I totally support increasing residential density near where people work - again, the Humboldt Valley is a good example of this. But it's not either/or- the people who live in those dense buildings will still drive for non-work trips unless they have attractive alternative transportation options like safe cycling paths (ideally physically separated from auto traffic), reliable and comfortable transit service and walkable neighbourhoods.
There are plenty of busses that run around the Humboldt Valley and the area is quite walkable. People still drive for non-work trips because cars are convenient, comfortable and can carry lots of stuff. Not too many people are going to do the Costco run or bring home a 30lb bag of dog food on the bus or bike. And until you can take a dog on the bus, you need a car to get him to the beach too.
We can have all the bike lanes we want, but the big, bad automobile is here to stay, albeit in a far more efficient form thanks to federal, not civic, regulations.
All too often in Victoria developments are seen as OK as long as they're on the other side of the city. Once they start getting closer to home they somehow become a problem. The St. Andrews proposal is the best thing to happen in that neighbourhood for quite a while. The only thing that would make it better is to make it a little taller.
I hate to make it sound like your campaign is about bike lanes and speed limits (other than the fact those issues are prominently displayed on your Facebook campaign page), but I need to see people treat council like the business it is and not an outlet for social activism.