notes here.

Uh this includes the vital importance of municipal infrastructure as the economic backbone of our nation and the huge contributions made from a municipal level to Canada's international trade and defense. Municipal priorities across the country remain fully focused on housing, infrastructure, public safety, and climate resilience. Municipalities capacity to help build a stronger Canada is clear, and supporting local infrastructure means also strengthening our economy for the long term. Uh throughout the presentations, there was a detailed advocacy strategy session. You'll see more of those of you that subscribe to the FCM newsletters. If you don't already, I suggest you do cuz that's where you see where our connection to it is.

As well as a session on trade and defense. Uh the big one is Canada's as they expand Canada's uh and to hit NATO targets of which we already know of hit the 2%. Uh there is a focus on buying Canadian procurement and opportunities for dual-use municipal defense infrastructure investments. So, where Why is that important? Well, CFB Esquimalt is within our within our region. Uh their land stretches all the way out to Metchosin. Uh the other one would be Comox in the air base. So, we are impacted. A large number of our residents uh work and serve in the military. And when we talk about services that Canada would provide, particularly with the north, that's all within the submarine class.

So, some of you may have already been following a lot of that, but more to come. I did put my hand up to be on their task force, which talks about defense-related impacts and the dual-use infrastructure. Uh other sessions were on local response to homelessness. Uh the big one that was interesting to me was the work that they're doing around youth and choices for youth within St. John's. The interesting one is where they their focus is on providing housing as well as local employment, uh local food and the like. After that, uh when those two needs are met, there's conversation about counseling and so forth, but the focus is always around around uh housing and employment to start.

The trade show and conference, as you know, is coming up in Edmonton. Uh you I know that many of you or probably none of you are attending aside from me. However, if you look at the board of directors in its entirety, of which there are over 150, there are only two members of that board that serve on the island, and you're looking at one of them. Uh no one else. And we will be electing our representatives at that particular meeting. Uh similarly with the Union of BC Municipalities, I don't know that there is anyone other than the AVICC president currently serving on UBCM proper, but if you ask why federal issues are not being heard, well, if we're not being representative, then they're not going to be at the table. But that's just uh something that I'll raise there. The cost of my travel is covered through the community travel fund. And no, I did not send any expenses through to the District of Saanich for this. Following that, I was back, and then I was on the

plane again to visit our sister city, or to formalize our agreement with our sister city, now sister city in Nachitori, Japan. So again, thank you to members of council for covering off the particular meetings. I am putting together a PowerPoint presentation, and perhaps I am not tech-savvy because it didn't save. So I could have put it all together haphazardly uh this afternoon, but then it would be rushed. I would not be overly happy with it. So, that's why I said it'd be brought to the next meeting. And then I just know that all the points, cuz I know some of you is have asked how did this all come about? It predates me. This was led by our journey students.

And even after the devastation that occurred in 2011, it was former students who had gone on that student exchange were the ones that led the fundraising efforts here in Sooke locally. And uh that effort is still recognized in Japan today. Uh I did obviously make a bit of a trip out of it visiting other places and having a bit of a holiday before I came back. So, I'm glad to be home as always. Uh though I do as being half Japanese, I can't help but miss being there at the same time. So, anyway, for those of you that are thinking about a place to travel, I highly encourage you visit Japan. And I can give you lots of tips places to go to that are off the beaten track and not so busy.

So, on that note, thank you Councillor Bateman for covering off the work. Sea Park has a big grand opening coming up in May for their skate park as that reaches conclusion. And the other day as I walked through Raven's Ridge, I think it was one of the academy programs from the middle school that were there using both the multi-use gaming area as well as the uh uh sport box itself. There was a lot of kids, a lot of enjoyment, and a lot of fun happening. So, great to see all of that in use. And thank you to our staff for painting over the graffiti tag that was there.

It was bugging me every time I walked by it. And on that note, uh we'll see you soon, Councillor Pearson. All the best to you and yours. And all the best again to members of the community that have been impacted by recent events. Uh we are certainly thinking of all of you. And this is a very kind community full of compassion. And uh we are with you. So, on that note, I'll call for a motion to adjourn, please. Moved by St. Pierre, seconded by McMath. All in favor? That's unanimous. Take care. Good night. Good night.