Good afternoon and welcome to the July 30th meeting of
Victoria City Council, our daytime meeting. Today we have for
our consideration one item of unfinished business. Reports from the
July 23rd and this morning's committee of the whole. Could
I have some order please. Five bylaws for preliminary readings
and final adoption and a couple of closed items of
business. But of course before we begin our work together
we always like to take a few moments to ground
ourselves and our work and some would suggest our very
existence and here in the City of Victoria on the
wonderful and continuing generosity of the two nations on whose
territories our city sits in its entirety, the Sonkes Nation
and the Cosasum Nation of the La Quangan people who
have for so many generations, centuries taken the time to
be great stewards of these lands and this of waters
that surround them. And we occasionally have remarkable opportunities to
join with them to help support their members and all
of the community both on the nations, current lens as
well as the lands that they traditionally and currently have
titled to. And that is a chance yesterday as we
did to join them in an Elder's lunch where Songhees
hosted an Ecosepsum hosted many elders, hundreds of them actually,
who were visiting from a round Vancouver Island who were
fetted for the very delicious Ludgern yesterday at the Song.
He's Wellness Centre. A number of our staff volunteered their
time to join NIS servers and bottle washers and busers
and just folks who were there to show support in
a very practical and very meaningful way. When we have
the chance to do things like that, we remember how
close is our alliance and how remarkable is the opportunity
that we have to not just learn from one another
and work together. But to meet new among us and
to create new relationships as well as solidify the ones
that we have. And so it was a wonderful opportunity
for us to be there yesterday and certainly was noticed
and appreciated both by the host nation as well as
the many visitors who were there from other nations. And
I think what's also appreciated by those of us who
hit a chance to participate. So once again enjoying the
chance to be partners and allies and to work together
respecting the past. But facing the challenges of the current
day and looking ahead to the folks who we hope
we're serving well as we move forward. As we always
like to say a simple thank you as we do
in so many people now know to say the simple
phrase of Haychussium or Archkessium Nikhilia, which is just to
say thank you and also to add on honorific and
honouring of those people who are here in the chamber
in the city and throughout our neighbourhoods as individuals who
choose at some point during each day one hopes to
do something that would make a little bit better someone's
life, someone who affects you and is affected by you.
So with that I would say hi to Casey and
Equalia and welcome to today. We just noticed I did
earlier this morning at our committee that this is the
last day of our Council meetings before Council takes its
usual hiatus in August. And so I once again would
urge each of us to be as judicious as possible
in our comments so that we might attend to our
very full agenda in a timely manner this afternoon. I
am not aware of any late items that need to
be added to today's agenda and so I would look
for someone to move the published agenda. These Council Colemans,
I could make on Cereco. Any discussion of the published
agenda. Seeing none, all those in favor, anyone opposed. That
is unanimous. Now there are four items that we're proposed
for the consent agenda. I'm aware that there is at
least one of them that wishes to be removed or
has someone wishes to remove rather. But let me just
read them for the information of public and those are
the four items that were either unanimous at the Committee
of a whole previously or are for preliminary readings. I
will just note that we went through a number of
items earlier today in a Committee of the Whole. Uh,
we will go through those again one night of time
so that we can accurately record those votes both at
committee and here again at Council. Uh, again these were
either unanimous or committee or for preliminary hearings. And these
will all actually come back to us. Should they be
necessary later this afternoon? So that's G1AA, the report back
on strategies and resources to require cooling and Victoria's rental
buildings. G1AC, the Council Member Motion with regard to enforcement
against derelict buildings, neglected properties and vacant commercial spaces. Item
H1, the Bylaw for 517 - 533 - and5 -
37 Chatham Street and 530532 - 536 Herald Street. They're
resounding application and development permit with variances application for those
addresses. And item H2, the bylaw for 2612, 2616, 2620
and 2628 Richmond Road and that would be specifically for
the housing agreement. Does anyone wish to remove any of
these items. Cancer Gardner is suggesting H2 should be removed.
So we'll do that. Anything else? Not seeing any other
suggestions. So it's someone like to move the other three
items as the consent agenda. Thank you very much Councillor
Gardner, second of my councillor Kim. All those in favor.
Anyone opposed. Those are unanimous. What does take us on
to one item of unfinished business? That's item f1 and
this is with regard to the Victoria housing reserve fund
application for the mid - town affordable housing society for
its location at 611 Speed Avenue. Now I believe in
fact there's an updated report for this and so I
would look for one of our able staff to present
that report as much as needed. And also to explain
why there is an updated report. Mr. Sauerd. Good afternoon
Mayor Council. My name is Ross Howard, manager of housing.
This item was not ratified by Council on May 7th
as there was a desire to confirm for their details
of the application. Subsequently on July 7th, the applicant formally
withdrew their grand application to the city as they were
not successful in receiving funding through Bilt Canada homes. And
that was a condition of their funding for the Victoria
Hydron Reserve Fund. And so this report, uh, simply confirms
the withdrawal of their application, uh, and it's just being
shared with council for information at this time just to
close the loop on this item. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions on that. Culture on a councillor
gardener? Yeah. Um, thanks. And through the chair to staff.
I want to get a sense of what's going to,
what do we know, what's going to happen with this
building? I mean up until now it started out as
a condo, then it was going to be rental. Then
I was going to be this co - op. In
terms of how we categorize this building, what's our presumption
now? Is it going to be sold as market rental
or what happens to it now? Mr. Sower, do we
know that? Through the mayor, I think at this point
in time, all we know is the project is still
looking to receive final occupancy. And, uh, the owner is
still the, um, the group that, uh, brought the projects
or through the approvals and construction process. Um, it's sort
of up to the landowner, I guess, to determine how
they want to move forward. But, uh, but it seems
as though the conversion to the sort of co -
op approach, his head of roadblock is they aren't able
to have the funding from Bill Canada Holmes. Okay. And
if the 677, 000 is not going to them, which
it can't and it shouldn't. What does that leave the
balance of the housing reserve fund at? Is it 4.
5 million or is it five point something million. Mr.
Sauer. Through the mayor, I believe it's around 4. 8
million. Count for crew. Count your screw donut. Sorry. Is
RCFO looking at or is that? Is that it? I
think that's all you know at that point. Yeah. Okay.
Was Thompson? Are you going to do anything to add.
Um, through the American, certainly look it up. I don't
have it off the top of the head. Okay. I
just had one in a question, which is that council
did have some skepticism around this one. We did amend
it to ensure that the federal grant was received before
we gave this grant and it ends up, they did
not get that grant. So I'm glad that we amended
it. But is there lessons learned on this one? Like
in terms of trying to protect our investments and our
grants is the one. Mr. Seward. Through the mayor, um,
I would note that like the Council of the original
Council Motion that had been provided, like would also have
prevented the funds from being released. So I think that
original council motion did have kind of conditions in place
that, you know, provided managed risk for the city. Uh,
that being said, I do think that it did identify
that there are some gaps in the housing reserve fund
guidelines specifically around, um, criteria that would be explicit for,
um, sort of the nonprofit co - op model. And
so we could just have some more detailed guidelines in
that. So I think that's something we can take into
account as part of the update to the housing strategy.
Okay. Thanks. No one can seem to figure out how
to crack the nut on, on co - ops right
now, right? Is there other information on HRF? Otherwise I'm
done. Just so hard to do anything to add. Nope.
Not at this point. No. Okay. All right. That's it.
Okay. Councillor Gardner. Thank you. And thank you for the
good news. Um, I'm just going to summarize a wee
bit will happen on April 16th when this proposal came
through to us. We ended up being very quite confused.
I have to say that. That's really what happened. We
had a group applying for the money. And it was
not the co - op. And as we delved into
the matters, um, the risk to the city I think
became very high in many people's minds on this council.
And it was, I mean, it was just plain old
worrisome. And, uh, I appreciated, I think, believe it was
a council Caradono who had the amendment, which I seconded,
which was to tie that 677, to approval of the
federal grant, which did not come through. And personally on
April 6th, that whole discussion was very unsettling. The next
day I spent hours and hours rereading those documents. And
although each document kind of looked okay standalone together, they
didn't make sense to me. I then spoke to staff
about it and told them my concerns. We about time
it also had someone seen the VC assessment value of
that property for 2025. And so the whole thing was
disturbing. And on May 7th, it was actually council did
not proceed with it, but it was actually its staff
request that staff wanted to look further into it. Now
it's a very wise decision. So thank you staff for
that. And, uh, so I'm pleased that the 600 and
67, 000 was not given away. Thank you. Thank you
very much. Councillor Hammond. I'll be brief. Um, I, I
also like to, um, acknowledge my colleagues from bringing in
that caveat that was going forward. And I remember how
reluctant I was even going in the first place. But
I want to know, I want people to know that
it was two people in particular who were sending me
emails and others who really alerted me to this. And
so I just want to, I won't give their names
in case something will happen to them. But we all,
we all know them. We all got the emails. And
I just want to say that thanks for the diligence
of a lot of people. I even ended up calling
the head of, um, the co - op association in
British Columbia having a conversation with a person while I
was down in Mexico as a matter of fact. And,
uh, it was really enlightening for me about what was
going on. So I'm really pleased that the, um, due
diligence was done on this. And well, it made it
easier when the other level of government withdrew. Thank you
very much. Anybody else. How's Coleman? Thank you. Um, and
thank you to staff for this. I think if there's
a learning lesson for council, it's when the report first
came forward, it suggested we could give, uh, a significant
amount of money and an application would be made to
the federal government or the federal funds as a condition
subsequent. We reversed the process and said, no, actually federal,
the federal approval should come first. And that is perhaps
the lesson learned that we should always, uh, say, yes,
we will support certain initiatives. As long as the others
have done due diligence as well as us. Because we
could have been caught the other way. Um, and I
think that this is, I'm sad that we now have
to go through a different process and make sure that
the building is used, but it, uh, is also about
protecting the investment of the taxpayers as well. So I
think that. I understand how we got there. And there
were lots of hopes that were attached to this. They
weren't forthcoming. And I think I'm very thankful that the
federal government did some due diligence. And it wasn't made
apparent. And so we aren't on the. Being hung out
for the funds. It's wondering how you're going to phrase
that. Anyone who hasn't yet spoken wishes to do so.
Nope. Councillor Gardiota subsequent comment or question. Did you have
a subsequent company? You put your hand up a second
time. Oh, all right. Yes. It's just a motion to
receive, which is why I wasn't being overly harsh on
the commentary. Yeah. Councillor Gardner is moving to receive. Is
her second, please. Thanks Councillor Caradona. Any final comments. Not
seeing any. All those in favor of receipt. Anybody opposed.
Is unanimous. Thank you, Steph, for your diligence as others
have noted. That takes us on two reports of committees.
First, we'll deal with the report from July 23rd. Privilege
mayor. I'm sorry. Big burden. Did we ever get an
answer about the, uh, amount left in the reserve fund?
I thought it was 4. 8 million. But did you
want to correct that? Ms. Thompson. Through you, Mary, yes,
the amount that is uncommitted at this point is 4.
2 million. There you go. Thank you, Councillor. Um, the
report from July 23rd Committee with the Whole. The first
item, G1AA was on the consent agenda. So that's already
been considered just for the information of the public. That
is the report back on Strategies and Resources to Require.
In Victoria's Red Bull buildings. So that has been finally
resolved. And again, because we're at Council, when that is
considered on the consent agenda, it is a final resolution.
The next item though was not unanimous at Committee, and
that was G1AB. This is the economic unemployment land solutions
report. Uh, this was carried in the majority, but there
were noted oppositions. So we'll have someone move that again,
please. Nice Councillor Kim, seconded by. Councillor Lon. Uh, Councillor
Kim or Lot, and any comments to make at this
time? Anyone else wished to make any comments? Councillor Gardner,
go ahead. Thank. You, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Last week,
those who love Old Town were given a shock. That
shock is not subsided. Trust, fragile after OCP 2050 is
further broken. While the public hearing was waived by the
majority of council, perhaps other changes can be made. The
hotel working group, which created the greater Victoria Hotel Development
report, which is the underpinning for the bylaw amendments before
us. But there was no similar group struck to consult
on Old Town Heritage. So, um, I would like to
make an amendment to the seven instructions that are there.
Namely, the insertions of an item between items three and
four. Go ahead. Just to give us a minute to
read it. Picture everybody understands what it says. Essentially, I'm
going to summarize it, but if everyone else. Hold on,
don't do that. Let's let us read it first. And
then I'll come back to you after I seek a
secondary for your motivation.
Okay, that seems on its language clear. Uh, I will
accept that as a moving, an amendment. Is your secondary
for that amendment? Councillor Howmund is Seconding. Go ahead, Councillor
Gardner on the amendment. Excuse me very much. Um, I
think the amendment speaks for Sef. It's actually to, uh,
direct and get a broader heritage consultation group to consider
the updated decal policies for the historic commercial district, Old
Town. And that group to include members of the Heritage
Advisory panel, Victoria's Civic Heritage Trust, the hallmark society. And
no inheritage experts in BC. Thank you very much, Councillor
Hammond. Anything you'd like to add. Nothing, Senator? No. Okay.
Any other comments. Councillor Kim. Councillor Lord. Um, thanks through
the chair. Um, again, a question to the mover and
it is totally up to you to answer or not.
Um, I, I like where this is going. I just
don't know why we're consulting Heritage Experts in BC if
this is such a, uh, Victoria specific concern. Are we
talking about heritage experts in BC who are familiar with
the area? Um, why not consult like federal heritage experts?
Just, I'm trying to understand the scope here. Council Gardner,
would you like to try and answer that? There are
no one heritage experts in BC that are actually in
Victoria. A lot of people, I think inheritage world are
very familiar with it. This is not identify any particular
person. All right. How's your load? Any questions? I do.
Thanks for you, Mayor. Is the heritage advisory panel not
already involved in the decap updates and also the heritage
review? Like, isn't this consultation already happening. Who would like
to answer that. Yes, please go ahead. Through the mayor,
Andrea Hudson, assistant director of Citywide Planning, um, we haven't
yet commenced our projects around the Heritage Programmer Newell or
the broader downtown core area plan update. But those are
two projects that we, um, we will be considering and
we would be bringing those, um, project approaches to counsel
in the future. So likely the new council, um, and
at that time we would propose an engagement strategy as
part of those projects. And we would, um, provide some
advice about who should be consulted and counsel you would
have an opportunity to sanction that at that time, but
that will be for coming to the next council. Okay.
Thank you for that. So if I might just to
clarify, so you're suggesting that this is already your intention.
Um, so the mayor to engage on those projects broadly,
including with Heritage groups would be our intention, but we
just haven't gotten to that level of detail yet as
we're still in the project planning stage. Any questions just
before I go back to Consecrator, are there questions or
comments. Councillor Gardner? This is to go beyond the, let's
get feedback, um, engagement. It's to actually suggest consultation. We've
had consultation with the hotel group. And this is very
important. And I believe this gives good direction to stuff.
Thank you. May I ask Steph, how you would interpret
this inclusion. And I guess my question is what impact
if any does this have on the larger motion. Ms.
Hudson. Um, through the mayor, um, my reading of this
is that it's meant to direct consultation on broader downtown
core area plan policy updates. Whereas the rest of the
motion is dealing with more immediate zoning changes. So I'm
not sure if it impacts the rest of the motion
or if that's what the mover intended. That's a great
question. Councillor Gardner, did you intend for this to have
an impact on the more immediate term work, which is
the bulk of the rest of the motion? Does attachment
A have an impact. I would think so. Yes. Within,
yes. So yeah. Attachment A is about author. So just
to be clear, you've just wanted to clarify, you do
intend this to have an impact on the short term.
And that's just attachment A is part of the short
term. Yes. Very good. All right. So, um, I'm going
to put my question to staff then. What impact would
this have on the rest of the motion. Uh, through
the mayor, if this is to seek, um, advice from
these groups on the proposed tax exemption program and the
other zoning changes, then we would have to undertake that
work before, uh, embarking upon those amendments. So, um, it
would just, it would add some time onto the project.
Yes, that was the source of my question because five,
six, and seven, uh, if I recollect from the answers
to some of our previous questions, we're very specific to
those particular programs. Uh, and so I actually support number
four. I just don't think that it should be there.
If anything, I think it should be a motion arising.
Because it seems to me that from staff's response, it's
more applicable to the broader discussion, which I think is
crucial. What I would be loathe to have it have
delaying impact on, uh, in particular, the RTE. So I
can support the content of this, but not where it's
placed. Uh, other comments. Councillor Caradona. Yeah, I think before
it was moved, it actually, we should have talked to
staff because I think it probably should have been ruled
out of order. Because what this motion is about is
pretty narrowly confined to the central business district. It doesn't
really have very much to do with Old Town a
little bit. Uh, but given a minimum stick, we're made
last week or the week before even less so. What
this is doing based on my reading is setting up
some kind of a permanent consultation group. It's not saying
have a consultation with X groups. It's saying create a
new group that is much more generally applicable to decap.
So to my mind, this should be part of a
decap related motion, either a Council Member motion or motion
arising or something that would relate to the totality of
what's going on in DCAP. I don't think, I don't
see this as nearly addressing, sorry, addressing this relatively narrow
scope of this motion here. So I don't think it
belongs here at all. It's not, to my mind, it's
not in order. Thank you for that opinion, Councillor. Anyone
else on this particular amendment. Uh. No, you cannot. That
is correct. Councillor Thompson. Just wanted to clarify an earlier
comment from staff. So if I understand the normal process
properly, uh, it would be that staff would go away
if this wasn't here. Staff would go away and be
looking into who to consult and would come back to
council with a recommendation. Here's the people to consult. And
that would probably be up to the next council anyways.
Is that correct? Through the mayor. Yes, we would do
that for the broader revisit of the downtown core area
plan and the heritage program update. That is a separate
work from these more immediate. Recommendations. So yes, that was
our intention is for the, for the bigger projects, we
would be coming back to Council to consider the broader
engagement plan that we would do. And that would likely
be after the election and onto the next council, whoever
that is. Yes. Okay. I think that this is premature.
So I'll be opposing it on that ground. Thank you
very much. Anyone who has not yet spoken wishes to
do two reminding that we aren't council. Okay. Councillor Gardner
closing off. Closing off discussion. Yes. On your amendment, yes.
On your amendment. Nothing on the amendment. Okay. Uh, I'm
going to vote against this because I hope that what
will happen is that it will not be included in
this and that there will be emotionalizing falling this, which
would be entirely appropriate. So all those in favor of
the amendment. Councillor Coleman, Councillor Hammond, Councillor Gardner. And opposition.
Concert Dell. Councillor Kim, Council Cardinal, Councillor Loughton, myself and
Councillor Thompson. Councillor, uh, so that is defeated, noting three
and opposition. Rather, sorry, three favor six in oppositions backwards.
Uh, Councillor Gerd, you're before I move on, would you
like to reserve the right to hold that as a
motion rising after we conclude this? Great. Excellent. I will
come back to you at that point. So on the
main motion, not amended. Yes. Go ahead, Councillor Hammond. Have
you not concluded your remarks. Not at all. Oh, well,
but go ahead then. Sorry. I thought you had. Staff,
please put up the map I provided. On page 12
of the industry of the industry report, this one. There
was a map suggesting distribution of hotel supply. The map
suggests almost all of Victoria could be home to new
hotels. But last week and since we've heard chatter of
hotel projects already envisioned, perhaps 10 for the city Victoria,
wherein Victoria? Could we have the map, please?
Is that the map you're requesting? Great, good. I asked
the question already. Sudsen. Uh, I'm sorry. Could you please
repeat the question. This is, to me, my time. No,
your time is not recorded when you're repeating a question.
The request was staff. Okay. Thank you. Um, last week
we heard there's lots of chatter of hotels already envisioned.
We heard that jury in our session last week. Perhaps
10 for Victoria. So I was wondering where in Victoria,
uh, and how many are envisioned to be reuse of
heritage or underutilized buildings? Because it also mentions office buildings
in that report in this report. And how many of
the 10 envision hotels, uh, would be uncleared sites. Ms.
Hudson, do you know that? Um, through the mayor, I
don't have the report in front of me, but I
do recall that there wasn't that level out of, of
specificity around, you know, there was a lot of discussion
about hotel opportunities that could be new builds that could
be reusing heritage buildings. Um, but I don't believe there
was specific numbers in each of those categories. I think
they were just all seen as opportunities. And it also
talked about hotel opportunities in the whole region in addition
to Victoria. Yes, thank you. This schematic shows the dark
blue. It's just the city victoria. So are there spots
throughout the whole city that are being considered. Perhaps do
you need an additional staff person to join you to
answer some of these questions? Good afternoon. Mayoraulta Robert Batalla,
senior planner, Community Planning Division. Um, if I can maybe
try and elaborate, um, with the map, uh, shows here,
which is from the destination greater Victoria report is that
hotels are anticipated and needed throughout the region. The report
talks about there's a full spectrum of different types of
hotels, full service, motel, et cetera. And so it's really
looking to try and draw and incentivize those types of
developments to occur throughout the region. Um, the report also
certainly acknowledges Victoria as the Centre for tourism, arts and
culture, whatnot, as it's likely to receive the most amount
or highest concentration of hotels. I think naturally. But there's
no specific breakdown of how many may occur. Um, what
assistant director Hudson, I think is trying to explain is
that, uh, what was discussed last week is that the,
uh, revitalization tax exemption, for example, would be open to
providing an incentive where, for example, a vacant site is
being proposed for a hotel. And that could be anywhere
in terms of a vacant site. It could also be
applied to where there's a non - residential building that
could be converted to a hotel purpose. So in a
class C office, for example, um, as well, it would
apply to an existing hotel, motel. If they are looking
to also add additional net new guest rooms to their
property. And so it's quite robust and flexible that way.
But it doesn't specify what specific, we wouldn't get into
what specific type of hotel. If it's a five star
hotel or three star, et cetera. But she's really making
quite flexible and open to all forms of hotel. In
response to sort of the key objectives outlined in the
destination greater Victoria report. So I hope that helps. Thank
you. The tax incentive. The industry report references several times
existing heritage rehabilitation within the city. Seismic upgrades conversion grant
programs. And suggests exploring or expanding heritage program. Nowhere in
the industry report is a 10 year tax holiday estimated
at 48 million dollar gift. So how did this come
about and who chose this. And why is it a
blanket tax holiday. To all or any hotel as opposed
to just heritage. Said a Mr. Vitalis from Ms. Hudson
or who'd like to take that? Maybe I'll start. Um,
the direction that staff have right now was essentially, I
think it was previously discussed at Council and Destination Grade
of Victoria was presented. And that was just the idea
of exploring a tax exemption to strategically encourage the development
of hotel type accommodations within Victoria. Um, staff have not
prepared the revitalization tax exemption. That's actually something that we're
starting to look at and be preparing drafts at something
that would come separately to council. The intent right now
is that the tax exemption would provide. A proportionate reduction
in the municipal tax that's collected for each of those
hotels or new motel or guest rooms that are developed.
Um, it's not, it would not be a full 100
percent exemption of the municipal taxes, but it's just a
proportionate reduction. So it is a little bit different than
the heritage program. And so we are looking at sort
of different approaches for that, but the whole focus as
the other week when I call it Malcolm McClane presented
the item was that it would be focused on the
incremental increase in value resulting from the capital improvements that
occur on the site. So it's not a full tax
holiday. It's just a proportion on the municipal portion. The
property is still subject to all other, um, federal provincial
CRD hospital school board taxes. Thank you. I understood that.
Um, and, um, I understood the reduction in the conference.
But the estimate was still 84 million dollars now in
2026 residents, both homeowners and tenants contributed about 56 percent
of the tax revenue that came in. And 2026, it
was 177 million. So this 84 million favor will be
born essentially by, uh, 56 or 57 percent by residential
homeowners and tenants. I think that's important to recognise. Now
has the staff considered a 60 or an 84 million
tax exemption for any other industry. Ms. Hudson, I think
that's to you. Although I do believe that you actually
answered that question before. And when we last considered this
matter, but please do consider it again. Through the mayor,
no, the other tax exemption programs that we have are
for Heritage Rehabilitation, um, to encourage new rental buildings in
the city and to encourage retrofits of existing rental buildings
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So this would be, uh,
an additional new tax exemption program specifically for hotels. Has
there been any other exemption at that kind of level
of 84 million over 10 year period. Ms. Thompson, I
think this is to you. Um, three mayor. I don't
have the details of our existing exemptions. Um, so I
would have to pull that, but, uh, but across all
of our exemption programs, whether they be revivalization exemptions or
regular permissive exemptions, um, they told, we are quite generous
as the city as we've talked in the past, but
I would have to pull the information to look exactly
how, uh, much that would be, uh, the number of
course that is being referenced here is over the 10
year period when we report out on the one year.
So the annual amount. So that's what, cause it varies.
And properties come on and off, um, each year. So,
um, I would need some time to pull this information
if it's needed. Thank you. I understood the Rodola 84
million. It would be about 8. 4 million per year
more or less. Cause of course the 10 years aren't
going to be a solid 10 years. Um, so I
think that was, uh, no one. So my real question
was any other this kind of tax exemption to an
industry. So not your housing, but just to an industry.
Final comment now, I guess. Unless we get a motion
arising after this, the conflation of tax exemption with revenue
or taxes years later gives a false linkage. One is
not dependent on the other. I do not buy for
a moment. That a hotel would decide not to build
in Victoria without a 10 year tax holiday. The key
themes considered a critical in the letter we received as
councillors, uh, a week ago from, um, destination Victoria. Where
speed, certainty and red tape reduction. Not tax holidays. That
was not mentioned in his letter. Given the absence of
consultation with Heritage groups in the public and given the
84 million dollar tax holiday, I can't support this policy.
Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. We could put
the motion back up on the screen. That would be
helpful. Councillor Hammond. Thanks. Mine's going to be an easier
one. Um, last time I was on the four votes
for asking for a public hearing, um, and that was
defeated because five Oden in favor of, um, of continuing
to not hold a public hearing. And then I, I
heard from people afterwards, and some people said, you know,
why didn't you have a public hearing? And I said,
well, I don't mind saying I was wavering on that.
But then there was also some questions that people brought
to me. And as a matter of fact, I remember
one in particular, I asked one of our directors. And
the director gave the right information the person actually who
was asking the question had wrong information and wasn't misinformation.
It was just, they had, they had a wrong assumption.
And it was on that one in which actually the
person had this misconception of what was going on. And
I got a really great response from one of our
directors about this is that I realised the people who
have a lot of misunderstanding about this. And therefore, it's
not for the whole thing, but for my statement as
a whole about not having a public hearing, I'll just
be voting no. I get the pros and cons of
the tax exemptions and because it's on the lift, I
feel more comfortable with this. Um, but it's just on
that, that I'm going to change my vote and vote.
No, I know it won't make any difference. But, um,
and I doubt no one except me, but I just
wanted to say that. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Anyone else on this is on the floor. Councillor Coleman.
Thank you. Um, we will continue to evolve, but as
we do so, we need to make sure that voices
are heard. At the last meeting when we dealt with
this. I asked if item number two could be severed.
So we could deal with the issue of public hearings.
Cause I think there should be one. I think the
collateral impact on Old Town could be enormous. And I
think the public would like to weigh in on that.
I was told it couldn't be severed. And that's fine.
So therefore I voted against the whole motion and I
will continue to do so. Thank you. Thank you very
much. Anybody else? Councillor Dell. Sure. I would just like
to wrap us up. Most importantly while we heard some
complaining about this, this is a absolutely key city strategic
priority. It's one of the key priorities for destination greater
Victoria. And it's one of the most important policies I
think in our city. So I'm quite disappointed here. All
these small side quests around what is a really important
issue of getting more hotels in the area. I mean,
if we're going to do our job here, I think
most of us should read the deck greater at Victoria
Destination Master Plan, which identifies hotel development as a critical
issue for Victoria. We directed staff to do this work.
They went and they worked with all the critical stakeover
in the city and came back with a suite of
policies, uh, unfortunately, um, there's been a lot of admissinformation
about one particular policy, which we pulled out. And that's
fine because it was quite minor. But the rest of
these are really important. Um, so I think it's, it's
really exciting day for us to support this because it's
showing that we want people to come to Victoria. We
want to support downtown. We want new hotel development in
the city and we're listening to our staff who have
put forward a really thoughtful suite of policies to make
that happen. Uh, I don't agree with many of the
criticisms here. Uh, the public hearing. I haven't really heard
much at all about these issues other than the one
that we pulled out, which is removed. Um, so I
think overall this is a really exciting win for Victoria.
And I don't want the negative comments distract for, for
how important this is and how much work. Experts have
put into this. And I think this is a big
win for our council. So I'm happy to support this.
Thank you very much. Anyone who hasn't yet spoken wish
to do so. Not seeing anyone else wish to do
so. I will just comment that, uh, I do support
this. I did think that it could withstand a public
hearing, which is why I supported actually withdrawing number two
previously. Having said that, I also think that the content
of the entire thing is very admirable and quite supportable.
So I'm not going to let the lack of a
public hearing push me into a dispensing with the rest
of it, which I think is extremely supportable. Uh, so
I will support it moving forward today. With that, all
those in favor. Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim, Councillor Carradoni Council
Loughten, myself, Councillor Thompson. And opposition, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Hammond
and Councillor Gardner. So noting three N opposition. That is
adopted. That would take us on usually two item G1AC.
Uh, this was the Council Member Motion that was carried
unanimously at the July 23rd Committee of the Whole. So
that has been dealt with on our consent agenda. That
takes us on to a number of matters under the
G1B category. These are all, I feel like I'm just
talking about point of information. Yes. Sorry. Oh, I'm a
bigger pardon. Yes. Uh, would you like to actually, um,
provide a motion arising, which I believe you can just
do with the information that you had proposed as an
amendment, which was not allowed. Let us put that on
as a motion rising. So not a new number, but
just a brand new motion rising. You just push that
up. Thank you, Councillor Gardner. I completely forgot that. There
you go. Uh, moving that, I'm happy the second dat.
Is there any discussion or anything you would like to
add, Councillor Gardner. Um, previous comments. When I hear public,
we're going to have a broad discussion. That's we've seen
before. It means frequently a survey and really kind of
after the fact. And that it's not really, really consultation.
And, uh, I think it's very important that this be
up front. And that's why the consultation, I suggest that
consultation group. So it wouldn't be lost in some general
survey, which can be so, uh, used or misused by,
uh, special interest groups. And so I thought that it
was very important. I realised for staff members were on
this committee that created this, the greater Victoria Hotel Development.
And these people, the heritage people and the people who
love Heritage are as much stakeholders as hotels when it
comes to Old Town. So that's why I wanted this
in there. So the heritage group supposed to be broad,
not a broad consultation process meeting the usual engagement where
you just ask everybody after the fact. I believe they
should be constituted really soon. And I'm not suggesting who
all goes on it. But that we should get, uh,
those are our knowledge groups that we have now. And
I think people here, yourself mayor more than mere, me
can name probably four or five experts were really well
known in this city and beyond this city in the
heritage field. And there may be some who are here
who actually helped do the first guidelines of Old Town.
Yep. Let it open. That's it. Great. Um, yeah, I
do support this. And I support it for a slightly
different reason. Uh, and that is because as I recollect,
uh, we have had extensive conversations about a future examination
of not just heritage and old town or the decap,
but of heritage broadly. Uh, I think that is going
to be an extraordinarily complex and challenging conversation for the
next council that will have many, many twists and turns,
which I don't believe have even been anticipated at this
point. And so I think this fits very nicely within
the context of that larger conversation. Some specificity, particularly around
Oldtime, but for me, this is just one component of
what is a very much larger conversation, which is absolutely
necessary. And which I hope the next council will commit
to doing expeditiously. So I'm happy to support this. Any
other comments on this. Senion, all those in favor. Anybody
opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you for that. Now moving
on to G1B, this is the report from our earlier
committee of the whole meeting today. Uh, we are going
to walk through all of the items individually, although some
of them, uh, we're unanimous. Some of them are not.
So just to ensure that we capture everything accurately. We'll
do them one at a time. And I would note
that the reason they were working through all of these
of course is that as I'd mentioned previously, this is
our last Council meeting before we take our usual hiatus
in August. So we'll just make sure we get to
all of the matters that require any attention before September.
So up first was G1BA. And this is the review
of the tenant protection Bylaw Compensation Requirements, which was amended
and discussed at length. So I will ask for someone
to move this, please. Yes, but we're going to go
through each one, you know, just to make sure that
we have the accurate record of well everything. I believe
councillor, uh, Hammond, you originally posed this, did you not?
Yes. The Ten of Brecht, yes. So you'd like to
move it again. Sure. You have to go through each
one. Yes. Councillor Hammond's moving is your secondary councillor Kim.
Any further commentary. Seeing none, all those in favor. And
he would opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much
for that. The promise of tax exemptions for 2027 28.
This was in fact unanimous, but we will do so
again just for the record. This is G1BB with some
elect to move those, please. Thanks Councillor Caradona, seconded by
Concer Coleman. Any discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor.
Anyone opposed. That is unanimous as well. It takes us
on to G1 BC. This was also unanimous earlier. And
this is the Council Member Motion advocacy to the Provincial
Government on continued operating subsidies from a koala housing. Someone
like to move that, please. Also, Gerardone is moving. Concert
Kim is seconding. Any discussion, seeing none, all those in
favor. Thank you. That's unanimous. G1BD. This is the Council
Member Motion on Advocacy to improve return to Futures wanted
on warrants. Uh, this was amended, but eventually was supported.
Someone like to move that, please. Councillor Thompson. I'm every
second that any discussion. Seeing none, always in favor. Anyone
opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much. G1BE. This
is the Council Member Motion with regard to formalizing a
fair wages policy. This was also unanimous earlier on the
consent agenda, but we'll do one again here just to
be clear. Uh, Councillor Thompson, you moved this. I forget
who second did it at the time. The Constacardona, thank
you very much for doing that. Any conversation on that
one. Seeing none, all those in favor, anyone opposed. It's
also unanimous. G1BF was the Council member motion establishing a
by name list for the City Victoria, which was amended
multiple times, but is now here before. It's councillor Loton.
I presume you'd like to move that. Someone like the
second account for Thompson. Any further discussion. Seeing none, all
those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is also unanimous. And
finally item G1BG. This is the Council Member Motion with
regarding to emergency response to the metatomidine crisis. Wealth Councillor
move that again. Councillor Thompson is seconding. Any further discussion.
Seeing none, all those in favor. Anybody opposed. And it's
also unanimous. Thank you for all of that. So all
of those were taken care of this morning. Moving on
on to Bylaws. Item H1 is the bylaw for 517
533 and 537 Chatham and 535 32 and 536. Harold,
this is the rezoning application and development permit with variances
applications. This was on the consent agenda for the Council
because it is preliminary readings for second and third reading.
And so that will return to us at our daytime
Council meeting in September. And that takes us on to
item H2, which was on the consent agenda, but was
removed. And this is the Bylaw for 26126, 2620 and
2628 Richmond Road, the housing agreement, uh, and that is
the first, second, and third reading of that housing agreement,
which would by convention be on our consent agenda because
it's preliminary readings, but perfectly appropriate to pull it off.
So it's someone like to move those readings, please. Thanks
Councillor Careguan. It's seconded by Cons for Dell. Caradona or
Del any commentary. Yeah. Actually, I do have a, actually
more of a question for staff, uh, when I was
reading this one on the agenda, I thought, I don't
remember approving this one. And, uh, and then it occurred
to me. Oh yeah, this, this is now a delegated
authority. So I wanted to ask first of all, is
this just, I want to ask how this one went.
If I'm not mistaken, was this the first delegated authority
for a Sixtory building or, or maybe not the first
one, but just how did the process go for staff
as a delegated authority. Who would like to take that
question. Uh, Mr. Handy, go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon,
Meryl, to a members of Council, Jim Handy acting assistant
direct divine services. This is not the first six story
residential project that has been approved under delegated powers. Um,
it is, um, one of the first because those powers
and the new zoning were adopted late last year. This
particular project you're correct. It hasn't been in front of
council because it is a development permit. That meets the
criteria for delegation. And as per the land use procedures
by law, we're the only matter for staff's consideration is
consistency with the applicable design guidelines. And in this instance,
um, the application is considered consistent with the design guidelines
and if council do have any further questions. We do
have senior plant majority Gordon here who has been handling
the application. Sure. My questions are all pretty high level
because I read the report. I get I get a
sense of what this building is. But we've obviously been
working for some years to try to streamline development drive
down costs, make it deliver housing quicker to people, reduce
cost. What can't, I mean, I'm not going to ask
you how much this reduced the overall cost because you
probably don't know. But can, can you give us anything
here about why this is beneficial? How many months did
this remove approximately from the process? Like what, why is
this good to have this, this delegated authority. I would
like to take that. How about you, Mr. Justin? Or
Mr. Handy. Through you, Mayor, I'll start and then maybe
my colleagues can add, but I think, um, the first
thing is it does is it gives, um, certainty. Um,
about the process when they embark. They know that if
they submit an application that is consistent with our land
use procedures by a long consistent with our, um, design
guidelines, then the path to an approval in just dealing
with stuff. Um, in terms of time savings, um, the
time savings, I would estimate at least a couple of
months because that's the time that goes into preparing reports
for, um, for Committee of the whole getting on agendas,
things like that. Okay. And so, and thank you for
that. And so the hazard agreement still has to come
to counsel though. Is there any theoretical world in which
the housing agreement is also delegated. Or is that automatic,
this is like the local government act require that that
come to us. Mr. Johnston. Thank you, Sue the mayor.
Um, Alec Johnston acting director of Planning and Development. The
housing agreements are adopted by Bylaw. And so those do
need to come to counsel for, uh, consideration. So, um,
with the density bonus provisions relying on the adoption of
a housing agreement, there will be a need for that
aspect of a proposal to continue to come to counsel.
Okay. Thanks those answers and thanks for your work on
this file. Thank you very much. Concert Dell is the
secondary any comments. Yeah. My understanding is this housing has
a fair number of two and three bedroom units. Are
you able to just confirm how many of those are
or is that too detailed for today? Scrutin. Welcome. Uh,
yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Mary Council, Jerty Gordon, Senior
Plunder. Um, so the application does comply with the family
housing requirements. I know the Zone Bella, which is 20
and 10 percent of two and three bedroom units respectively.
Okay. Thank you. On a three bedrooms, which I think
is around 10 or something, which is quite substantial. Is
that, is that above what we would normally see in
the family housing policy? Or like, does the family housing
policy contributing to getting that many three bedrooms in this
unit. Mr. Gordon? Oh, just a bit surprised, honestly. Um,
through you, yes, I think it's fair to say that
the family housing policy has made that, uh, a reality
for the three bedroom units. I don't know that the
applicant of delivered that without that requirement. Great. Thank you
very much. Any other comments or questions on the floor?
Counsel Gardner. Thank you. Um, I understand that this development
and the housing agreement, well, not quite the housing green
has to come through by a law, but fall under
the OCP 2050 blanket zoning. I get that. But as
counselling is on for the North Jubilee neighbourhood, I was
present at the comic meeting and have questions related to
the issues rated to that meeting. So, uh, first of
all, were there variances during your review. Scordan. Through the
mayor. Yes, there are variances related to this application. You
please subscribe them. Mr. Gordon, I'm going to ask you
a question before you answer that. Am I correct in
believing that all that is before us today is the
housing agreement and that the other aspects of the F
application were delegated and approved by a staff? Through you,
yes, that is correct. That would mean that the questions
that are appropriate and material today specifically would relate only
to the housing agreement. Is that correct? Um, through you,
yes, that's my understanding. So are there variances, as was
asked in the question that would be applicable to the
housing agreement. Through you, no, there are no variances related
to thousand agreements. Thank you. Councillor, will you please confine
your questions today? Thank you, Mayor. I was trying to,
just so that public would understand the whole delegation process.
Is parking in that agreement. Is that relevant to the
housing agreement. Uh, through you, no, it is not. Thank
you. And, uh, so there were no setbacks or shadowing
considerations. Okay. So, um, during the Calic and otherwise, there
were Community asked considering the approval of this development. What
if staff do with any of those requests? Were they
considered it all or what happens. During the delegated process?
Specifically relevant to the housing agreement, but if you feel
the ad, feel free you mayor, maybe just like to
clarify that at the time of this application, it was
a rezoning because it was submitted prior to the changes
to the OCP. So that is why a calic meeting
was, was held in this instance. But would not have
been required. If it had been applied for after the
adoption of the OCP and Sony Bella Amendments. Councillor. Yeah.
So during that process, even though it was in transition,
were any of the community concerns considered at all. Mr.
Gordon through you, Mayor. At the time that the rezoning
was being, uh, reviewed, uh, yes, those concerns were, uh,
reviewed by staff as part of the normal calic review
process. Did they change the proposal at all. Ms. Burden.
Through my recollection, know the application was not significantly revised
as a result of the, uh, CALIC comment specifically. I
would note that there were significant revisions to the proposal
through the process, but not as a result specifically of
the Kellogg comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And again,
I understand as we start out saying is that, uh,
we do not give any. Real opinion as the like
or not like any of these proposals. We are only
here just to rubber stamp the housing agreement. Is that
not it? We are here to consider the terms of
the housing. Yes. Thank you. That's it. Very good. Anyone
else on the housing agreement. So you know, comments, sell
those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you
very much for that. That takes us on to item
H3, which would usually be on the consented gender, but
it also includes an adoption, which my convention, we do
not put on consent so that individuals have an opportunity
for any final comments. So we have also first, second,
and third reading of the zoning bylaw amendment bylaw. And
for also the adoption of the zoning bylaw amendment bylaw.
And so I don't believe we need to separate these
two. I believe is not necessary. Is that correct, Mr.
Johnston? They can be done together. The preliminary readings at
adoption, is that correct? Yes. So we'll take that with
one motion with someone like to move those, please. That's
the concert Thompson's moving, Councillor Cutler's Second Day. Councillor Thompson,
any comments. You're doing any comments. I'll just say very
briefly that I'm happy we're doing this and subsequent to
a coming to Community the whole Iris CD emails from
the heavy industry from heavy industry in this, in this
community, as I'm sure others did too, who are really
supportive and relieved. And, uh, I will note that a
number of cities across this country have zoned heavy industry
and light industrial out of existence in urban areas. And
they've come to regret it. So I'm, I'm happy that
we're going to continue to move forward as a city
that not just supports residential, but is a place where,
where we make things and where we employ people. So
this will provide a lot of assurance and certainty to
our industrial partners. It's actually really quite important that we're
doing this. Thank you very much. Somebody else. Council Gardner.
Thank you, Mirror. I'd like to make a couple of
changes or corrections, particularly item six. I'm sorry, just a
second here. We're talking about a particular bylaws at this
point. You want to start amending the bylaws? Yeah. There's
a mistake in that. All right. You'll have to pull
the entire bylaw up onto the screen. Item six. Thank
you. Hang on. Steph, can you pull up the text
of the bylaw.
So can you direct us please to the section that
you are correcting. Thank you.
Uh, obviously consultation one. Whoops. I have here amendment one
item six changed. Where is these section? It's two smaller
prints. Sorry. Where it says with consultation. What page am
I in the right place. Mr. Johnston, can you assist
here. I don't know why I've written down item six.
I think a little bit of clarity on, on trying
to amend would be helpful. So the recommendation. Okay. So
I'm looking at the recommendation. Just because the error. I'm
sorry. The recommendation is simply that we approve the bylaws.
Okay. In the documents, we just got on it. It
doesn't have where they're supposed to be consultation. Remember. We're
adding consultation. And they have the wrong words on as
to who they're supposed to include. So I'm sorry, Mr.
Johnston, can you recollect a previous recommendation that would have
led us to the consideration of the bylaw amendments? Mr.
Kingsley, yes. Yes. Uh, thank you Mayor. I'm just looking
at the staff covering report now. And just from the
sounds of the conversation, it might be that Councillor Gardner
is referring to the background section when it refers to
the Community, the whole, the original committee, the whole resolution
that it refers to. There we are. Okay. Number six.
Thank you. Yes. The intention was for the, uh, calorie
type neighbour associations, which means the James Bay neighbourhood association.
I've got to consult. Maybe wetter have the right group.
I'm still not clear. Number six halfway through. Yes. Including
the Victoria West Community Association James Bay and it should
be neighbourhood association. And the rest of that sentence is,
I mean, the rest. That is a correction that I
want somewhere if so staff at least understands which group.
Was meant. Very good. Then you're proposing, I don't know.
Mr. Kingsley, I'm really struggling with this from a procedural
perspective because this has already been adopted by Council. And
so we're now actually revisiting a previously approved recommendation as
we are considering the bylaws pertaining to that recommendation, in
my opinion, that is highly out of order. And so
I'm going to look to you for your comment on
that. Because if this is the case, we actually need
to reconsider this matter, which has a proper procedure, which
cannot be done today. Uh, three mayor, that is correct.
The staff report, what's the text that's listed in front
of Council is in a background section. So it is
referring to a previous committee, the whole resolution that was
subsequently ratified by council. And this bylaws, the result of
the direction that's contained within. If there is indeed an
error or something that council wishes to revisit there, it
is procedurally possible, but I would recommend the best way
to do that would be for a submission of a
motion to amend something previously adopted, which could be done
by Council at any time. Now, it can't be done
now. In fact. Just a second, Councillor Thompson. Mr. Johnston,
what is the impact on this if it's delayed until
September 3rd. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify first
if it's helpful. That this particular, um, part of the
motion, uh, instructing staff, did you broad consultation is related
to the proposed OCP amendment to change the design guidelines.
It's not related to the zoning amendments that are before
council today. So, um, we still have an opportunity to,
and we also understand the intent here of who we're
supposed to be consulting with as part of that broad
engagement on the OCP amendment, which was always intended to
come after these zoning updates, um, so if that's helpful,
we can, uh, so let me be clear if I
understand you correctly. The consideration of the bylaws that are
actually on the agenda, which we're considering in this moment,
uh, do not necessarily prevent us from returning at a
future date to correct this particular report. Thank you. I'm
going to suggest Councillor Gardner that you cannot amend this
today. We can vote on the bylaws today. You can
return to the September 3rd meeting with a motion to
amend this report. The two are not an extricably linked.
And that procedurally is what must happen. Thank you. And
please just so the general public understands this report was
part of this week's agenda item. We did not see
it. When on the 23rd. Like I didn't have a
copy of this until Monday morning. Well, these reports are
provided the Friday before. And if I'm not mistaken, Mr.
Johnston, please provide the correct information about when business was
made publicly available. Yes, through the mayor, uh, this, um,
this motion was ratified, uh, on the 23rd. So the
wording here was presented to Council last week. So the
text of this material was actually considered and approved on
the 23rd of July. Thank you, Mayor. We didn't get
a copy of, see, that's the whole issue. But that's
okay. This material was presented to council last week and
was approved. This has been in the public prior, the
Friday prior to July 23rd. So it's been in the
public domain for almost two weeks. I get that it
was on the Friday. I picked mine up on Monday
morning. But even then. But it's at least two weeks
ago that this was provided. Yes, but if you have
it, we can still only make an amendment today when
it comes up. We couldn't make an amendment earlier to
correct it. Considered on July 23rd is when it should
have been amended on July 23rd. So leave it at
that as it is. The correct procedure now is to
consider the bylaws which are not tied precipitously to this.
And if you wish to correct, then aspect of this
report, you can bring a motion to do so for
the September 3rd meeting. That's the proper procedure. Now Councillor
Thompson, do you have something to add to that. Mayor,
I recall seeing that provision and thinking that there were
a couple of typos in it, but I didn't think
it was relevant because it's just direction to consult with
groups. It would be downtown residents association. And then there's
a typo in burnside gorge communities. So technically. It's really
not relevant. And it was considered back in June actually.
So Councillor Thompson, I appreciate your commentary, but I don't
want to get into debate about this document because this
is not before us today. Councillor Dale, do you have
anything to add to this? Okay. So back on the
bylaws. Here they are. Um, with someone like to move
and suck in these bylaws. Oh, yes, you did. I'm
sorry. Um, Ms. Roader, can you remind me who moved
and seconded the bylaws. No, who was it? You wish
to know the mover in Secondary. It was, uh, Councillor
Thompson, second councillor, Caradona. Thank you. And I believe I
already asked if you wish to commented. You both declined.
Which is why we went to Councillor Gardner. Councillor Gardner,
anything further. I'm not too sure what I can speak
on. Okay. The last speak to the bylaws. Yes. The
last item is with a map. Is about the, um,
James Bay with the Coast Guard and it does not
have autoinport in it because often point has been removed.
Does that make sense to anyone? Staff comments on the
mapping that's associated with bylaws. Yes. Please join us.
Go ahead. There we go. Sorry. I thought red means
stop. Good afternoon Mayor Counsel Mike Angrove acting manager planning
and regulatory services through the mayor. That's correct. Out in
point has been removed from the zoning. So it will
remain in the old zoning regulation bylaw as per Council's
direction until they finalise their planning process. Right. Thank you,
Maya. Make a comment on that. Absolutely. Okay. Your last
sentence is when they finish their analysis and I understand,
of course, we've gone through, uh, the MOU that was
way back, um, first time we went to a meeting
at all. It wasn't even a formal meeting, but it
was a City Hall was about the Oden Point Master
plan. And I believe it's been renewed three or four
times with the MOU. So when it's completed, do we
have a date as the MOU going to be rewritten?
What's happening with the MOU? Cause I think we're going
through four or five versions of it and an extensions
since 2000. And was it six. Mr. Bateman, do you
have any information on that. Uh, Through the mayor, I
think at this point the Ogden point is just at
a, at a standstill, and recognising that, uh, in point
in the greater Victoria Harbour authority are going through their
extensive planning process, uh, currently, I believe they'll have an
update. This fall, um, to the public on how that's
going, but they are in their early phases of the
process. Thank you. So is there any intention of recreating
the MOU so that we have a deadline. Mr. Bateman.
Uh, no, I don't believe so. Thank you. Anything further
on the bylaws. Okay. Not seeing anything further. All those
in favor. Anybody opposed. That is unanimous. That takes a
song to item H4. This is in fact the development
program with variances application and the rezoning application for 11
to 18th Street. This is for the adoption of the
Zoning Regulation Housing Agreement and approval of the development permit
with variances application. We'd like to move both of those,
please. Thanks, Councillor Caradona, seconded by Councillor Hammond. Councillor Done
any comments. Councillor Hammond, any comments? Any other comments. Let's
sing another comment, sell those in favor. Anyone opposed. That
is unanimous. H5 is the adoption of the housing agreement
for 2501 to 2699 Blanchard Street, 825 and 841 Hillside,
2500 through 2684 dollar place and 900 Kings Road. Also,
I believe known as the evergreen properties. This is the
adoption of the housing agreement for all of those same
properties. So I like to move that please. Thanks, Councillor
Kim seconded by Councillor Coleman. Any comments from Kim McCollman?
Seeing none, any other comments. Seeing that always in favor,
anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Well, folks, that actually manages
to conclude remarkably the open aspects of our council meeting
today. We do have several items to consider enclosed. I
will note for the public that despite our fractious nature,
we are trying to continue to do good work. And
we will, in fact, be meeting again, uh, on September
the 3rd. At that time at 9 o'clock in the
morning, you will see us resume our meetings for the
last six weeks of this term. I'm sure those six
meetings will be entertaining, if not substantive. So with that,
I would wish you all a wonderful summer, at least
for the August portion thereof. And I would ask Mr.
Kingsley to remind us of the reasons why we are
either able or required to move into closed. Thank you,
Mayor. The reasons proposed today to close the meeting are
under Section 91C of the Community Charter regarding labour relations
or other employee relations. Section 91F regarding law enforcement matter.
Section 91K regarding negotiations and related discussions, respecting the proposed
provision of a municipal service at preliminary stages in Section
92B regarding the consideration of information received and held in
confidence related to negotiations between the municipality and another level
of government. Fabulous. I have a motion for those reasons
to go into close. Thank you, Councillor Coleman, Second by
Councillor Kim. Any discussion. Seeing none. All those in favor.
And it would oppose. Thank you everyone. Uh, we will
see you after August and, uh, hopefully everyone will have
an enjoyable time with family at some point during that
month. We'll adjourn for 10 minutes to allow staff to
move us into closed and also because we haven't taken
a break in sometime. Let us resume at 320.