The Corporation of the District of Central Saanich Public Hearing- 6:00 Pm

Home , Central Saanich, Ucluelet

THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH

PUBLIC HEARING- 6:00 PM Monday, March 26, 2018 Council Chambers

(Please note that all proceedings of Public Hearings are video recorded)

AGENDA

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. OPENING STATEMENT BY MAYOR

2.1. Opening Statement by the Mayor Pg. 3 - 4

3. CENTRAL SAANICH LAND USE BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 1935, 2018

3.1. Central Saanich Land Use Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1935, 2018 Pg. 5 - 7 (A Bylaw to Amend the Land Use Bylaw - Cannabis Production)

3.2. Notice of Public Hearing Pg. 8

3.3. Background Reports, Committee / Council Minutes and Correspondence Pg. 9 - 65 Received:

• Report from the Director of Planning and Building Services dated February 2, 2018 [Previously presented at the February 13, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting] • Excerpts from the Minutes of the February 13, 2018 Committee of the Whole and February 19, 2018 Regular Council Meetings • Correspondence Received Prior to Introduction of Bylaw No. 1935, 2018 and Publication of Notice of Public Hearing: • Ray, J - Jan 5, 2018 • Williams, D - Jan 8, 2018 • Burkhardt, A - Jan 9, 2018 • Horie, H - January 9, 2018 • Bond, D - Jan 10, 2018 • Kokkelink, G - January 11, 2018 • Chapman, N - Jan 11, 2018 • Robichaud, M - Jan 11, 2018 • Robertson, C - January 12, 2018 • Wolfson, K & G - January 17, 2018 • Fulton, D - January 18, 2018 • Box, A - January 19, 2018 • Russell, S - January 20, 2018 • Wolfson, K & G - January 20, 2018 • Buicliu, I - January 21, 2018 • Nelson, J - January 28, 2018 • Correspondence Received Subsequent to Introduction of Bylaw No. 1935, 2018 and Publication of Notice of Public Hearing: • Misovich, M - February 19, 2018 • Agricultural Land Reserve - February 22, 2018 • Fulton, D - March 21, 2018 • Epp, D & N - March 21, 2018

3.4. Opportunity for Public Input

4. ADJOURNMENT

Public Hearing Agenda March 26, 2018 Page 2 of 65 DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH Public Hearing – March 26, 2018

OPENING STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR

This Public Hearing is being convened pursuant to Section 464 of the Local Government Act in order to consider the following Bylaws:

1. “Central Saanich Land Use Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1935, 2018” [A Bylaw to Amend the Land Use Bylaw (Cannabis Production)]

At this Public Hearing, the public will be allowed to make representations to Council, and all persons present who believe that their interest in property is affected by the proposed Bylaw shall be given an opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting matters contained in the Bylaw.

Those of you who wish to speak concerning the proposed Bylaw should begin your address to the Council by clearly stating your name, address, and place of residence. Speakers should address all comments to the Council, and make those comments in a manner that accords respect to everyone present.

Following your presentation, members of Council may, if they wish, ask questions of you. The function of Council members this evening is to listen to the views of the public, not to answer questions of members of the public or debate the merits of the proposed Bylaws with each other or with individual citizens.

Everyone will be given an opportunity to be heard at this Public Hearing. No one will be prevented from making his or her views known within the time available. Any person who wishes to present a written submission to Council may do so. All such submissions will be retained by the Corporate Officer for review by the Council, but the Corporate Officer will not be reading any submissions aloud. These submissions will be made available for members of the public to review during the hearing.

All written submissions, together with the presentations made this evening, will be given full consideration by Council.

To maintain order during the Hearing and to ensure everyone an opportunity to be heard, I have established the following rules of procedure for this Hearing:

Firstly: A synopsis of the materials and the proposed Bylaw will be presented by the Director of Planning and Building Services. Thereafter, any member of the public who wishes to speak on this matter will be given an opportunity to be heard.

Secondly: Each member of the public who wishes to make a presentation will be given an opportunity to speak. Your presentation will not be restricted to a time limit, provided that your comments are relevant to the issues at hand.

Page 3 of 65 OPENING STATEMENT BY THE MAYOR Public Hearing – March 26, 2018 Page 2

Thirdly: Upon seeing no further speakers coming forward, I will make a final call for presentations. Should there be none, I will close the Public Hearing on the Bylaw. Consideration of the Bylaw will be scheduled at a future Regular or Special Meeting of Council. Once the Public Hearing has been closed, no further submissions will be considered by Council on this matter. You must refrain from communicating with members of Council, whether individually or as a whole, in any manner, concerning the matters contained in the Bylaws until a final decision has been made with respect to the Bylaw or unless Council refers the Bylaws to another Public Hearing.

Page 4 of 65 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH

BYLAW NO. 1935

A Bylaw to Amend the Land Use Bylaw (Cannabis Production)

WHEREAS the Council by Bylaw No. 1309, 1999 adopted the Land Use Bylaw and deems it appropriate to amend the Land Use Bylaw;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the District of Central Saanich, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

1. Appendix “A” of Central Saanich Land Use Bylaw No. 1309, 1999, is amended as follows:

a) By inserting a new definition alphabetically in section 1 as follows:

Cannabis Production, Agriculture – a Federally licenced facility, permitted as Agricultural use located in the Agricultural Land Reserve, used solely for the purpose of growing, cultivation, drying, testing, packaging, storage or distribution of cannabis or any products containing or derived from cannabis.

Cannabis Production, Industrial – a Federally licenced facility, used solely for the purpose of growing, cultivation, drying, testing, packaging, storage or distribution of cannabis or any products containing or derived from cannabis.

b) By inserting a new section 36B CANNABIS PRODUCTION, AGRICULTURE USE after Part 5, 36A.

(1) The maximum lot coverage for Cannabis Production Buildings is 35%, irrespective of residential and other agricultural uses.

(2) The minimum setbacks for any Cannabis Production Building shall be

Front yard 30m Side yard 30m Side yard exterior 30m Rear yard 30m From public highway 30m From watercourse 30m Yard abutting the Agricultural Land Reserve 100m boundary

Page 5 of 65 Central Saanich Land Use Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1935, 2018 Page 2

Yard abutting land dedicated, zoned or otherwise identified as public parkland, school or 150m Institutional

(3) Any driveway, access route or parking areas shall only be surfaced with permeable materials.

(4) No outdoor storage permitted associated with this use.

(5) Any federally required fencing shall be buffered with native plantings.

(6) Exterior lighting shall be low intensity and downcast.

c) By inserting a new permitted use alphabetically in section 38, subsection 22, Light Industrial: I-1

Cannabis Production

d) By inserting at the end of section 38, subsection 22, Light Industrial: I-1 following Other Regulations

(2) Despite the Siting of Building and Structures setbacks, any Cannabis Production Building shall meet the following setbacks

Yard abutting Residential, Comprehensive or 60m Mixed Use zone Yard abutting land dedicated, zoned or otherwise identified as public parkland, school or 150m Institutional

Page 6 of 65 Central Saanich Land Use Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1935, 2018 Page 3

2. CITATION

This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the “Central Saanich Land Use Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1935, 2018".

READ A FIRST TIME on this 19th day of March, 2018.

READ A SECOND TIME on this 19th day of March, 2018.

PUBLIC HEARING HELD this day of 2018.

READ A THIRD TIME on this day of 2018.

ADOPTED this day of 2018.

Ryan Windsor Mayor

______Liz Cornwell Corporate Officer

Page 7 of 65 orporation of the District of Central Saanich NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE is hereby given of a PUBLIC HEARING to take place on Monday, March 26,2OLg at 6:ül p.m. at the Central Saanich Municipal Hall, 1903 Mt. Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, BC, with regard to the following proposed Bylaw to amend l-AND USE BYLAW NO. 1309, 1999.

CENTRAL SAANICH IAND USE BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 1935, 2018 (A Bylaw to Amend the Lond Use Bylow - CANNABI,S PRODUCÍION)

ln general terms, the purpose of the proposed Bylaw is to make changes to the zoning regulations by

lndustrial";

1 zone; and,

setbacks for Cannabis Production use.

A copy of the proposed Bylaw, Land Use Bylaw No. 1309, 1999, Official Community Plan Bylaw 1600, 2008, staff reports, and other related information that may be considered by Council may be inspected at the Central Saanich Municipal Hall, 1903 Mt. Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, BC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, excluding holidays, from the date of this notice to 4:30 p.m., Mondav. March 26.2018 inclusive.

All persons who consider that their interest in property may be affected by the proposed Bylaw shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard at the Public Hearing, either in person, by representative, or by written submission, on all matters contained in the proposed Bylaw at the above ment¡oned time, date and place. The entire content of all submissions will be made public and form a part of the public record for this matter.

No representdtions will be received by Council after the Public Heoring hos been concluded.

Dated at Saanichton, BC, this 8'h day of March 2018 Jarret Matanowitsch, MCIP Director of Planning & Building Services

WHEN? Monday, March 261 2lÐ18 6:OOpm For lnformation & Submiss¡ons

E-mail Phone llall Fax Websitc [email protected] (250) 652.44.{4 1903 [,1t. Newton X Rd (250) 652-0r35 www. centralsaanich.ca Saanichton, BC V8M 2A9

Page 8 of 65 The Corporation of the District of Central Saanich

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT

For the Committee of the Whole meeting on February 13, 2018

To: Patrick Robins File: 6490-30 Chief Administrative Officer

From: Jarret Matanowitsch Priority: Strategic Director of Planning and Operational Building Services

Date: February 02, 2018

Re: Land Use Bylaw 1309 - Amendments - Cannabis Production

RECOMMENDATIONS: That Committee of the Whole recommends to Council: 1. That (Cannabis Production) Bylaw No. 1935 be introduced and read a first time. 2. That (Cannabis Production) Bylaw No. 1935 be read a second time and proceed to Public Hearing.

BACKGROUND: At the December 18th, 2017, meeting, Council directed staff to bring forward draft Land Use Bylaw amendments to assist with managing marihuana production on farm land.

The Agricultural Land Commission considers medical marihuana production to be a "farm use" and is therefore permitted within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). Due to the rural nature of Central Saanich, and the fact that almost 70% of the community's land base is within the ALR, there is potential that new marihuana production facilities could locate in the District.

1903 Mount Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, B.C. V8M 2A9 Phone: 250-652-4444 Fax: 250-652-0135

Page 9 of 65 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer February 02, 2018 For: February 13, 2018 Committee of the Whole Re: Land Use Bylaw 1309 - Amendments - Cannabis Production

Municipal zoning regulations cannot prohibit a legitimate "farm use" in the ALR; however, municipalities do have some ability to regulate farm activities including the siting and dimensions of farm buildings. Most of the ALR designated properties in the Central Saanich fall within the Agriculture (A-1) Zone of the Districts' Land Use Bylaw. In the A-1 zone, there are limited regulations related to the size and dimensions of buildings, enabling significant site coverage and limited building setbacks (see attached A-1 Zoning regulations). In response to the increasing demand for marihuana production operations, and with a focus of protecting valuable farmland for food production, Land Use Bylaw amendments are proposed that would restrict the siting and dimensions of buildings used for the production of marihuana on agricultural lands.

The following sections provide some background on the provincial and federal regulations related to cannabis production.

Agricultural Land Commission Act

The Agricultural Land Commission Act was amended in 2015 to include the production of marihuana as a farm use. Specifically the Act states, under Part 2:

(2) The following activities are designated as farm use for the purposes of the Act: (p) the production of marihuana in accordance with the Marihauna for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2013-119 (Canada).

Based on the above legislation, the production of marihuana is a legal farm use and permitted on ALR lands in the District.

Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulation The Federal Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) came into effect on April 1, 2014. Essentially, this regulation permitted large scale commercial production facilities of medical marihuana by licenced producers. The federal legislation has since been updated (SOR/2016-230) and now is titled "Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations" (ACMPR). The regulations require cannabis production facilities to have visual monitoring, visual recording and intrusion detection systems (Div 1, Subdivision C). They are also required to provide an air filtration system where cannabis plants are present to prevent the escape of odours (Div 1, Subdivision C - 61).

Future Federal Regulations (Cannabis Act) Bill C-45, an Act respecting cannabis and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and other Acts (otherwise known as the Cannabis Act) was introduced in the House of Commons in April 2017. Under the Cannabis Act, which regulates recreational use and production of cannabis, all producers of cannabis or cannabis products will need to be federally licensed to operate. Along with the licensing, it is expected that similar regulations to medical cannabis production will apply to recreational cannabis commercial operations.

As further details on the Federal Cannabis Act become available, staff will be reviewing how cannabis retail use could fit in with the current business and land use regulations of the District. Bylaw amendments will be introduced to Council within the next several months to help regulate the cannabis retail industry.

Page 10 of 65 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer February 02, 2018 For: February 13, 2018 Committee of the Whole Re: Land Use Bylaw 1309 - Amendments - Cannabis Production

Provincial Bylaw Standards for Development in Farming Areas The Ministry of Agriculture, with the Strengthening Farming Program, produced the "Discussion Paper and the Minister's Bylaw Standards" in March of 2015 to assist local governments with "regulating medical marihuana production facilities in the Agricultural Land Reserve". Subsequently, amendments to the "Guide for Bylaw Development in Farming Areas" were incorporated to reflect the provincial direction for marihuana production facilities.

The bylaw standards are designed to ensure that as much land as possible in the ALR is used for agricultural purposes, while balancing the needs of the community and other legislation, such as environmental impacts around watercourses. The bylaw recommendations have been established for all types of agricultural buildings, with some regulations specific to marihuana production.

The following is contained in the Provincial Bylaw Standards (guidelines) for local government bylaws relating to buildings in farming areas: • setback of no more than 30 metres from any watercourse; • lot coverage maximum of 35% or 75% for greenhouses (not including residential lot coverage); • building height of no less than 15 metres; • setbacks between 15 to 30 metres from any property line (specific for marihuana production facilities, setback to be determined at the local government's discretion); • setback of 30 metres from any neighbouring residential use outside of the ALR if a buffer is used, and 60 metres if a buffer is not used (specific for marihuana production facilities); • minimum setback of 150 metres from any neighbouring park and school (specific for marihuana production facilities); and, • require a storm water and agricultural liquid waste management plan if the facility is larger than 3700 square metres, or if it covers more than 10% of the lot.

Additionally, in the Provincial "Guide to Edge Planning", there is a recommended setback as follows: • 100 metre building setback from the urban containment boundary and from the ALR boundary.

DISCUSSION: In developing regulations pertaining to marihuana production facilities, staff used the Provincial Bylaw Standards as a guide, to ensure that the proposed regulations are consistent with provincial standards. In addition, staff also reviewed other municipal bylaws to determine best practices for regulating this land use. A table is attached to this report, showing zoning regulations employed by other jurisdictions. The regulations proposed in Central Saanich are similar to bylaw regulations employed elsewhere.

There are two distinct areas in the District that staff are proposing to permit marihuana production. The first is on ALR lands, as permitted by the Agricultural Land Commission. The second area is within Central Saanich's Keating Business District, within the Light Industrial (I-1) Zone. Due to the uniqueness of agricultural and industrial land, separate zoning regulations have been developed for each of these land bases. Proposed regulations for marihuana production as an agricultural use are introduced first below, followed by proposed zoning regulations for the Light Industrial (I-1) Zone. The attached District map highlights the areas where marihuana production would be permitted under the proposed regulations, including the ALR and the Light Industrial (I-1) Zone.

Page 11 of 65 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer February 02, 2018 For: February 13, 2018 Committee of the Whole Re: Land Use Bylaw 1309 - Amendments - Cannabis Production

Considering that the original federal regulations have been amended from using the term Medical Marihuana to the more recent Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations, and the proposed 2018 regulations to legalize recreational marihuana are called the Cannabis Act, our Land Use Bylaw should reflect similar wording by using the term "Cannabis Production", which will be the term used from this point forward in this report. By using the term "Cannabis Production", the intent is to capture both medical and future recreational cannabis production facilities.

Cannabis Production - Agricultural Use The Central Saanich Land Use Bylaw does not specifically define medical cannabis production; therefore, by virtue of the activity and through the current definition of "agriculture" in the Land Use Bylaw, it is classified as an agricultural use, and is permitted in a number of zones in the community (A zones, I-2, R- 1C, and R-E zones) both within and outside of the ALR.

In an effort to strengthen Land Use Bylaw regulations related Cannabis Production on agricultural lands, the following regulatory amendments are proposed:

1. Defining Cannabis Production, Agriculture as a permitted use on ALR land only.

By defining Cannabis Production, Agriculture, it will no longer be permitted as a general "agriculture" use in the Land Use Bylaw. Further, by restricting this use to ALR lands, the District will be consistent with ALC regulations, while at the same time helping to preserve farmland outside of the ALR for food production purposes.

The proposed bylaw definition for Cannabis Production on ALR land is as follows: Cannabis Production, Agriculture – a Federally licenced facility, permitted as Agricultural use located in the Agricultural Land Reserve, used solely for the purpose of growing, cultivation, drying, testing, packaging, storage or distribution of cannabis or any products containing or derived from cannabis.

2. Introducing building siting and dimension regulations (eg. setbacks, lot coverage) in the Land Use Bylaw for Cannabis Production facilities on ALR lands.

Introducing zoning regulations related to setbacks and lot coverage, which are consistent with Provincial Bylaw Standards, may help to ensure that these facilities are compatible with surrounding land uses.

The following are the proposed regulations for Cannabis Production, Agricultural use. These regulations would be located in the General Regulations section of the Land Use Bylaw, as a number of zones include lands in the ALR.

36B. CANNABIS PRODUCTION, AGRICULTURE USE (1) Cannabis Production, Agriculture, is permitted on lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve only. (2) The maximum lot coverage for Cannabis Production Buildings is 35%, exclusive of residential and other agricultural uses.

Page 12 of 65 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer February 02, 2018 For: February 13, 2018 Committee of the Whole Re: Land Use Bylaw 1309 - Amendments - Cannabis Production

(3) The minimum setbacks for any Cannabis Production Building shall be: Front yard - 30m Side yard - 30m Side yard exterior - 30m Rear yard - 30m From public highway - 30m From watercourse - 30m Any yard abutting the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary - 100m Any yard abutting land dedicated, zoned or otherwise identified as public parkland, school or Institutional - 150m (4) Any driveway, access route or parking area shall only be surfaced with permeable materials. (5) No outdoor storage permitted associated with this use. (6) All fencing that is federally required shall be screened with a treed and landscaped buffer having a minimum width of 1.5 m and height of 1.9 m (7) Exterior lighting shall be low intensity and downcast.

The comments below provide some further detail about the proposed regulations, and also discuss how they reflect the recommended provincial bylaw regulations in the "Guide for Bylaw Development in Farming Areas".

Watercourse setback of 30 metres The proposed bylaw requirement of a 30 metre setback from any watercourse also reflects the boundary established in the Riparian Development Permit Area and is consistent with provincial guide.

Lot coverage maximum of 35% or 75% for greenhouses There is currently no Lot Coverage regulation for agricultural buildings in the District's Agricultural zone (A-1). While the province offers options for regulating lot coverage (35% for buildings, 75% for greenhouses), it is noted that the majority of local governments have adopted a 35% maximum, irrelevant of the type of building. Staff propose that a 35% maximum lot coverage for Cannabis Production, independent of any other agricultural or residential uses, maintains a balance of all uses on the land.

Building height maximum of 15 metres The current regulations for the height of agricultural buildings in the A-1 zone is 13 metres and it is recommended that this building height be retained.

Setback to Property Lines The guide references a range of maximum setbacks from 15 metres to 30 metres, specific to Medical Cannabis Production Facilities. While the guide discusses establishing a "maximum setback" to limit the effects on farming, there is also the recognition that zoning typically refers to the minimum setback, as reflected in the summary of local government land use regulations attached. A building setback of 30 m is commonly used among other jurisdictions. Staff are proposing a minimum setback of 30 m from all property lines

Page 13 of 65 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer February 02, 2018 For: February 13, 2018 Committee of the Whole Re: Land Use Bylaw 1309 - Amendments - Cannabis Production

Setbacks to ALR Boundary The "Guide to Edge Planning" was published by the Strengthening Farming Program at the Ministry of Agriculture in order to promote compatibility along the agricultural and urban edges. Specific to Medical Marihuana Facilities, this guide suggests additional setbacks along the Urban Settlement Area boundary and the ALR boundary of 100 metres. The guide indicates that the "setback distances and management guidelines are designed to achieve compatibility with an urban residential land user". When referring to the attached map, it becomes clear that requiring setbacks for Cannabis Production facilities from the ALR boundary would be an effective way of buffering this use from established settlement areas.

Setback to Parks, Schools, Institutional Uses A minimum setback of 150 metres from any neighbouring park, school or institutional use is recommended by the province for cannabis production, and is supported by staff.

Storm Water Management The Province suggests that a storm water plan is required "if the total impervious area of farm buildings and structures exceed 3700 m² or covers more than 10% of the lot". The District has an established Surface Water Management Bylaw No. 1606, which requires a Run-Off Control Plan prepared by a Professional Engineer for any new building over 200 m² in area, outlining the infiltration, retention and water storage capacity of a proposed system. Staff will continue to enforce the Surface Water Management Bylaw in order to ensure storm water is managed on site accordingly.

Additional Zoning Regulations The proposed regulations include ensuring that any parking spaces and access routes are surfaced only with permeable materials, eliminating the use of concrete or similar impermeable surfaces which would make reinstating the land to farming more difficult. Another regulation includes ensuring that exterior lighting is downcast and shielded to reduce light pollution.

Any concerns of odour related to this use should be addressed by the Federal regulations, which require ventilation and filtration systems to reduce odour emissions. As Cannabis Production on ALR land is a permitted farm use, instituting further restrictions on odour emissions may be contrary to the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act.

Cannabis Production - Industrial Use

As the current "Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations" requires that cannabis be grown indoors, it seems reasonable that Cannabis Production be permitted in the Light Industrial (I-1) zone, similar to manufacturing or processing operations. Typical buildings in this zone include large spaces for manufacturing and warehouses, which may be easily altered to meet the federal regulations. In addition, the necessary infrastructure, utilities, services, roads and parking are in place to accommodate this use. Another reason to consider Cannabis Production as a permitted use in the I-1 zone, is to provide an alternative location to agricultural land, in an attempt to preserve farm land for food production.

It should be noted that in the Light Industrial (I-1) Zone, three building permits for medical cannabis production businesses have been issued based on the interpretation that this is an industrial activity. Part

Page 14 of 65 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer February 02, 2018 For: February 13, 2018 Committee of the Whole Re: Land Use Bylaw 1309 - Amendments - Cannabis Production of the approval process involves ensuring that appropriate federal licences are in place as a condition of authorizing this use.

In terms of regulating Cannabis Production facilities in the I-1 Zone, it is proposed that the existing regulations in the zone be applicable to this use, with two additional setback regulations to provide separation from residential uses, parkland, schools and institutional uses.

The proposed bylaw definition for Cannabis Production on industrial land is as follows:

The following additional setback regulations are proposed, in additional to the existing I-1 zone regulations:

• Yard abutting Residential, Comprehensive or Mixed Use zone - 60m • Yard abutting land dedicated, zoned or otherwise identified as public parkland, school or Institutional - 150m

Options

Option 1 - That Council proceed with the proposed Land Use Bylaw amendments to regulate Cannabis production on ALR lands and the Light Industrial (I-1) Zone. (Recommended)

The implications of this option are that Land Use Bylaw regulations would be put in place to regulate the siting and dimensions of Cannabis Production facilities on ALR land and in the Light Industrial (I-1) Zone.

Option 2 - As per the ALC interpretation, that Council recognize Cannabis Production on ALR lands only and incorporate regulations pertaining to the siting and dimensions of buildings. Cannabis Production would not be permitted in the Light Industrial (I-1) Zone under this option.

The implications of this option are that Cannabis Production would be limited to ALR lands only, and would not be permitted within the Light Industrial (I-1) Zone. Facilities with existing building permits in the industrial area would be rendered legal non-conforming, and would be able to continue to operate, but no new facilities would be permitted in the I-1 Zone.

Option 3 - That Council propose alternative zoning regulations pertaining to Cannabis production facilities.

The implications of this option are that staff would revise the proposed amendments based on Council direction, which may involve an updated report to Council.

Option 4 - Maintain the status quo where Cannabis Production would be permitted on ALR lands and within the I-1 Zone under existing zoning regulations.

Page 15 of 65 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer February 02, 2018 For: February 13, 2018 Committee of the Whole Re: Land Use Bylaw 1309 - Amendments - Cannabis Production

The implications of this option are that Cannabis Production facilities would be permitted on ALR lands in the District, with quite permissive zoning regulations, including setbacks of 7.5 m from the front and rear property lines, and 1.5 m from side yard lot lines. In addition, there is currently no site coverage regulation in the A-1 Zone, therefore enabling most of the site to be occupied by a Cannabis Production operation. In terms of the Light Industrial (I-1) zoned lands, there is little risk to maintaining the status quo, as Cannabis Production facilities can integrate well with other industrial land uses.

CONCLUSION: In response to provincial and federal regulations regarding cannabis production facilities, zoning regulations are proposed that would regulate this land use in the Agricultural Land Reserve and the Light Industrial (I-1) Zone. The Agricultural Land Commission has determined that medical cannabis production facilities are a permitted "farm use." On this basis municipalities cannot prohibit this use on farm land, however zoning regulations can be put in place to regulate the building siting and dimensions of these facilities.

It is proposed that the Land Use Bylaw be amended to include specific regulations pertaining to Cannabis Production facilities on both ALR lands and within the Light Industrial (I-1) Zone. For ALR lands, the proposed regulations would provide increased setbacks and reduced lot coverage provisions, in an effort to reduce impacts on the community and to preserve lands for food production. Regarding the Light Industrial (I-1) Zone, it is proposed the Cannabis Production be a defined land use, and provide specific regulations regarding setbacks from residential, parks, schools a institutional land uses.

ATTACHMENTS: • Draft Amendment Bylaw No. 1935 Administrator’s Recommendation: • Summary of Local Government I concur with the recommendation contained in Cannabis Production Regulations this report. • Zoning Map (A-1 and I-1 Zones Patrick Robins Highlighted) Chief Administrative Officer • Current A-1 Regulations • Current I-1 Regulation

Page 16 of 65 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF CENTRAL SAANICH

BYLAW NO. 1935

A Bylaw to Amend the Land Use Bylaw (Cannabis Production)

WHEREAS the Council by Bylaw No. 1309, 1999 adopted the Land Use Bylaw and deems it appropriate to amend the Land Use Bylaw;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the District of Central Saanich, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

1. Appendix “A” of Central Saanich Land Use Bylaw No. 1309, 1999, is amended as follows:

a) By inserting a new definition alphabetically in section 1 as follows:

b) By inserting a new section 36B CANNABIS PRODUCTION, AGRICULTURE USE after Part 5, 36A.

(1) Cannabis Production, Agriculture, is permitted as an Agriculture use on lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve only.

(2) The maximum lot coverage for Cannabis Production Buildings is 35%, exclusive of residential and other agricultural uses.

(3) The minimum setbacks for any Cannabis Production Building shall be

Front yard 30m Side yard 30m Side yard exterior 30m Rear yard 30m From public highway 30m From watercourse 30m

Page 17 of 65 Central Saanich Land Use Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1935, 2018 Page 2

Any yard abutting the Agricultural Land Reserve 100m boundary Any yard abutting land dedicated, zoned or otherwise identified as public parkland, school or 150m Institutional use

(4) Any driveway, access route or parking area shall only be surfaced with permeable materials.

(5) No outdoor storage associated with this use is permitted

(6) All fencing that is federally required shall be screened with a treed and landscaped buffer having a minimum width of 1.5 m and height of 1.9 m

(7) Exterior lighting associated with this use shall be low intensity and downcast.

d) By inserting a new permitted use alphabetically in section 38, subsection 22, Light Industrial: I-1

Cannabis Production, Industrial

e) By inserting at the end of section 38, subsection 22, Light Industrial: I-1 following Other Regulations

(2) Despite the Siting of Building and Structures setbacks, any Cannabis Production use shall meet the following setbacks

Yard abutting Residential, Comprehensive or 60m Mixed Use zone Yard abutting land dedicated, zoned or otherwise identified as public parkland, school or 150m Institutional

2. CITATION

This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the “Central Saanich Land Use Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1935, 2018".

READ A FIRST TIME on this day of 2018.

Page 18 of 65 Central Saanich Land Use Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1935, 2018 Page 3

READ A SECOND TIME on this day of 2018.

PUBLIC HEARING HELD this day of 2018.

READ A THIRD TIME on this day of 2018.

ADOPTED this day of 2018.

Ryan Windsor Mayor

______Liz Cornwell Corporate Officer

Page 19 of 65 Summary of Local Government Regulations for Medical Marihuana on ALR Lands Government Zoning Regulations North Saanich Medical marihuana  35% lot coverage max operation is prohibited  Stormwater, liquid waste plan EXCEPT ON ALR LAND  15m max height  Setbacks 15 – 30m, 60 if no buffer  30m to watercourses  Buffer reduces setback Saanich Medical marihuana Regulated as an agricultural land use. operation is prohibited EXCEPT ON ALR LAND North  35% lot coverage max Cowichan R.D.  15m max height  30m from a watercourse  15m from property lines  30m from residentially-zoned land, where a 15m buffer is on the adjacent residential lot  60m from residentially-zoned land without buffer  100m from the urban containment boundary  100m from the ALR boundary  150 from land dedicated, zoned or otherwise identified as public parkland, PU or PC zone Cowichan Medical marihuana  50m setback to boundary in the A-1 zone; Valley R.D. production is prohibited in  100m from park or institutional zone all zones, except where  300m from residential, CD or mixed use zone explicitly permitted R. D. of North Medical marihuana Permitted provided that they do not create Okanagan production is prohibited in  fire, odours or safety hazards all zones, except Agricultural  noise in excess of average intensity of street and Industrial Zone traffic noise in the area  no production of heat or glare perceptible from any lot line of the site R. D. of  Min lot area of 3 ha Central  35 % lot coverage max or 60% max for greenhouses Kootenays  30m setback to property lines  Max height 15m Nanaimo Site specific zone Maple Ridge Permitted in Agricultural  20% lot coverage max or 50% max for greenhouses zone  60m from front and exterior side  30m from rear and interior side  30m from wells and streams  30m from residential buildings  200m from school lot line  1000m from another licenced medical marihuana production site Armstrong Permitted on ALR within  Min lot size of 1ha enclosed building  Max 35% lot coverage  60m from abutting residential zone  30m for other property lines  15m from wells and streams  12m max height

Page 20 of 65 Page 21 of 65 38. ZONE REGULATIONS

(1) Agriculture:[Bylaw A-1 1650] [Bylaw 1667][Bylaw 1810]

Permitted Uses

Agriculture Agricultural processing centre Aquaculture Bed and Breakfast - 3 bedroom maximum Equestrian or riding stable Greenhouse Home Occupation Residential Single Family Secondary Suite Tree Nursery

Siting of Residential Buildings and Structures

Front Yard minimum of 7.5 m Rear Yard minimum of 7.5 m Side Yard Interior minimum of 1.5 m, one side Side Yard Interior minimum of 4.5 m, total two sides Side Yard Exterior minimum of 6.0 m Accessory Separation minimum of 3.0 m from principal building

Siting of Agricultural Buildings and Structures

Front Yard minimum of 7.5 m Rear Yard minimum of 1.5 m Side Yard minimum of 1.5 m Side Yard Exterior minimum of 6.0 m

Height of Buildings and Structures

Agricultural use maximum of 13.0 m Other uses maximum of 8.0 m

Lot Size Requirements for Subdivision

Lot Area minimum of 4.0 ha. Lot Frontage minimum of 10% of lot perimeter

Other Regulations

(1) Despite the minimum lot area requirement in the A-1 zone, the A-1 zoned portion of Lot 28, Block E, Section 13, Range 1 West, South Saanich District, Plan 1314 Except that Part included within the boundaries of Plan 31385, PID 003-595-412 (1231 Greig

Land Use Bylaw No. 1309 October 19, 2015 LUB - 27

Page 22 of 65 Avenue) may be subdivided from the portion of Lot 28 lying to the south of Benvenuto Avenue . [Bylaw 1794]

(2) In addition to the permitted uses in the A-1 zone, on land legally described as Strata Lot 2, Strata Plan VIS3427, Section 14, Range 3 East, South Saanich District, parking is permitted to serve permitted uses located on the northern portion of the same parcel zoned I-1 Light Industrial, and such parking is exempted from the surfacing provisions of Section 42(5).

(3) Despite the minimum lot size requirement in the A-1 zone, the minimum lot size requirements for subdivision for Lots 29 and 30, Block E, Section 13, Range 1 West, South Saanich District, Plan 1314, are 0.7ha and 1.0ha respectively.

(4) General Conditions for Temporary Farm Camping Uses

(a) Farm Camping Use may be permitted on lots with an area of 0.8ha or more located in the provincially-designated Agricultural Land Reserve.

(b) Farm Camping may comprise the use of land for up to ten tent camping sites occupying in total not more than 2% of the area of the lot, and for this purpose the area of every tent camping site is deemed to be 48 square metres.

(d) The minimum setbacks for any farm camping use, including tent camp sites, sanitation facilities, and parking, shall be:

From public highway 10m Side yard 10m Side yard abutting residential zone 15m Rear yard 10m Rear yard abutting residential zone 15m

(e) Only one tent is allowed per tent camping site. No other structures or site alterations, including removable ground level decks or landings, are permitted.

(f) No vehicle shall be used for overnight accommodation.

(g) Any parking area provided for farm camping use shall only be surfaced with permeable material.

(h) All roads within the farm camping site shall be designed to allow for safe traffic flow at all times and be adequate to provide for the utilization of emergency vehicles. Such roads shall only be surfaced with permeable material. No parking on roadways is permitted at any time.

Land Use Bylaw No. 1309 October 19, 2015 LUB - 28

Page 23 of 65

(i) No tent camping site shall be connected to any utilities.

(j) Disposal of grey water and sewage on the ground is prohibited, and must be contained and disposed of through proper wastewater disposal and solid waste disposal facilities in accordance with provincial Health Act requirements including the Sewerage System Regulation and the Sewerage System Standard Practice Manual.

(k) Every tent camping site shall be located within 120m of a source of potable water.

(l) All refuse and garbage is to be placed in receptacles provided for that purpose.

(m) The washing of vehicles is prohibited.

(n) Fire pits are not permitted. Propane or other non-wood burning portable barbeques are permitted for cooking purposes.

(o) Each tent camping site may be provided with one picnic table for the use by the occupants of that tent camping site.

(p) The provision of a grassed play area for children is permitted. Other communal facilities, except those for personal sanitation such as bathrooms and showers, are not permitted including but not limited to: recreational buildings, unenclosed pavilions or gazebos, laundry rooms, and swimming pools.

(q) Any exterior lighting shall:

(i) be designed so as to illuminate sanitation facilities and exterior areas only, at levels necessary to ensure safety and security of persons and property;

(ii) not be directly visible from public roads and residences on adjacent properties; and

(iii) be shielded and directed toward the ground.

(5) General Conditions for Non-Farm Uses {Bylaw 1810}

(a) Non-Farm Uses may be permitted by Temporary Use Permit on lots of at least 0.8ha located in the Agricultural Land Reserve.

(b) A legitimate farm operation must exist on the lot.

(d) The Non-Farm Use must not limit or have a negative impact on the farm

Land Use Bylaw No. 1309 October 19, 2015 LUB - 29

Page 24 of 65 operation or the land.

(e) The Non-Farm Use must not negatively impact other farms or neighbouring properties.

(f) The owner of land in respect of which a Temporary Use Permit for Non-Farm Uses has been issued may put the land in question to the use described in the temporary use permit until

(i) such time as the principal use of the lot ceases to be agriculture, or

(ii) the date that the temporary use permit expires, or

(ii) 3 years after the temporary use permit was issued, whichever occurs first.

(g) A Temporary Use Permit shall not be issuedale to of permit agricultural the s compost.

NOTE: Agriculture: A-2 zone deleted – see “Central Saanich Land Use Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 1650, 2009” adopted January 11, 2010

Land Use Bylaw No. 1309 October 19, 2015 LUB - 30

Page 25 of 65 (22) Light Industrial: I-1 [Bylaw 1700]

Permitted Uses

Agricultural Processing Centre Audio/Visual Production Facility Boat Building Brewery Business Offices but excluding Financial Institution, Medical/Dental Office, Realty Office, Insurance Office, and Travel Agency Car Wash Catering Establishment Commercial Composting Dry-cleaning Plant Health Club and Fitness Centre Laundry or Cleaning Plant Light Manufacturing and Processing Lumber and Building Materials Sales Mini-warehousing Motor vehicle body work, painting and structural repairs Parking Lot Photofinishing Services and Photography Studio Printing and Publishing Recycling Facilities Research Laboratory Research and Development Facility Restaurant, not exceeding 75 m² gross floor area Sales, rental, service, storage and repair of:  agricultural equipment and garden implements;  boats and marine equipment;  business and office equipment;  construction and building equipment;  farm, garden and pet supplies;  furniture and appliances; and  tires Storage Facility or Warehouse Trades’ Workshop Truck Terminal or Courier Services Vehicle Servicing Veterinary Practice Wholesalers

Accessory Uses, including but not limited to:

Offices Caretaker’s Dwelling, no greater than 130 m² gross floor area Indoor Storage and Storage Yard

Land Use Bylaw No. 1309 July 11, 2017 69

Page 26 of 65

Siting of Buildings and Structures

Front Yard minimum of 7.5 m Side Yard Interior minimum of 6.0 m, total two sides, where a side yard is not flanking a street or lane, the setback may be reduced to 0 m, provided that the other side yard has a width of not less than 6.0 m. Side Yard Exterior minimum of 6.0 m

Size of Buildings and Structures

Height maximum of 11.0 m

Lot Coverage

Lot Coverage maximum of 60% Floor Area Ratio maximum of 1.0

Lot Size Requirements for Subdivision

Lot Area minimum of 1850 m² Lot Frontage minimum of 30.0 m

Other Regulations [Bylaw 1761]

With the exception of areas for display, loading, parking, and storage uses, all operations and processes associated with a use shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building.

Land Use Bylaw No. 1309 July 11, 2017 70

Page 27 of 65 Excerpt from the Minutes of the February 13, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting:

5.4. Land Use Bylaw 1309 - Amendments - Cannabis Production

Report from the Director of Planning and Building Services dated February 2, 2018.

The Chair invited the public to speak. There were no speakers.

106.18 MOVED

Committee of the Whole recommends to Council:

1. That (Cannabis Production) Bylaw No. 1935 be introduced and read a first time. 2. That (Cannabis Production) Bylaw No. 1935 be read a second time and proceed to Public Hearing. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Excerpt from the Minutes of the February 19, 2018 Regular Council Meeting:

10.15. Planning & Development

4. Land Use Bylaw 1309 - Amendments - Cannabis Production

127.17 MOVED AND SECONDED

That (Cannabis Production) Bylaw No. 1935 be introduced and read a first time.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

128.17 MOVED AND SECONDED

That (Cannabis Production) Bylaw No. 1935 be read a second time and proceed to Public Hearing.

CARRIED

Opposed: Councillor Holman

Page 28 of 65 iJQ

Janet Ray ) 2n tB 834 Sayward Rd Viõtoria BC V8Y 1R4 EGEIVE

JAN I 0 20t8

DL-tt't The Corporation of the District of Central Saanich ¿ A/u/L uJYLry ../4.\ tD fLq

tt4 n¿( h-- fur4 ' n"',;

Lâ,r,ql -Li- t4 I/îr/- *¡ M , fr nr4 /e-uaf t44-( ? n-t< dY-r/--LL /Ð btqla JÅ-^4{ tT Ln,fØ ut ,dn^ IØ( /ztw J*t¿l-rct fl4.t" h /l,u.Lh4 lD U o'1^ # b-^-( y y,t-&/r lfu*a hr*U*n^44/\1l'r¿-ørva4 Pan¿'r a4l-v /n"*f- /æ''{ */4ra / 7 h*^/-r..€-( hLA4*t¿4- /}44.1 /* n4.L fa4. M AA-'( M lH-fZ U*l v./á /*T''-3 Ja-t,---

Page 29 of 65 Ruby Shea

From: Central Saanich via Central Saanich on behalf of No Reply < [email protected] > Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 5:51 PM To: Municipal Hall Subject: Mayor & Council email form submission from centralsaanich.ca

Submitted on Monday, January 8,2018 - 17:50 Submitted by anonymous user: 24.69.13.28 EGElvtr Submitted values are: JAN O 9 2OIB

Subject: Stanhope cannabis proposal Tho Corporation of the District of Central Saanich First & Last Name: david williams Phone N umber: Address: 3145 livesay road Email: Message: I am opposed to the cannabis greenhouses. First we clear cut the peninsula and now we are paving it over. The greenhouses will all have a hard base probably cement. Mayor and Council have done a creditable job steering our municipality through many difficult situations and this is another test for you. The Stanhope land is ALR so the greenhouses appear to be an allowable use from that perspective. All the promises made about the use of the Stanhope property for recycling of kitchen waste etc were found to be empty. Smells, traffic, and vermin proliferated and you know how difficult it was to bring that under control with the launching of lawsuits and including class action. ln the event the promise of no odour , no light pollution, and limiting hundreds of workers crowding Lochside Trail and Old East Road to our lovely Martindale Valley can only be seen with the deepest suspicion and hindsight. Besides this is arable land for farming not for paving over!!

So deny the proposal and I know how attractive the new taxes might be but raise mine as necessary

David

The results of this submission may be viewed at: https ://www. centra lsaa n ich. caln ode/29S/su bm iss ion I 1 1 1 I

"The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information of the District of Central Saanich. It is intended for review only by the person(s) named above, Dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited by all recipients unless expressly authorized otherwise. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you."

T .f

Page 30 of 65 EGEIVE January 9,2018 JAN I 'l 2018 District of Central Saanich The Corporation of the District of Central Saanich His Worship and Council,

Re: Evergreen Medicinal Supply's proposed 36 acre marijuana greenhouse construction on ALR land on Lochside Drive, Central Saanich

I know the ALR is a provincial program and has its own rules and regulations, but a lot of land in Central Saanich is in the ALR, and I think as a municipality it would not be inappropriate for our mayor and councilors to think deeply about the impact marijuana growing operations would have. lf the municipality has any power over what developers like Evergreen can do I would like to ask you to use it in whatever ways possible to encourage this and other companies like it, to locate their operations on non-arable land and away from neighbours. I understand they plan to peel the top soil off 36 acres, truck in fill and gravel, then completely cover those 36 acres with concrete bunkers surrounded by penitentiary worthy fences, and lit by many bright outdoor security lights that will burn through the night.

Hydroponic greenhouses do not need prime agricultural soil, they only need a location Non-arable, even rocky terrain, would do, leaving ALR land available for growing food, which becomes increasingly important with growing populations, global warming, and the desire for locally produced food. Evergreen's proposal would not use the land, it would only despoil it, then sit on it, making a mockery of the ALR's mandate. lf this or other marijuana operations fail, and some will, what recourse will the municipality have regarding the mess left behind? Would the land ever be arable again? At what cost?

I have nothing against marijuana cultivation, or the building of successful companies, but I find Evergreen's proposal a greedy one. Also, this developer's existing bunker further north on Lochside is an ugly blot on the landscape. I don't trust him not to repeat that performance on a grander scale.

He has made a number questionable statements:

-He will spend $500 million to build this operation, which will ultimately earn over $l billion per year, but he needs relatively "inexpensive" ALR land in order to afford to do so. (He cannot afford industrial land, but has agreed to an inflated priced for the ALR land. He is planning on busing his employees, 500 at a time, to the site from the Keating industrial area. ls he planning to buy or build a parking lot there, where he cannot afford the land prices? Why not build his bunkers there?) -Ultimately he will employ 1500 workers, with 500 on site at a time. They will be bused in and out. There will be 3 buses an hour 3 times a day. (500 people will not fit on 3 buses unless those buses make multiple trips. lmagine those rumbling back and forth along narrow Lochside Drive numerous times day and night.) -The interior greenhouse lights will be turned off at 5 p.m. (Then why the need for around the clock shifts? ls he building greenhouses or more windowless, glassless concrete bunkers? And the outdoor security lights will be turned on as darkness falls.)

Page 31 of 65 -He had a meeting to which he invited people in the area. (l have yet to talk to someone in this neighbourhood who received an invitation.) lalso wonderwhat his plans are forthe other 64 acres in this 100 acre site. ls he hoping to sneak in a parking lot? Add more greenhouses?

This company plans to spend $500 million to eventually earn $1 billion per year. Will, and should, they benefit from low farm status property taxes, and thus be subsidized by the non-farming households and businesses in our municipality? Will their only contribution to the neighbourhood be an appalling ugliness and busyness they would never tolerate in their own neighbourhoods? Does a company with pockets this deep need or deserve to purchase land that is cheaper because it is in the ALR? Land that is cheaper so it will be available for farmers to grow food for humans and anirnals? Food farmers can't use non-arable land, marijuana growers can.

It is my impression Evergreen is paying an inflated price for the property in question. Their big budget gives them a huge advantage. How can farmers be expected to resist these high offers? How will people who want to buy ALR land to grow food crops compete? Will any one want to grow food, if they can make so much more money growing marijuana?

Non-medical marijuana is not yet actually legal. Could the municipality hold back whatever approvals it has to give in order for this company to proceed until the provincial government has had a chance to study the effects marijuana growing businesses, which don't need good land, would have on the rich farmlands within the ALR?

For example: -The property in question is located in a valley that becomes very soggy in the winter, forming lakes of fluctuating sizes in the farm fields. The roadside culverts are sometimes full to capacity. Does anyone know what effect covering 36 acres with concrete structures will have on the valley's water table? -Will anyone be able to control the amount of the ALR sold for this use, and what effect will diminished local food growing have on everyone who eats. Not everyone uses marlJuana.

Sincerely, ú'ß Anne Burkhardt

Saanichton, BC V8M 1W6

Page 32 of 65 Ru Shea

From: Concerned Citizens GEI Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 4:38 PM lo: Municipal Hall JAN0gnß Subject: Something to think about ïho sojffinDistrict

Dear Mayor and Council.

Here are some e-mails I would like to share with you. Please, do take the time to read those messages. Thank you.

Hildegard Horie

3. Begin forwarded message:

From: Office of Senator Betty Unger Subject Marijuana legalization: What can be done? Date: January 9, 2018 at 13:32:26 PST To : Reply-To: Office of Senator Betty Unger

Page 33 of 65 LAW COMMENTARY Jeff Sessions Just Reversed 0bama's Pot Policy. Why That's Good News for America.

Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky I January 09, 2018

O cotr,turruTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky @HvonSpakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues-including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform-as a senior legalfellow in The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese lll Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank's Election Law Reform lnitiative. Read his research. Reversing Obama-era policy, Attorney GeneraI Jeff Sessions has given federaI prosecutors the discretion to prosecute marijuana traffickers.

That's good news for those who betieve in the rule of [aw. And good news, too, for those concerned about public health and the safety of our nation's youth.

On Jan. 4, Sessions revoked the Cole Memo, a2014 Justice Department directive issued by then-Deputy Attorney General James Cole. The memo essentia[[y gave marijuana producers and distributors in states that had legalized the drug immunity for violating federal drug [aws.

Sessions' directive gives the 94 U.S. attorneys a[[ over the country clear guidance for deciding when to prosecute those who violate federa[ law prohibiting marijuana cultivation and distribution.

Page 34 of 65 Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>

The Baby Boomers reading this column shoutd realize that the marijuana being produced today is many times stronger and more potent than what we saw in the 1960s.

The science today is atso much clearer: We have far greater knowledge of the long-term, deleterious effects of marijuana on the physicaI and mental health of users, particutar children and teenagers.

The bottom [ine: Today's pot is a potentialty dangerous substance. That's why it is classified as a Schedule I controlled drug along with heroin, LSD, and ecstasy-it isn't alcohol.

White alcoholcan be abused, it is not addictive for most people. Moreover, most consumers stop welIshy of the point of intoxication. Moderate amounts even have some positive health benefits such as reducing the risk of heart disease and stroke.

>>> ll Ways Trump's DOJ Can Start Enforcing Federal Marijuana Law

Compared to alcohol, we now know that long-term marijuana use can cause physical disorders such as respiratory disease, social problems such as anomie, and mentaI heatth problems such as schizophrenia, something we didn't know about in the 1960s.

Its effect on the young may be more pernicious. lt may impair the brain development of children and teenagers. lt is associated with lower test scores and lower education aüainment. Teenagers who use pot are also much less likely to graduate from college and much more tikety to attempt suicide.

Today's pot is genetically modified to boost the "high" a user can get. The goal, naturally, is to get more people hooked on pot, just tike Big Tobacco's goaI was to get more people hooked on cigarettes.

Today's pot pushers are just Big Tobacco 2.0. Why etse would they be infusing THC, the active ingredient, into everything from cookies to ice cream to Gummy Bears?

These products directly target the young, creating serious risks for chitdren who may not know what they are ingesting and teenagers who use these products to hide what they are doing from their parents.

Page 35 of 65 States like Colorado that have legalized marijuana use have seen huge increases in marijuana-related traffic accidents and fatalities as wetl as accidentaI poisonings of both children and pets. Pot use by teenagers, who are most vulnerable to its damaging effects, has also greatly increased, as have schoolsuspensions and expulsions for pot use.

The Cole Memo ignored all of this information, directing federaI prosecutors to back off enforcement.

So does Sessions' directive mean federaI prosecutors are now going to go after the col[ege kid who smokes a joint in his dormitory?

Of course not. U.S. attorneys have limited resources. They don't prosecute misdemeanors. The only criminals they witttake to court are the large-scale manufacturers and distributors.

Revenue-hungry lawmakers in states like California and Colorado may be willing to trade the problems created by marijuana [egalization for the tax bonanza they expect to reap. But it's a very raw dealfor their neighbors.

States [ike Nebraska and Oktahoma have complained that Colorado's legalization has increased trafficking into their states, with al[ of the myriad problems associated with increased drug abuse.

As Sessions' memo notes, Congress "determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that marijuana activity is a serious crime." The attorney general has no authority to simply decide not to enforce a law, which is exactly what the Holder/Lynch Justice Department did.

States cannot authorize parties to engage in conduct that federaI law prohibits and as long as the Controlled Substances Act is on the books, states cannot te[[their citizens to disregard it.

From a policy standpoint, it is wise to battle the growth of an industry that distributes a potentially dangerous drug in what is a national market and thus a national, not just a [oca[, problem.

But Sessions has also done the right thing from a legal standpoint. He has acted to preserve a constitutionaI government in which Congress determines what the law is, and the president and the attorney generalfutfitltheir duty to enforce the law-not ignore it.

Origínolly published by Fox /Veu¡s.

Page 36 of 65 A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low-and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers tiberals glowingly and conservatives criticatly.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That's why The Daily ' Signal exists.

The Daity Signa['s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and poticy experts rely on the financial support of patriots tike you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation's leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what's going on in Washington

Please make a gift to support The Daity Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Page 37 of 65 First Nations look to grow marijuana industry for economic highs l+t THE CÃ.NÃ,DIAN PR-Ess e^haâ¡¡l,Lft

Published on: December 28,2OL7 | Last Updated: December 28,2OL7 2:57 PM PST

Phil Fontaine, an lndigenous politician turned marijuana executive, has spent the last year travelling the country and talking to First Nations about jobs, wealth and training opportunities the burgeoning marijuana business could bring c-HRrs RotrssÃrrs / NATT)NAL Pos"

Page 38 of 65 Canada's marijuana industry is expanding rapidly and..orr1. First Nations are lookinã to cash in on the emerging economic opportunitj es.

"Everywhere we've been, it's been the same reaction, interest, excitement. First Nations are speaking about possibilities and potential. So it's been very encouraging," said the former national chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

Marijuana businesses represent "tremendous potential" for First Nations, partially because communities are able to get in on the ground floor, instead of fighting to catch up years later as has traditionally been the case, Fontaine said.

"This is a unique opportunity. This sector is different than any other the lndigenous community has experienced. Everyone is starting off at the same poíntJ' he said in a telephone interview.

Fontaine is the CEO of lndigenous Roots, a medical marÍjuana company operated by and for First Nations across Canada.

The company is a joint venture with Cronos Group, a medial-marijuana grower licensed by Health Canada. Once lndigenous Roots is operating, its profits will be split evenly between partner First Nations and Cronos.

Though recreational marijuana is set to become legal this summer, lndigenous Roots will focus on supplying prescription pot to First Nations communities, which Fontaine said have traditionally had lower access to the drug.

"We want to make sure that this particular service is made available to our communities in every part of the country," he said.

Plans are in the works to build an lndigenous Roots growing facility next to an existing Cronos facility in Armstrong, 8,C., with the aim of serving patients by the end of 2018, Cronos CEO Míke Gorenstein said in an interview.

Page 39 of 65 Current Cronos workers will train First Nations employees to run the lndigenous Roots operation, he said.

"Long term and medium term, this is meant to be an lndigenous-operated company," Gorenstein said. "Our commitment is to make sure that any knowledge that we have or we continue to gain, that we're sharing and we're always there to support."

The new facility will create between 30 and 50 jobs, plus other opportunities in marketing, sales and accounting, Gorenstein said. Future operations will likely be even bigger, he added.

A cannabis company in northern Ontario has also teamed up with local lndigenous communities.

Forty-nine First Nations have invested in 48North Cannabis, representing about 20 per cent of the company's current shareholder base, said CEO Alison Gordon.

4SNorth also has community benefit agreements with two lndigenous communities near its operations in Kirkland Lake, Ont. The company provides preferential hiring, and funding for drug and alcohol education, Gordon said.

The company is waiting final approval from Health Canada before sending medical marijuana to market, and is eyeing the recreational market, Gordon said.

First Nations will help dírect the company's growth, she added.

"lt's just part of our DNA. I mean, we want to work with our First Nations partners to figure out how to create products and brands that would be important to their communities, to help educate their communities."

Other communities in B.C. believe cannabis could be a boon and are asking the provincial government to help ensure they get a piece of the emerging market. ln recent submissions to the government's consultation on cannabis regulations, the Lake Cowichan and Ucluelet First Nations urged the province to implement a rule that requires a certain percentage of marijuana products be grown by lndigenous cultivators.

Page 40 of 65 "lt is obvious that there is potential for cannabis to become an economic foundatíon for some First Nations communities," says the submission from the Ucluelet First Nation. "With proper consultation about regulation, this potential could be celebrated and fostered."

CannabisWise program to ease consumer concerns ahead of legalization The Canadian Press (hltp:/ /vancouversun. com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news- pmn/cannabiswise-program-to-ease-consumer-concerns-ahead-of-

I ega I ization /w cm / 53823904-996a-4c42-9 dIA- da37 4L9c9733)

Little quality research into medical marijuana: Experts (http:/,/vancouversun.com/news/local-news,/little-quality-research-into-medical- marijuana-experts)

Saanich dairy farm to become home to one of Canada's largest pot operations (http:/ /vancouversun.com/news/ local-news/saanich-dairy-farm-to-become-home-to- one-of-canadas-largest-pot-operations)

CLICK HERE (mailto:[email protected]) to report a typo.

ls there more to this story? We'd like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email

va nt i os @ post m ed i a.co m ( ma i lto : va nti ps@ post m ed i a. co m )

BC (HTTP:/ /VANCOUVERSUN.COM./TAG./BC)

BUS I N ESS (HTTP:.//VANCOUVERSUN.COM,/TAG/BUS I N ESS)

FI RST NATION S (HTTP://VANcoUvERsuN.coM/TAc/Fl RsT-NATloNs)

MARIJUAN A (HTTP://VANCOUVERSUN.COM/TAG./MAR IJUANA)

MAR I J UANA LEGALIZATION (HTTP:/./VANcoUvERsu N.coM/TAG/MARIJUANA-LEcALlzATloN)

TRENDING STORIES 0

Clickto viewthe

Page 41 of 65 article ín a new tab

.< Previous

Vancouver Flyers

ÞËì Ânl llf';iJ? iY:'1,'l tþr the lôw ot pd! $500 etn cARo'

8ONU5

I m I lËib..q, FJ HOVER FOR FLYER HOVER FOR FLYER HOVER FOR FLYER ltr Tr*ßßlcK

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page (http:llwww.vancouversun.com,/news/story.html?id:7195492) for more information.

Page 42 of 65 5 Comments Sort by Newest

Add a comment

Gary Brooke "First Nations urged the province to implement a rule that requires a certain percentage of marijuana products be grown by lndigenous cultivators." lf this is even considered then they get their due share of 3.8% which equals lheir % of population.

Like ' Reply. 1w

Jon Rempel . Owner at Kluskus North Contracting Ltd

Yeah Monica should run with this opportunity !! Like' Reply' 1w

Tait Jonnson Hypocrites

Like ' Reply ' 2' 1w

Mike White The Warriors already control a large share of the cannabis market. Like'Reply' 1'1w

Larry Ash Again with this pure 8S,,,(First Nations,,, lndigenous community) You of course mean HUMANS that still want to be looked at as something other than HUMANS from Planet Earth, where ALL HUMANS come from,,,,you know the ONE RACE of HUMANS,,,,, The HUMAN RACE,,,, Like'Reply. 3.1w

Larry Ash And even with scientific proof because of DNA, the Governments keeps treating this group (GANG) of humans Special or somehow Different or FIRST???? OMFG. Like ' Reply' 1w

Facebook Comments Plugin

Unauthorized distribution, transmission or republication strictly prohibited

Powered by Word Press.com V I P (https:/ivip.word press.comi? utm_source=vip_powered_wpcom&utm medium=web&utm campaign=VlP%20Footero/o2]Credit&utm term=vancouversun.com)

Page 44 of 65 Betty E. Unger Alberta Senator

Marijuana Legalization: What can be done? Office of Senator Betty Unger I January 2018

Many Canadians are very concerned about the federal government's decision to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Bill C-45 has been passed by the House of Commons and is now in the Senate for consideration. lt is not too late to make vour voice heardl The more public outcry there is, the better our chances are at seeing this legislation delayed or defeated!

TAKING ACTION

Canadians who are concerned that the legalization of marijuana will make things worse and not better should act immediately by taking as many of the following actions as possible:

1. Contact at least two Senators from your region and express your concerns about this legislation. Ask them if they intend to support or oppose the Bill. Encourage them to vote against it because the legislation will not accomplish what Prime Minister Trudeau says it will. A list of senators can be found here.

2. Contact your Member of Parliament to voice your concerns. Although the Bill is currently in the Senate, any amendments to the Bill will cause it to be returned to the House of Commons for another vote. Your MP must be aware of your concerns! Find your Member of Parliament here.

3. Make your voice heard in every way possible: Write a letter to the editor, comment on Facebook, reach out to your municipal councillor or mayor, connect with those in positions of leadership and infl uence.

4. Share this information as broadly and as widely as possible. Raise awareness amongst your family, friends and social media networks that Bill C-45 will make things worse, not better. Visit www.BettyUnger.ca for more resources and background information.

The message is simple= There is wide-spread concern that the government is going too fast with Bill C-45 and that the legislation will not accomplish what íú is supposed to. We need to stop and make sure we get it right.

BACKGROUND

Page 45 of 65 The government says Bill C-45 will help prevent young people from accessing marijuana, protect public health and safety, deter criminal activity, and reduce the burden on the criminaljustice system. But legalizing marijuana will make things worse, not better!

1. Legalization will NOT reduce youth usage

Legalization creates normalization which gives the impression that the product is harmless. This decrease in the perception of risk always results in increased usage. This has been the experience in states which have legalized marijuana in the US, and it will be our experience in Canada if we go the same direction.

2. Legalization will NOT protect public health and safety

The experience of other jurisdictions has demonstrated that legalization does not protect public health and safety, but diminishes it. From increased exposure by youth, children and pregnant mothers, to an increase in drug-impaired driving, the public health and safety costs of legalizing marijuana will be significant.

3. Legalization will NOT deter criminal activity

Criminals are not going to suddenly become law-abiding citizens because the government legalizes marijuana. They will continue to sell illicit marijuana to our youth and move into other illicit substances as necessary. Like a nation-wide whack-a-mole game, the criminal element will merely pop back up in a different location rather than be deterred.

4. Legalization will NOT reduce the burden on the criminaljustice system

lf the government wants to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system, it should decriminalize not legalize. The District Attorney of Denver noted that the legalization of marijuana in Colorado caused their crime rate to go up, not down. Additionally, instead of freeing up law enforcement resources, the Denver police department is now busier than ever enforcing marijuana laws and investigating crimes directly related to marijuana.

SOMETHING CAN BE DONE

Canada has the second-highest rate of youth usage of marijuana in the world. Legalization will not help this, but somethinq can be done:

1. Decriminalize: Decriminalize, don't legalize, the recreational use of marijuana.

Page 46 of 65 2. Penalize: lmpose and enforce serious criminal penalties for those trafficking marijuana.

3. Educate: Launch a large-scale educational campaign informing Canadians about the harms of marijuana use by youth, young adults and pregnant mothers.

Your comments and feedback are always welcome

- Betty Unger, Albe¡ta Senator

Connect with Senator Unger online by clicking on the icons below o e @

Copyright @ 2018 Office of the Hon. Betty E. Unger, Albe¡la Senator, All rights rese¡ved. You are receiving this email because you expressed an interest in Senator Unger's work in the Senate of Canada. Please feel free to invite your friends to sign up for updates as well. You can unsubscribe at any time.

You can reach Senator Unger at: Offlce of the Hon. Betty E. Unger, Alberta Senator Senate of Canada 418 Victoria Building Ottawa, On K1A 041 Canada

Add us to vour address book

Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update vour preferences or unsubscribe from this list

Page 47 of 65 E@EIVE Shea

From: Dave Bond < Tho Corporation Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 12:13 PM of the District of Central Saanich To: 'Minister, AGRI AGRI:EX' Cc: [email protected];'Grout, Kim ALC:EX'; Municipal Hall Subject: Please Protect our Farmable Land

Dear Minister Popham ln May 20L5, the production of marihuana was added to the ALR Regulation as a permitted farm use without apparent restriction. lt appears, at that time, that the potential impact of large scale, legal cannabis production was not cons¡dered. What this has caused is a situation where over 30 acres of prime agricultural land in Central Saanich, farmed over decades for dairy production, may now be destroyed. lf allowed, this prime land will be excavated, and then paved over with concrete to support multi-level industrial scale production buildings. These are not "greenhouses" in the common sense of the word.

This is not what the public wants or expects of the NDP Government and the ALC. We want to protect and preserve our farmland for current and long term sustainable food production. We trust that you will not allow this to proceed.

I urge you to reverse or modify this regulation as soon as possible before we irrevocably lose this Central Saanich farmland to industry.

Respectfully David L, Bond, P Eng. (ret) Lochside Dr. Saanichton

"The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information of the District of Central Saanich, It is intended for review only by the person(s) named above. Dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited by all recipients unless expressly authorized othen¡rise, If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thalk you."

"Please visit our rìêw civic web portar at www.centralsaanich.ca to find information on upcoming meetings and past Council decisions, to search for background repofts, and/or to sign up for e-notifications."

Page 48 of 65 EGEfiVE JAN I g ;IJ Tho Corporation thc Districr of Central _of S a arric h Mayor Ryan Windsor and Council of Central Saanich January 11,2018 1903 Mt. Newton X Rd. Saanichton, B.C. V8M 249

Dear Mayor & Council:

RE: Proposed Mariiuana growing operation Stanhope Dairy Farm Site I am the owner ofproperty @ 6444Welch Rd' Saanichton; my property is immediately to the east of the Stanhope Farm and will be most significantly effected by any development.

I bought this property and built a new home here to farm my lands and live and enjoy the pastoral setting of the Martindale Valley. I am, needless to say, very unhappy about the prospect of having a very large commercial/industrial business located right next to my home; a business that has nothing to do with the proscribed tenets of the ALR which are to preserve and protect lands in BC for food production.

Why is this business not locating in somewhere like the Keating Industrial Park where there are many parcels of suitable land for sale? I understand the Minister Lana Popham is going to review the use of ALR lands for marijuana grow operations and will hopefully remove that allowed use for such invaluable lands. I wonder if Central Saanich can and will delay any consideration of this absurdly large operation on ALR lands until this review is finished so that we, members of the public, can ask our legislators to prohibit such usage of ALR lands.

Frankly, given the proposed size and proportion of this grow op I can not imagine how the roads and infrastructure can support the water, sewer and road/traffic requirements. I assume if sewer connection to the Saanich Peninsula Treatment Plant or an overpass is required at Island View Rd. that Central Saanich will get this developer to pay for those improvements?

The above being said I am aware that, at present, the law allows this absurd use of ALR lands so I am also writing to ask that you as Mayor and Council use every means within your power to ensure that there is no light, smell or noise pollution that will emanate from these large scale industrial operations. In particular I would ask that it be a condition of any such use that no such pollution occur at any time and that if and when it does occur this use of the lands will immediately be terminated.

I look forward to your response and remain,

Yours truly,

Geraldine (Gerry) Kokkelink pc. Minister of Agriculture, Lana Popham; MP Elizabeth May; MLA Adam Olsen

Page 49 of 65 Ruby Shea

From: Central Saanich via Central Saanich on behalf of No Reply < [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, January 11,2018 1:02 PM lo: Municipal Hall Subject: Mayor & Council email form submission from centralsaanich.ca

Submitted on Thursday, January 11 , 2018 - 13:01 EGEüVE Submitted by anonymous user: 96.54.56.81 JAN Submitted values are: I I 20f8 Tho Corporati on of the of D¡strict Subject: Proposed pot greenhouses on Stanhope farm Centra Sa anlch First & Last Name: Nancy chapman Phone Number: Address: 6701 Welch Rd Email: Message: Dear Mayor and Council, I am very concerned about the proposal to put the largest medical marihuana greenhouse facilities on the prime agricultural land known as the Stanhope Farm. This proposal is completely unsuitable for this site. Please do not allow this mega lndustrial proposal to cover up and destroy prime Ag land in Central Saanich. This proposal is suited to industrial land, due to the size of the project and for the properties that an industrial site would offer: marginal nature of soil, transportation hub, vehicles, parking, security, noise, lighting, storage, etc.. For a successful example of a MMPFs (medicinal marihuana production facilities) on industrial land, see about Tilray, established in the Duke Point lndustrial Park: medical-marijuana-... This Evergreen proposal came put of the blue, was first publicly announced just before Xmas, when everyone is busy and distracted, held one meeting in Saanich, not in Central Saanich, to consult the public but forgot to invite the public, particularly the adjacent neighbours, so was very poorly attended, and not much consultation took place, just before Xmas. And now, they are wanting to start construction right away! Whoa! Slow it down. This is a huge proposal to speed through blindly. Once this goes ahead this prime agricultural land is lost forever. I ask that the Mayor and Council of Central Saanich contact and consult with the Minister of Agr:iculture, Lana Popham to look at the situation and discuss this proposal before you grant any permits to Evergreen. This is a critical time and you have a huge responsibility to protect and preserve prime agricultural land in Central Saanich. Thank you.

The results of this submission may be viewed at: https://www.centralsaanich.c alnodel295/submissionl 1 1 40

Page 50 of 65 EGE[Vtr RuShea

From: Central Saanich via Central Saanich < No of Reply < [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, January 11,2018 3:54 PM To: Municipal Hall Subiect: Mayor 8¿ Council email form submission from centralsaanich.ca

Submitted on Thursday, January 11 , 2018 - 15:53 Submitted by anonymous user: 24.108.177.10 Submitted values are:

Subject: Marijuana greenhouses First & Last Name: Mary Robichaud Phone Number: Address: 307-1101 Hilda St Email: Message: I was horrified to learn that numerous greenhouses for the purpose of growing marijuana might be allowed to be built along the Lochside Trail in Central Saanich by Stanhope. That large field is a beautiful green space that many enjoy. lt adds to the beauty of the Martindale Valley, and many birds would be negatively affected by its loss. Just this week I saw dozens of Western Meadowlarks, hundreds of American Wigeon, and some Bald Eagles there. lndustry there would bring heavy traffic, noise, odor, and ugly buildings to a very picturesque and peaceful place. Please don't allow greenhouses there. I certainly don't think we need that much marijuana. Thank you for listening. Mary Robichaud

The results of this submíssion may be viewed at: https://www.centralsaanich. c alnodelZ9S/subm issionl 1 1 44

"The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information of the District of Central Saanich. It is intended for review only by the person(q) named above. Dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited by all recipients unless expressly authorized otherwise. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copíes of the original message, Thank you."

"Please visit our rìêw civic web portat at www.centralsaanich,ca to find information on upcoming meetings and past Council decisions, to search for background repofts , andf or to sign up for e-notifications."

Page 51 of 65 tEGEIVE

JAN I 7 2018 January L2,ZOL8 Tho Corporation of the District of Centr¿rl Saanich

Dear Central Saanich Council

I have been so dismayed at the thought of another grow-op going up in this community aga¡n that I have to give a voice to my thoughts. First, I wonder if the decision is based on a tax grab or do you really believe that allowing a huge grow-op to mater¡al¡ze that illegal drug activity is going to stop? AND secondly do you believe THAT this type of business WILL HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT FOR THIS COMMUNITY AND ACROSS OUR REGION (Your words in the community focus news and information for Central Saanich)?????????????????????? Have the people of th¡s community given a go ahead vote on this so called business????????????????

How many of you actually have or do smoke pot and possibly use alcohol at the same time? Think about the continued negative impact on humans and oh, by the way it isn't just our teens that get screwed up from its use, many adults do as well. The lasting effects are a powerful down fall to many and can lead to the use of many other types of lethal drugs. I believe all of this is leading to a major social downfall.

Do you know you can order pot and receive it at the post-offìce? Wow, unbelievable.

All I can say is Trudeau is wrong and so are you. Medicinal use only I don't think so. Think people think.

I have in the past been a crisis counsellor and thank God I am not now.

Don't respond to this letter unless you are telling me that THE use of valuable ALR land is going to be USED TO GROW FOOD AND ANIMALS TO FEED US, NOT GROW DRUGS.

Did I actually take part ¡n voting you folks to represent me? I will think hard and fast about voting the next t¡me.

God Bless

Carmen Robertson

Page 52 of 65 EGEIVE Ru Shea

From: Kathy Wolfson Tho Corporation of the District Sent: Wednesday, January 17,2018 3:18 PM ol Central Saanich To: AG [email protected]; [email protected]. Cc: GARY WOLFSON Subject: Proposed medical marijuana farm in Central Saanich

Dear Ms. Popham, Mr. Olsen, Mayor Ryan V/indsor and Council,

My letters of January 1lth referred to the proposed Evergreen Medical Marijuana farm in the Martindale Valley as "fecreational".

This was incorrect. The plan is to grow medical cannabis, but the concems of the neighborhood remain the same.

Grow-ops should not be permitted on the only 5o/o of land in the ALR, because they destroy the agricultural value of the land and it's potential to produce food.

In addition , the location is not suitable for the cannabis industry as the valley is small, and in a residential, agricultural, and recreational area. Residents and Lochside Trail users are concerned about light pollution, noise from fans, and increased traffrc on a n¿urow farm road. The edges of Lochside Road are breaking down as it is, from the weight of truck traffic to Stanhope Farm (the current owner of the 30 acres in question). Evergreen Medical Marijuana plans to employ 1500 people, a great deal of traffic for this small area.

Cannabis can be grown in an industrial arca, as this crop is not grown in the ground. Also, an industrial park will have the necessary infrastructure for production, which the Martindale Valley does not.

We strongly urge the ALR review committee to remove the cannabis industry as an acceptable use of ALR farm land.

Kathy and Gary Wolfson ad, Saanichton

"The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information of the District of Central Saanich, It is intended for review only by the person(s) named above. Dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited by all recipients unless expressly authorized otherwise, If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message, Thank you."

"Please visit our rì€w civic web portar at www.centralsaanich.ca to find information on upcoming meetings and past Council decisions, to search for background repofts, and/or to sign up for e-notifications,"

Page 53 of 65 EG Shea EflVE

2018 From: Doug Fulton Thc Corp Sent: Thursday, January 18,2018 10:55 AM o atio n o ot rh Dis trict To: ag [email protected]; Adam.Olsen.M LA@ leg. s. net; fultonfarm@ hotmail.com Subject: Evergreen medicinal Supply, (stanhope Farm Properly)

We are a farm Property on Martindale Road within s¡ght of the proposed Development. lnstead of sending a general negative letter about this we would like to raise some questions and suggestions. We did attend the meeting presented by Evergreen. We noted that they were eager to positively answer questions BUT with no concrete plans or methods to correct or address our concerns.

L. Question. Why are the present buildings and site not being used and if not what farm use will used at that large site area in the future. 2. Odors. We were told they will meet Health Canada regulations. What recourse do we have if the people on the public trail and neighbors smell cannabis. We suggest there be a 500 to 1000 meter setback from the trail and neighbors. A sign posted in clear view with local governments and Health Canadas phone number so the odors can be reported. A 5 million dollar Bond posted by the Company to insure they comply. 3. Light. They stated there would be no lights on after 5pm. Setbacks and a one million dollar bond to insure this is done. 4. Traffic. Evergreen to build a regulation road with sidewalks from Martindale Road. Developers to build sound proof fencing and gates along the path to protect neighbors. 5. Sewer, water. What kind of plant for a potential 1500 employees. 6. Power. Will there be enough and what property will it cross to service the site. 7. Fill. Somecontrolsoversoil removal ifevenpossiblefromfarmlandandinfill .Willtheexistingsoil sorting equipment, and scales be removed

We firm believe that if Performance Bonds and Building controls are not in place before permits the future will provide Path users and neighbors odors...light and traffic problems that will not be corrected.

Doug and Betty Fulton Sent from Outlook

"The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confídential information of the District of Central Saanich, It is intended for review only by the person(s) named above, Dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited by all recipients unless expressly authorized otherwise, If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you." "Please visit our h€w civic web portal at www.centralsaanich.ca to find information on upcoming meetings and past Council decisions, to search for background reports, and/or to sign up for e-notifications,"

Page 54 of 65 Ruby Shea

From: Central Saanich via Central Saanich on behalf of No Reply < [email protected] > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 9:33 PM To: Municipal Hall Subject: Mayor & Council email form submission from centralsaanich.ca

Submitted on Friday, January 19,2018 - 21:33 EGEüVE Submitted by anonymous user: 24.69.28Í98 JAN 2 2 ?Itl Submitted values are: Tho Corporation of the District of Central Saanich Subject: ALR First & Last Name: Arlene Box Phone Number: Address: 2428, Mt st Michael Rd Email: a m Message: I heard you on the radio to day with regard to use of ALR. I am confused why the operation at woodwyn Farm cannot be accommodated, I understand the ALR has restrictions but when one considers the massive residences with multiple families on ALR and the provision for housing farm workers on ALR, it seems that some common ground could be found. I am particularly interested to hear the Council may be consider¡ng passing regulation with regard to growing marijuana on ALR. lf our region doesn't plan long term for management of ALR lands we could easily become the marijuana capital of canada with our large tracts of ALR. lt is easy to say "greenhouse" use is acceptable but considering the benefits of lower cost and lower taxes, this is not a true agricultural crop. Some Greenhouse use may not be appropriate for ALR land with limited road access. These large operations permanently degrade the future potential agricultural use and could very easily be placed on industrial land or parking lots. Thank you for considering my opinion during your deliberations.

The results of this submission may be viewed at ission/11

"The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information of the District of Central Saanich. It is intended for review only by the person(s) named above, Dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited by all recipients unless expressly authorized othen¡¡ise. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you."

"Please visit our flêw civic web poÉal at www.centralsaanich.ca to find information on upcoming meetings and past Council decisions, to search for background reports, and/or to sign up for e-notifications,"

Page 55 of 65 Ruby Shea

From: Central Saanich via Central Saanich on behalf of No Reply < [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, January 20,2018 4:50 PM To: Municipal Hall Subject: Mayor & Council email form submission from centralsaanich.ca

Submitted on Saturday, January 20,2018 - 16:49 EGEIVE Submitted by anonymous user: 75.157.173.208 JAN 2 Z zltl Submitted values are: ïho Corporation of the District ol Central Sa anich Subject: Saving ALR First & Last Name: Shelagh Russell Phone Number: Address: 3045 Mallard Ave, Saanichton Email: Message: I would like to know where you stand in regards to placing greenhouses onto prime agricultural lands where, we would not be able to go back once the topsoil has been scraped off , fill placed and concrete poured to be the base for greenhouses ? lf plants are not going into the ground then why not place these greenhouses in an lndustrial area where there is no harm to future Food production. Please let me know your thoughts.

The results of this submission may be viewed at: h ttps : //wnrw. ce nt ra I s a a n i c h . ca I node I 29 5/s u b m i s s i o n I I 1 92

"The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information of the District of Central Saanich. It is intended for review only by the person(s) named above. Dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited by all recipients unless expressly authorízed otherwise, If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you."

"Please visit our new c¡y¡c web portar at www.centralsaanich,ca to find information on upcoming meetings and past Council decisions, to search for background reports, and/or to sign up for e-notifications."

Page 56 of 65 tEGEüVE

Ru Shea JAN 2 Z zltg

The Corp-oration of the District From: Kathy Wolfson of Central Saanich Sent: Saturday, January 20,2018 4:24 PM To: Peninsula News Review Editor; Mayor Ryan Windsor; Municipal Hall Cc: GARY WOLFSON Subject: Greenhouse cannabis farming in Central Saanich

Given the uncertain future of Woodwyn Farm, removing greenhouse cannabis production from the ALR is now an even more urgent issue.

Covering acres of prime farmland with plastic and cement was surely not the intent of the NDP Agricultural Land Commission, when they created the ALR.

The 2015 Liberal government decision to allow the cannabis industry onto ALR protected farmland must be reversed, before any more construction occurs, and ALR land is lost. This is vital for B.C. and local food security. Cannabis can be grown on non-protected land, and in industrial areas.

Greenhouse construction involves removing fertile topsoil and replacing it with hll and concrete. Good arable land then becomes unusable for future food and fodder farming.

Should a cannabis operation fail due to market saturation, acres of ALR land would be lost. Allowing that to happen would be very shortsighted, and contrary to the ALR purpose of protecting arable land.

Kathy and Gary'Wolfson

"The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information of the District of Central Saanich. It is intended for review only by the person(s) named above. Dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited by all recipients unless expressly authorized otherwise, If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you."

"Please visit our new c¡vic web portar at www.centralsaanich.ca to find information on upcoming meetings and past Council decisions, to search for background repofts, and/or to sign up for e-notifications."

Page 57 of 65 EGEIVE Shea

From: lon I Buicliu < > The Corporation of the D¡strict Sent: Sunday, January 21,2018 12:29 PM of Central Saanich lo: Municipal Hall Subject: Marijuana production facility in the Martindale Valley

To, Central Saanich Mayor and Council

Re: Evergreen Medicinal Supply is planning to build a large medical-marijuana production facility in the Martindale Valley

I grew up in Europe and moved to Canada in my 30s. All these years I had a very strong feeling about protecting the land producing food. ln Transylvania my mothef s village had a long tradition of cultivating hemp outdoors, which they used in a variety of ways: to make ropes, bed sheets, clothes and many other useful things. ln Alberta the vast territory allows for a different kind of farming, which my wife's family has been doing for over 100 years.

After moving to Victoria 14 years ago I rediscovered the advantages of having fresh food from localfarms and we are proud to say that 80% of our food comes from around us. We believe that the advantages of local food go well beyond health.

It is in this context that the news that some of the best farming land may be paved to make room for marijuana comes as a shock. This land on Martindale cannot be protected? What kind of laws we have that allow the destruction of land that can produce food to be covered for a non-food product?

Something is gravely wrong here. We demand that all efforts be made to forbid this development as soon as possible and to change the law in a way that no land producing food can be subject to a non-reversible process that takes it out of outdoor food production.

Hemp can be grown outside and have multiple valuable uses. I don't even want to talk about the other disadvantages of indoor grow-ups, like electricity and water use, pesticides, etc. This development should never be allowed in Central Saanich, BC, Canada or anywhere else in the world. ln 2018 we cannot let this happen to our food supply, there is too much to lose.

Please do all you can to stop this development and to ensure that something like this could never happen in the future

Thank you lon Buicliu Central Saanich

"The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information of the District of Central Saanich. It is intended for review only by the person(s) named above. Dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited by all recipients unless expressly authorized otherwise, If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message, Thank you."

"Please visit our rì€w civic web po¡rar at www.centralsaanich.ca to find information on upcoming meetings and past Council decisions, to search for background reports, and/or to sign up for e-notifications."

Page 58 of 65 EGEIVE Ru Shea

From: JoAnne / Tony at home Tho Corp^oration of Sent: Sunday, January 28,2018 11:35 AM the District of Central Saanich To: AG [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Municipal Hall Subject: Reconsider industrial-scale enclosed greenhouse cannabis operations on ALR land

|anuary 28,20tB

Honourable Lana Popham Minister of Agriculture Room 325 Parliament Buildings victoria BC v8v 1x4

Dear Minister:

I urge you to reverse the decision of the previous Liberal Government which permits growing medicaì marijuana on land in British Columbia which is designated for agricultural use. I am specifically referring to The Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation 17L/2002 which was changed in 2015 to include medical marijuana production facilities as being considered farm use.

This is an urgent matter that requires your priority attention. At present a "gold rush" is gaining momentum among investment groups who are targeting relatively cheap ALR lands for large-scale enclosed operations. Prime among these is the proposed Stanhope development on the Saanich Peninsula, which would see an area exceeding the size of 30 standard soccer fields under imported fill, with an eventual staff of 1500. Surely this is an industrial activity which should be sited in a designated industrial area.

The consequence of permitting ALR lands to be used for marijuana production has the very negative consequence of permitting developers to purchase agricultural lands at lower prices than comparable industrial land or land zoned for other uses. However, because of the potential profits of marijuana grow operations these developers are able to pay, relatively speaking, higher prices than would be justified if the land was purchased by farmers/ranchers for agricultural use. The result is ALR being inflated in value beyond what is affordable for agricultural use from a return on investment point of view. Farewell the humble carrot: bring on the bud.

In essence, the Province's policies related to ALR should not subsidize the growers of marijuana and, at the same time, have a negative impact on our ability entice farmers to remain in business and grow food. Inflating agricultural lands through competition with industrial marijuana grow operations is another negative influencing making it impossible for young people to enter the agricultural sector. It also has the negative effect of enticing existing farm operations to sell their land at inflated prices to be used for industrial use (i.e., marijuana greenhouses) rather than ensuring farmland continues to be used to meet the ever-increasing demands for food given population growth and in-migration into our Province,

Immediate action is needed to prevent any future loss of ALR to marijuana grow operations. Please do not delay waiting for the deliberations of the independent commission you appointed on fanuary 4th. Delay will mean that municipalities will not be able to refuse building permits for marijuana grow

Page 59 of 65 operations to build industrial greenhouses on prime ALR lands. This is a perfect example where our Provincial Government needs to show leadership and a long-term vision of what is in the best interests of British Columbia.

I am confident that taking immediate action to prevent loss of ALR lands to marijuana grow operations will be highly applauded by virtually all citizens of British Columbia.

Sincerely,

JoAnne Nelson

Saanich, BC

"Please visit our rì€w civic web porrar at www.centralsaanich.ca to find information on upcoming meetings and past Council decisions, to search for background repofts, and/or to sign up for e-notifications,"

Page 60 of 65 EGEIVE Shea

From: Megan Misovic < ol th€ District 19,2018 9:02 PM Tho c Sent: Monday, February ol Saanlc h lo: AG R. M i n i ste r@ g ov. bc.ca; A L R_A LC Revita I izat Municipal Hall Subject: Concerns over proposed pot facility. What will we eat?

Dear Honourable Lana Popham, members of the Agriculture Advisory Committee, Honourable Adam Olsen, and Mayor Windsor and Central Saanich Council,

My name is Megan Misovic and I live in Brentwood Bay. My husband and our two little girls and I have been proud to live and work on the peninsula for 7 years.

I am writing to state my concern over the proposed pot facility in the Lochside valley. I have no issue with the production of pot, and can see that the proposed project would be a benefit for the economy and provide many good jobs, however I am concerned that the location of the facility would pave over acres of prime agricultural land. Could the facility not find a location in another industrialarea where the land would have little value forfood production?

I have heard the argument that farm land is currently be used to grow grapes and pumpkins, other non-food crops. However, I would say in response that these crops don't preclude the option of growing other crops in the future, paving the land would. Our ability to feed our Capital Regional District given the changing climate means we have to keep our long-term priorities in-mind, over shorter term gains,

Thank you for your time and consideration of this letter,

Megan Misovic Brentwood Bay

"The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information of the District of Central Saanich. lt is intended for review only by the person(s) named above. Dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited by all recipients unless expressly authorized otherwise. lf you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you."

"Please visit our new Civic Web Portal at www.centralsaanich.ca to find information on upcoming meetings and past Council decisions, to search for background reports, andf or to sign up for e-notifications."

Page 61 of 65 EGEIVE Agriculturol lond Commi¡cion 'l33-4940 FEB Conodo Wov 2 2 2018 Burnoby, British Columbió VSC ¿fO ALC Tel: óÔ4 óó0.2000 Tho Fox: 604 óó0-2033 .3ítçl[i of is rri cr www.olc,gov. bc.co nD "rhe February 22,2018 Your File: 0400-30

Ryan Windsor, Mayor District of Central Saanich 1903 Mt Newton Cross Road, Saanichtown, BC V8M 249

Dear Sir

Re: Proposed Medical Marijuana Facility, Central Saanich, BC

Thank you for your letter dated January 25th, 2018 which expressed significant concerns with the development of a medical marijuana facility in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). You indicate that a production facility of approximately 1,000,000 sq ft is proposed on farmland, possibly making it the largest production facility in North America. You also indicate that the proponent is depositing massive amounts of structural fill on the site, contrary to District of Central Saanich bylaws and ALC Regulations.

I appreciate you raising this issue with me because as you may (or may not) be aware the Minister of Agriculture has established an independent advisory committee (the Committee) to consult and engage with agricultural stakeholders and all British Columbians to revitalize the ALR. Your concerns reflect those of many of your constituents who have contacted ALC staff in recent months about the issue of industrial marijuana facilities being located within the ALR. I will fonrvard your concerns (by way of a copy of this letter) to the Committee which continues to accept submissions untilApril 30,2018.

As to your concerns about the impacts of this very large facility on community infrastructure and the biophysical environment, I would urge you to use the local government powers available to you to mitigate the negative impacts where possible. Though the ALC regulation permits marijuana production in the ALR:

Section 2(2)(p) the production of marihuana in accordance with the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2013-119 (Canada);

Page 62 of 65 Page2

The Regulation also indicates in Section 2(4) (4) Unless permitted under fhe Water Sustainability Act or the Environmental Management Act, any use designated under any of subsections (2) to (2.2) includes soil removal or placement of fill necessary for that use as long as it does not (a) cause danger on or to adjacent land, structures or rights of way, or (b) foul, obstruct or impede the flow of any waterway.

It is possible that the placement of fill you have described that is occurring in the ALR has negative impacts on adjacent land or a waterway, and could be regulated by an existing or proposed local government bylaw.

With respect to the closure of the trail and the potential conflicts between the "farm" use and the trail users, these are issues that the District would have to raise with the proponent, as the ALC's interests are unaffected.

I can sympathize that the proposed facility appears to have a significant impact on the community. I will ensure that your concerns are raised with the Committee, which will determine whether a recommendation is fonruarded to government as to whether very large industrial/agricultural structures should be permitted in the ALR without regulation and oversight by both the province and local government.

Thank you again for your interest in this matter

PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION <-JáJ Frank Leonard, Chair cc: Jackie Cushing, Ministry of Agriculture

Page 63 of 65 From: Douglas [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of No Reply Sent: March 21, 2018 8:54 AM To: Jarret Matanowitsch Subject: Cannabis development in industrial zoning

Submitted on Wednesday, March 21, 2018 - 08:54 Submitted by anonymous user: 24.69.30.176 Submitted values are:

Subject: Cannabis development in industrial zoning First Name: Douglas Last Name: Fulton Home Address: 2759 martindale riad E-mail Address: Day Phone Number: 1 Message: Regarding the meeting in March regarding discussion about regulations for Cannabis Growing in industrial Zoning. As a long time Owner of commercial/industrial properties in Central Saanich I want to be on record that I support Cannabis Operations on Industrial zoned land and encourage new bylaws to regulate thus new business. contact email: [email protected]

The results of this submission may be viewed at: https://www.centralsaanich.ca/node/246/submission/2864

“The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information of the District of Central Saanich. It is intended for review only by the person(s) named above. Dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited by all recipients unless expressly authorized otherwise. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.”

“Please visit our new Civic Web Portal at www.centralsaanich.ca to find information on upcoming meetings and past Council decisions, to search for background reports, and/or to sign up for e- notifications.”

Page 64 of 65 Shea D '/ From: i [email protected] MAR 2 llJ:3 Sent: Wednesday, March 21,2018 12:56 PM Thc Corporailon To: Municipal Hall Çf the District of Central Ëiaanich Subject: Land Use Bylaw - Cannabis Production

To Whom lt May Concern

This email is regarding Central Saanich Land Use Bylaw Amendment to amend the Land Use Bylaw - Cannabis Production.

Our unit is located at L05-176L Sean Heights, Saanichton BC. We share a common interior wall with the proposed Cannabis grow-op that will be located here in Raven's Landing. We ask that our concerns be addressed at the Public Hearing dated Monday March 26,2018.

How will security be addressed as our own unit has windows, and the interior wall that we share is drywall? How will odors/ventilation be addressed and handled?

Thank you for your time,

Dwayne and Nicole Epp

Eppic Woleriel lnc. I 05-l 7ól Seon Heights, Soonichton BC, VBM 045 Office - 250-652-2220 Shop Cell - 250-882-9042 www.eppicwoteriet.cq

DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal.

ãØ Virus-free. wvwv.avg.com

"The information contained in thÍs transmission may contain privileged and confidential information of the District of Central Saanich, It is intended for review only by the person(s) named above. Dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited by all recipients unless expressly authorized otherwise, If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you."

"Please visit our rì€w civic web portat at www.centralsaanich.ca to find information on upcoming meetings and past Council decisions, to search for background repofts, and/or to sign up for e-notifications."

Page 65 of 65