[0:00] Good afternoon and welcome to the July 30th meeting of
[0:03] Victoria City Council, our daytime meeting. Today we have for
[0:06] our consideration one item of unfinished business. Reports from the
[0:11] July 23rd and this morning's committee of the whole. Could
[0:13] I have some order please. Five bylaws for preliminary readings
[0:17] and final adoption and a couple of closed items of
[0:20] business. But of course before we begin our work together
[0:23] we always like to take a few moments to ground
[0:25] ourselves and our work and some would suggest our very
[0:30] existence and here in the City of Victoria on the
[0:32] wonderful and continuing generosity of the two nations on whose
[0:36] territories our city sits in its entirety, the Sonkes Nation
[0:39] and the Cosasum Nation of the La Quangan people who
[0:42] have for so many generations, centuries taken the time to
[0:45] be great stewards of these lands and this of waters
[0:48] that surround them. And we occasionally have remarkable opportunities to
[0:52] join with them to help support their members and all
[0:55] of the community both on the nations, current lens as
[0:58] well as the lands that they traditionally and currently have
[1:01] titled to. And that is a chance yesterday as we
[1:05] did to join them in an Elder's lunch where Songhees
[1:08] hosted an Ecosepsum hosted many elders, hundreds of them actually,
[1:13] who were visiting from a round Vancouver Island who were
[1:17] fetted for the very delicious Ludgern yesterday at the Song.
[1:21] He's Wellness Centre. A number of our staff volunteered their
[1:24] time to join NIS servers and bottle washers and busers
[1:28] and just folks who were there to show support in
[1:31] a very practical and very meaningful way. When we have
[1:35] the chance to do things like that, we remember how
[1:37] close is our alliance and how remarkable is the opportunity
[1:40] that we have to not just learn from one another
[1:43] and work together. But to meet new among us and
[1:46] to create new relationships as well as solidify the ones
[1:48] that we have. And so it was a wonderful opportunity
[1:51] for us to be there yesterday and certainly was noticed
[1:55] and appreciated both by the host nation as well as
[1:58] the many visitors who were there from other nations. And
[2:01] I think what's also appreciated by those of us who
[2:04] hit a chance to participate. So once again enjoying the
[2:08] chance to be partners and allies and to work together
[2:12] respecting the past. But facing the challenges of the current
[2:15] day and looking ahead to the folks who we hope
[2:17] we're serving well as we move forward. As we always
[2:20] like to say a simple thank you as we do
[2:23] in so many people now know to say the simple
[2:25] phrase of Haychussium or Archkessium Nikhilia, which is just to
[2:29] say thank you and also to add on honorific and
[2:32] honouring of those people who are here in the chamber
[2:36] in the city and throughout our neighbourhoods as individuals who
[2:39] choose at some point during each day one hopes to
[2:42] do something that would make a little bit better someone's
[2:45] life, someone who affects you and is affected by you.
[2:48] So with that I would say hi to Casey and
[2:50] Equalia and welcome to today. We just noticed I did
[2:55] earlier this morning at our committee that this is the
[2:56] last day of our Council meetings before Council takes its
[2:59] usual hiatus in August. And so I once again would
[3:02] urge each of us to be as judicious as possible
[3:04] in our comments so that we might attend to our
[3:07] very full agenda in a timely manner this afternoon. I
[3:10] am not aware of any late items that need to
[3:12] be added to today's agenda and so I would look
[3:14] for someone to move the published agenda. These Council Colemans,
[3:17] I could make on Cereco. Any discussion of the published
[3:20] agenda. Seeing none, all those in favor, anyone opposed. That
[3:25] is unanimous. Now there are four items that we're proposed
[3:28] for the consent agenda. I'm aware that there is at
[3:30] least one of them that wishes to be removed or
[3:33] has someone wishes to remove rather. But let me just
[3:35] read them for the information of public and those are
[3:38] the four items that were either unanimous at the Committee
[3:41] of a whole previously or are for preliminary readings. I
[3:44] will just note that we went through a number of
[3:46] items earlier today in a Committee of the Whole. Uh,
[3:48] we will go through those again one night of time
[3:50] so that we can accurately record those votes both at
[3:54] committee and here again at Council. Uh, again these were
[3:58] either unanimous or committee or for preliminary hearings. And these
[4:03] will all actually come back to us. Should they be
[4:05] necessary later this afternoon? So that's G1AA, the report back
[4:10] on strategies and resources to require cooling and Victoria's rental
[4:13] buildings. G1AC, the Council Member Motion with regard to enforcement
[4:17] against derelict buildings, neglected properties and vacant commercial spaces. Item
[4:22] H1, the Bylaw for 517 - 533 - and5 -
[4:26] 37 Chatham Street and 530532 - 536 Herald Street. They're
[4:31] resounding application and development permit with variances application for those
[4:34] addresses. And item H2, the bylaw for 2612, 2616, 2620
[4:40] and 2628 Richmond Road and that would be specifically for
[4:43] the housing agreement. Does anyone wish to remove any of
[4:45] these items. Cancer Gardner is suggesting H2 should be removed.
[4:51] So we'll do that. Anything else? Not seeing any other
[4:55] suggestions. So it's someone like to move the other three
[4:57] items as the consent agenda. Thank you very much Councillor
[5:00] Gardner, second of my councillor Kim. All those in favor.
[5:03] Anyone opposed. Those are unanimous. What does take us on
[5:08] to one item of unfinished business? That's item f1 and
[5:11] this is with regard to the Victoria housing reserve fund
[5:13] application for the mid - town affordable housing society for
[5:17] its location at 611 Speed Avenue. Now I believe in
[5:21] fact there's an updated report for this and so I
[5:24] would look for one of our able staff to present
[5:27] that report as much as needed. And also to explain
[5:30] why there is an updated report. Mr. Sauerd. Good afternoon
[5:35] Mayor Council. My name is Ross Howard, manager of housing.
[5:38] This item was not ratified by Council on May 7th
[5:43] as there was a desire to confirm for their details
[5:45] of the application. Subsequently on July 7th, the applicant formally
[5:50] withdrew their grand application to the city as they were
[5:53] not successful in receiving funding through Bilt Canada homes. And
[5:56] that was a condition of their funding for the Victoria
[5:58] Hydron Reserve Fund. And so this report, uh, simply confirms
[6:02] the withdrawal of their application, uh, and it's just being
[6:05] shared with council for information at this time just to
[6:08] close the loop on this item. Thank you very much.
[6:11] Are there any questions on that. Culture on a councillor
[6:16] gardener? Yeah. Um, thanks. And through the chair to staff.
[6:21] I want to get a sense of what's going to,
[6:22] what do we know, what's going to happen with this
[6:24] building? I mean up until now it started out as
[6:28] a condo, then it was going to be rental. Then
[6:30] I was going to be this co - op. In
[6:33] terms of how we categorize this building, what's our presumption
[6:35] now? Is it going to be sold as market rental
[6:39] or what happens to it now? Mr. Sower, do we
[6:42] know that? Through the mayor, I think at this point
[6:47] in time, all we know is the project is still
[6:55] looking to receive final occupancy. And, uh, the owner is
[6:59] still the, um, the group that, uh, brought the projects
[7:04] or through the approvals and construction process. Um, it's sort
[7:07] of up to the landowner, I guess, to determine how
[7:09] they want to move forward. But, uh, but it seems
[7:12] as though the conversion to the sort of co -
[7:16] op approach, his head of roadblock is they aren't able
[7:20] to have the funding from Bill Canada Holmes. Okay. And
[7:23] if the 677, 000 is not going to them, which
[7:27] it can't and it shouldn't. What does that leave the
[7:29] balance of the housing reserve fund at? Is it 4.
[7:32] 5 million or is it five point something million. Mr.
[7:36] Sauer. Through the mayor, I believe it's around 4. 8
[7:42] million. Count for crew. Count your screw donut. Sorry. Is
[7:50] RCFO looking at or is that? Is that it? I
[7:53] think that's all you know at that point. Yeah. Okay.
[7:56] Was Thompson? Are you going to do anything to add.
[8:00] Um, through the American, certainly look it up. I don't
[8:01] have it off the top of the head. Okay. I
[8:03] just had one in a question, which is that council
[8:05] did have some skepticism around this one. We did amend
[8:08] it to ensure that the federal grant was received before
[8:12] we gave this grant and it ends up, they did
[8:14] not get that grant. So I'm glad that we amended
[8:16] it. But is there lessons learned on this one? Like
[8:21] in terms of trying to protect our investments and our
[8:23] grants is the one. Mr. Seward. Through the mayor, um,
[8:30] I would note that like the Council of the original
[8:33] Council Motion that had been provided, like would also have
[8:37] prevented the funds from being released. So I think that
[8:41] original council motion did have kind of conditions in place
[8:43] that, you know, provided managed risk for the city. Uh,
[8:47] that being said, I do think that it did identify
[8:50] that there are some gaps in the housing reserve fund
[8:53] guidelines specifically around, um, criteria that would be explicit for,
[8:59] um, sort of the nonprofit co - op model. And
[9:02] so we could just have some more detailed guidelines in
[9:04] that. So I think that's something we can take into
[9:06] account as part of the update to the housing strategy.
[9:09] Okay. Thanks. No one can seem to figure out how
[9:11] to crack the nut on, on co - ops right
[9:13] now, right? Is there other information on HRF? Otherwise I'm
[9:17] done. Just so hard to do anything to add. Nope.
[9:20] Not at this point. No. Okay. All right. That's it.
[9:26] Okay. Councillor Gardner. Thank you. And thank you for the
[9:30] good news. Um, I'm just going to summarize a wee
[9:34] bit will happen on April 16th when this proposal came
[9:37] through to us. We ended up being very quite confused.
[9:41] I have to say that. That's really what happened. We
[9:44] had a group applying for the money. And it was
[9:46] not the co - op. And as we delved into
[9:50] the matters, um, the risk to the city I think
[9:53] became very high in many people's minds on this council.
[9:59] And it was, I mean, it was just plain old
[10:02] worrisome. And, uh, I appreciated, I think, believe it was
[10:05] a council Caradono who had the amendment, which I seconded,
[10:09] which was to tie that 677, to approval of the
[10:14] federal grant, which did not come through. And personally on
[10:19] April 6th, that whole discussion was very unsettling. The next
[10:23] day I spent hours and hours rereading those documents. And
[10:28] although each document kind of looked okay standalone together, they
[10:31] didn't make sense to me. I then spoke to staff
[10:33] about it and told them my concerns. We about time
[10:36] it also had someone seen the VC assessment value of
[10:40] that property for 2025. And so the whole thing was
[10:44] disturbing. And on May 7th, it was actually council did
[10:47] not proceed with it, but it was actually its staff
[10:49] request that staff wanted to look further into it. Now
[10:53] it's a very wise decision. So thank you staff for
[10:55] that. And, uh, so I'm pleased that the 600 and
[11:00] 67, 000 was not given away. Thank you. Thank you
[11:03] very much. Councillor Hammond. I'll be brief. Um, I, I
[11:10] also like to, um, acknowledge my colleagues from bringing in
[11:13] that caveat that was going forward. And I remember how
[11:16] reluctant I was even going in the first place. But
[11:18] I want to know, I want people to know that
[11:20] it was two people in particular who were sending me
[11:23] emails and others who really alerted me to this. And
[11:26] so I just want to, I won't give their names
[11:28] in case something will happen to them. But we all,
[11:31] we all know them. We all got the emails. And
[11:33] I just want to say that thanks for the diligence
[11:36] of a lot of people. I even ended up calling
[11:38] the head of, um, the co - op association in
[11:42] British Columbia having a conversation with a person while I
[11:44] was down in Mexico as a matter of fact. And,
[11:46] uh, it was really enlightening for me about what was
[11:50] going on. So I'm really pleased that the, um, due
[11:53] diligence was done on this. And well, it made it
[11:55] easier when the other level of government withdrew. Thank you
[12:00] very much. Anybody else. How's Coleman? Thank you. Um, and
[12:05] thank you to staff for this. I think if there's
[12:08] a learning lesson for council, it's when the report first
[12:13] came forward, it suggested we could give, uh, a significant
[12:19] amount of money and an application would be made to
[12:22] the federal government or the federal funds as a condition
[12:26] subsequent. We reversed the process and said, no, actually federal,
[12:32] the federal approval should come first. And that is perhaps
[12:35] the lesson learned that we should always, uh, say, yes,
[12:39] we will support certain initiatives. As long as the others
[12:43] have done due diligence as well as us. Because we
[12:45] could have been caught the other way. Um, and I
[12:47] think that this is, I'm sad that we now have
[12:52] to go through a different process and make sure that
[12:55] the building is used, but it, uh, is also about
[12:58] protecting the investment of the taxpayers as well. So I
[13:02] think that. I understand how we got there. And there
[13:08] were lots of hopes that were attached to this. They
[13:10] weren't forthcoming. And I think I'm very thankful that the
[13:13] federal government did some due diligence. And it wasn't made
[13:18] apparent. And so we aren't on the. Being hung out
[13:21] for the funds. It's wondering how you're going to phrase
[13:24] that. Anyone who hasn't yet spoken wishes to do so.
[13:28] Nope. Councillor Gardiota subsequent comment or question. Did you have
[13:32] a subsequent company? You put your hand up a second
[13:34] time. Oh, all right. Yes. It's just a motion to
[13:37] receive, which is why I wasn't being overly harsh on
[13:40] the commentary. Yeah. Councillor Gardner is moving to receive. Is
[13:43] her second, please. Thanks Councillor Caradona. Any final comments. Not
[13:47] seeing any. All those in favor of receipt. Anybody opposed.
[13:52] Is unanimous. Thank you, Steph, for your diligence as others
[13:54] have noted. That takes us on two reports of committees.
[13:57] First, we'll deal with the report from July 23rd. Privilege
[14:00] mayor. I'm sorry. Big burden. Did we ever get an
[14:03] answer about the, uh, amount left in the reserve fund?
[14:07] I thought it was 4. 8 million. But did you
[14:09] want to correct that? Ms. Thompson. Through you, Mary, yes,
[14:13] the amount that is uncommitted at this point is 4.
[14:15] 2 million. There you go. Thank you, Councillor. Um, the
[14:20] report from July 23rd Committee with the Whole. The first
[14:22] item, G1AA was on the consent agenda. So that's already
[14:26] been considered just for the information of the public. That
[14:28] is the report back on Strategies and Resources to Require.
[14:32] In Victoria's Red Bull buildings. So that has been finally
[14:35] resolved. And again, because we're at Council, when that is
[14:38] considered on the consent agenda, it is a final resolution.
[14:41] The next item though was not unanimous at Committee, and
[14:44] that was G1AB. This is the economic unemployment land solutions
[14:48] report. Uh, this was carried in the majority, but there
[14:51] were noted oppositions. So we'll have someone move that again,
[14:54] please. Nice Councillor Kim, seconded by. Councillor Lon. Uh, Councillor
[15:00] Kim or Lot, and any comments to make at this
[15:02] time? Anyone else wished to make any comments? Councillor Gardner,
[15:05] go ahead. Thank. You, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Last week,
[15:12] those who love Old Town were given a shock. That
[15:15] shock is not subsided. Trust, fragile after OCP 2050 is
[15:19] further broken. While the public hearing was waived by the
[15:22] majority of council, perhaps other changes can be made. The
[15:26] hotel working group, which created the greater Victoria Hotel Development
[15:29] report, which is the underpinning for the bylaw amendments before
[15:32] us. But there was no similar group struck to consult
[15:36] on Old Town Heritage. So, um, I would like to
[15:40] make an amendment to the seven instructions that are there.
[15:46] Namely, the insertions of an item between items three and
[15:49] four. Go ahead. Just to give us a minute to
[15:56] read it. Picture everybody understands what it says. Essentially, I'm
[16:01] going to summarize it, but if everyone else. Hold on,
[16:03] don't do that. Let's let us read it first. And
[16:05] then I'll come back to you after I seek a
[16:06] secondary for your motivation.
[16:19] Okay, that seems on its language clear. Uh, I will
[16:23] accept that as a moving, an amendment. Is your secondary
[16:27] for that amendment? Councillor Howmund is Seconding. Go ahead, Councillor
[16:30] Gardner on the amendment. Excuse me very much. Um, I
[16:37] think the amendment speaks for Sef. It's actually to, uh,
[16:40] direct and get a broader heritage consultation group to consider
[16:43] the updated decal policies for the historic commercial district, Old
[16:48] Town. And that group to include members of the Heritage
[16:51] Advisory panel, Victoria's Civic Heritage Trust, the hallmark society. And
[16:55] no inheritage experts in BC. Thank you very much, Councillor
[16:59] Hammond. Anything you'd like to add. Nothing, Senator? No. Okay.
[17:03] Any other comments. Councillor Kim. Councillor Lord. Um, thanks through
[17:09] the chair. Um, again, a question to the mover and
[17:14] it is totally up to you to answer or not.
[17:16] Um, I, I like where this is going. I just
[17:20] don't know why we're consulting Heritage Experts in BC if
[17:24] this is such a, uh, Victoria specific concern. Are we
[17:30] talking about heritage experts in BC who are familiar with
[17:32] the area? Um, why not consult like federal heritage experts?
[17:37] Just, I'm trying to understand the scope here. Council Gardner,
[17:42] would you like to try and answer that? There are
[17:44] no one heritage experts in BC that are actually in
[17:48] Victoria. A lot of people, I think inheritage world are
[17:51] very familiar with it. This is not identify any particular
[17:54] person. All right. How's your load? Any questions? I do.
[17:58] Thanks for you, Mayor. Is the heritage advisory panel not
[18:02] already involved in the decap updates and also the heritage
[18:07] review? Like, isn't this consultation already happening. Who would like
[18:11] to answer that. Yes, please go ahead. Through the mayor,
[18:15] Andrea Hudson, assistant director of Citywide Planning, um, we haven't
[18:19] yet commenced our projects around the Heritage Programmer Newell or
[18:25] the broader downtown core area plan update. But those are
[18:29] two projects that we, um, we will be considering and
[18:32] we would be bringing those, um, project approaches to counsel
[18:36] in the future. So likely the new council, um, and
[18:40] at that time we would propose an engagement strategy as
[18:43] part of those projects. And we would, um, provide some
[18:47] advice about who should be consulted and counsel you would
[18:50] have an opportunity to sanction that at that time, but
[18:53] that will be for coming to the next council. Okay.
[18:57] Thank you for that. So if I might just to
[19:00] clarify, so you're suggesting that this is already your intention.
[19:06] Um, so the mayor to engage on those projects broadly,
[19:10] including with Heritage groups would be our intention, but we
[19:13] just haven't gotten to that level of detail yet as
[19:16] we're still in the project planning stage. Any questions just
[19:20] before I go back to Consecrator, are there questions or
[19:22] comments. Councillor Gardner? This is to go beyond the, let's
[19:28] get feedback, um, engagement. It's to actually suggest consultation. We've
[19:32] had consultation with the hotel group. And this is very
[19:35] important. And I believe this gives good direction to stuff.
[19:40] Thank you. May I ask Steph, how you would interpret
[19:43] this inclusion. And I guess my question is what impact
[19:46] if any does this have on the larger motion. Ms.
[19:52] Hudson. Um, through the mayor, um, my reading of this
[19:58] is that it's meant to direct consultation on broader downtown
[20:04] core area plan policy updates. Whereas the rest of the
[20:09] motion is dealing with more immediate zoning changes. So I'm
[20:13] not sure if it impacts the rest of the motion
[20:15] or if that's what the mover intended. That's a great
[20:19] question. Councillor Gardner, did you intend for this to have
[20:23] an impact on the more immediate term work, which is
[20:26] the bulk of the rest of the motion? Does attachment
[20:29] A have an impact. I would think so. Yes. Within,
[20:33] yes. So yeah. Attachment A is about author. So just
[20:37] to be clear, you've just wanted to clarify, you do
[20:39] intend this to have an impact on the short term.
[20:41] And that's just attachment A is part of the short
[20:43] term. Yes. Very good. All right. So, um, I'm going
[20:46] to put my question to staff then. What impact would
[20:49] this have on the rest of the motion. Uh, through
[20:57] the mayor, if this is to seek, um, advice from
[21:01] these groups on the proposed tax exemption program and the
[21:04] other zoning changes, then we would have to undertake that
[21:07] work before, uh, embarking upon those amendments. So, um, it
[21:12] would just, it would add some time onto the project.
[21:16] Yes, that was the source of my question because five,
[21:19] six, and seven, uh, if I recollect from the answers
[21:22] to some of our previous questions, we're very specific to
[21:25] those particular programs. Uh, and so I actually support number
[21:30] four. I just don't think that it should be there.
[21:32] If anything, I think it should be a motion arising.
[21:35] Because it seems to me that from staff's response, it's
[21:39] more applicable to the broader discussion, which I think is
[21:42] crucial. What I would be loathe to have it have
[21:45] delaying impact on, uh, in particular, the RTE. So I
[21:53] can support the content of this, but not where it's
[21:55] placed. Uh, other comments. Councillor Caradona. Yeah, I think before
[22:00] it was moved, it actually, we should have talked to
[22:03] staff because I think it probably should have been ruled
[22:04] out of order. Because what this motion is about is
[22:08] pretty narrowly confined to the central business district. It doesn't
[22:13] really have very much to do with Old Town a
[22:15] little bit. Uh, but given a minimum stick, we're made
[22:18] last week or the week before even less so. What
[22:21] this is doing based on my reading is setting up
[22:24] some kind of a permanent consultation group. It's not saying
[22:28] have a consultation with X groups. It's saying create a
[22:31] new group that is much more generally applicable to decap.
[22:35] So to my mind, this should be part of a
[22:38] decap related motion, either a Council Member motion or motion
[22:42] arising or something that would relate to the totality of
[22:44] what's going on in DCAP. I don't think, I don't
[22:46] see this as nearly addressing, sorry, addressing this relatively narrow
[22:51] scope of this motion here. So I don't think it
[22:53] belongs here at all. It's not, to my mind, it's
[22:56] not in order. Thank you for that opinion, Councillor. Anyone
[23:00] else on this particular amendment. Uh. No, you cannot. That
[23:08] is correct. Councillor Thompson. Just wanted to clarify an earlier
[23:14] comment from staff. So if I understand the normal process
[23:18] properly, uh, it would be that staff would go away
[23:22] if this wasn't here. Staff would go away and be
[23:27] looking into who to consult and would come back to
[23:31] council with a recommendation. Here's the people to consult. And
[23:34] that would probably be up to the next council anyways.
[23:38] Is that correct? Through the mayor. Yes, we would do
[23:42] that for the broader revisit of the downtown core area
[23:46] plan and the heritage program update. That is a separate
[23:50] work from these more immediate. Recommendations. So yes, that was
[23:55] our intention is for the, for the bigger projects, we
[23:57] would be coming back to Council to consider the broader
[24:02] engagement plan that we would do. And that would likely
[24:04] be after the election and onto the next council, whoever
[24:08] that is. Yes. Okay. I think that this is premature.
[24:13] So I'll be opposing it on that ground. Thank you
[24:16] very much. Anyone who has not yet spoken wishes to
[24:19] do two reminding that we aren't council. Okay. Councillor Gardner
[24:25] closing off. Closing off discussion. Yes. On your amendment, yes.
[24:32] On your amendment. Nothing on the amendment. Okay. Uh, I'm
[24:37] going to vote against this because I hope that what
[24:39] will happen is that it will not be included in
[24:41] this and that there will be emotionalizing falling this, which
[24:44] would be entirely appropriate. So all those in favor of
[24:47] the amendment. Councillor Coleman, Councillor Hammond, Councillor Gardner. And opposition.
[24:54] Concert Dell. Councillor Kim, Council Cardinal, Councillor Loughton, myself and
[24:57] Councillor Thompson. Councillor, uh, so that is defeated, noting three
[25:02] and opposition. Rather, sorry, three favor six in oppositions backwards.
[25:07] Uh, Councillor Gerd, you're before I move on, would you
[25:09] like to reserve the right to hold that as a
[25:11] motion rising after we conclude this? Great. Excellent. I will
[25:15] come back to you at that point. So on the
[25:18] main motion, not amended. Yes. Go ahead, Councillor Hammond. Have
[25:25] you not concluded your remarks. Not at all. Oh, well,
[25:28] but go ahead then. Sorry. I thought you had. Staff,
[25:33] please put up the map I provided. On page 12
[25:36] of the industry of the industry report, this one. There
[25:39] was a map suggesting distribution of hotel supply. The map
[25:42] suggests almost all of Victoria could be home to new
[25:45] hotels. But last week and since we've heard chatter of
[25:48] hotel projects already envisioned, perhaps 10 for the city Victoria,
[25:52] wherein Victoria? Could we have the map, please?
[26:15] Is that the map you're requesting? Great, good. I asked
[26:23] the question already. Sudsen. Uh, I'm sorry. Could you please
[26:32] repeat the question. This is, to me, my time. No,
[26:40] your time is not recorded when you're repeating a question.
[26:42] The request was staff. Okay. Thank you. Um, last week
[26:45] we heard there's lots of chatter of hotels already envisioned.
[26:48] We heard that jury in our session last week. Perhaps
[26:51] 10 for Victoria. So I was wondering where in Victoria,
[26:54] uh, and how many are envisioned to be reuse of
[26:57] heritage or underutilized buildings? Because it also mentions office buildings
[27:01] in that report in this report. And how many of
[27:04] the 10 envision hotels, uh, would be uncleared sites. Ms.
[27:10] Hudson, do you know that? Um, through the mayor, I
[27:16] don't have the report in front of me, but I
[27:18] do recall that there wasn't that level out of, of
[27:21] specificity around, you know, there was a lot of discussion
[27:24] about hotel opportunities that could be new builds that could
[27:29] be reusing heritage buildings. Um, but I don't believe there
[27:33] was specific numbers in each of those categories. I think
[27:35] they were just all seen as opportunities. And it also
[27:37] talked about hotel opportunities in the whole region in addition
[27:41] to Victoria. Yes, thank you. This schematic shows the dark
[27:44] blue. It's just the city victoria. So are there spots
[27:47] throughout the whole city that are being considered. Perhaps do
[27:55] you need an additional staff person to join you to
[27:57] answer some of these questions? Good afternoon. Mayoraulta Robert Batalla,
[28:06] senior planner, Community Planning Division. Um, if I can maybe
[28:09] try and elaborate, um, with the map, uh, shows here,
[28:12] which is from the destination greater Victoria report is that
[28:16] hotels are anticipated and needed throughout the region. The report
[28:20] talks about there's a full spectrum of different types of
[28:22] hotels, full service, motel, et cetera. And so it's really
[28:25] looking to try and draw and incentivize those types of
[28:28] developments to occur throughout the region. Um, the report also
[28:32] certainly acknowledges Victoria as the Centre for tourism, arts and
[28:35] culture, whatnot, as it's likely to receive the most amount
[28:39] or highest concentration of hotels. I think naturally. But there's
[28:44] no specific breakdown of how many may occur. Um, what
[28:48] assistant director Hudson, I think is trying to explain is
[28:50] that, uh, what was discussed last week is that the,
[28:55] uh, revitalization tax exemption, for example, would be open to
[28:59] providing an incentive where, for example, a vacant site is
[29:03] being proposed for a hotel. And that could be anywhere
[29:06] in terms of a vacant site. It could also be
[29:08] applied to where there's a non - residential building that
[29:13] could be converted to a hotel purpose. So in a
[29:17] class C office, for example, um, as well, it would
[29:20] apply to an existing hotel, motel. If they are looking
[29:24] to also add additional net new guest rooms to their
[29:28] property. And so it's quite robust and flexible that way.
[29:32] But it doesn't specify what specific, we wouldn't get into
[29:35] what specific type of hotel. If it's a five star
[29:39] hotel or three star, et cetera. But she's really making
[29:41] quite flexible and open to all forms of hotel. In
[29:46] response to sort of the key objectives outlined in the
[29:48] destination greater Victoria report. So I hope that helps. Thank
[29:52] you. The tax incentive. The industry report references several times
[29:56] existing heritage rehabilitation within the city. Seismic upgrades conversion grant
[30:01] programs. And suggests exploring or expanding heritage program. Nowhere in
[30:05] the industry report is a 10 year tax holiday estimated
[30:09] at 48 million dollar gift. So how did this come
[30:14] about and who chose this. And why is it a
[30:17] blanket tax holiday. To all or any hotel as opposed
[30:21] to just heritage. Said a Mr. Vitalis from Ms. Hudson
[30:26] or who'd like to take that? Maybe I'll start. Um,
[30:30] the direction that staff have right now was essentially, I
[30:33] think it was previously discussed at Council and Destination Grade
[30:36] of Victoria was presented. And that was just the idea
[30:37] of exploring a tax exemption to strategically encourage the development
[30:43] of hotel type accommodations within Victoria. Um, staff have not
[30:48] prepared the revitalization tax exemption. That's actually something that we're
[30:51] starting to look at and be preparing drafts at something
[30:54] that would come separately to council. The intent right now
[30:58] is that the tax exemption would provide. A proportionate reduction
[31:05] in the municipal tax that's collected for each of those
[31:08] hotels or new motel or guest rooms that are developed.
[31:12] Um, it's not, it would not be a full 100
[31:14] percent exemption of the municipal taxes, but it's just a
[31:17] proportionate reduction. So it is a little bit different than
[31:20] the heritage program. And so we are looking at sort
[31:23] of different approaches for that, but the whole focus as
[31:27] the other week when I call it Malcolm McClane presented
[31:29] the item was that it would be focused on the
[31:31] incremental increase in value resulting from the capital improvements that
[31:36] occur on the site. So it's not a full tax
[31:38] holiday. It's just a proportion on the municipal portion. The
[31:43] property is still subject to all other, um, federal provincial
[31:46] CRD hospital school board taxes. Thank you. I understood that.
[31:52] Um, and, um, I understood the reduction in the conference.
[31:57] But the estimate was still 84 million dollars now in
[32:01] 2026 residents, both homeowners and tenants contributed about 56 percent
[32:05] of the tax revenue that came in. And 2026, it
[32:10] was 177 million. So this 84 million favor will be
[32:14] born essentially by, uh, 56 or 57 percent by residential
[32:22] homeowners and tenants. I think that's important to recognise. Now
[32:28] has the staff considered a 60 or an 84 million
[32:31] tax exemption for any other industry. Ms. Hudson, I think
[32:38] that's to you. Although I do believe that you actually
[32:40] answered that question before. And when we last considered this
[32:44] matter, but please do consider it again. Through the mayor,
[32:49] no, the other tax exemption programs that we have are
[32:51] for Heritage Rehabilitation, um, to encourage new rental buildings in
[32:56] the city and to encourage retrofits of existing rental buildings
[33:00] to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So this would be, uh,
[33:04] an additional new tax exemption program specifically for hotels. Has
[33:10] there been any other exemption at that kind of level
[33:11] of 84 million over 10 year period. Ms. Thompson, I
[33:17] think this is to you. Um, three mayor. I don't
[33:20] have the details of our existing exemptions. Um, so I
[33:24] would have to pull that, but, uh, but across all
[33:26] of our exemption programs, whether they be revivalization exemptions or
[33:30] regular permissive exemptions, um, they told, we are quite generous
[33:35] as the city as we've talked in the past, but
[33:38] I would have to pull the information to look exactly
[33:42] how, uh, much that would be, uh, the number of
[33:47] course that is being referenced here is over the 10
[33:49] year period when we report out on the one year.
[33:54] So the annual amount. So that's what, cause it varies.
[33:58] And properties come on and off, um, each year. So,
[34:02] um, I would need some time to pull this information
[34:05] if it's needed. Thank you. I understood the Rodola 84
[34:07] million. It would be about 8. 4 million per year
[34:10] more or less. Cause of course the 10 years aren't
[34:12] going to be a solid 10 years. Um, so I
[34:15] think that was, uh, no one. So my real question
[34:18] was any other this kind of tax exemption to an
[34:22] industry. So not your housing, but just to an industry.
[34:26] Final comment now, I guess. Unless we get a motion
[34:28] arising after this, the conflation of tax exemption with revenue
[34:34] or taxes years later gives a false linkage. One is
[34:38] not dependent on the other. I do not buy for
[34:41] a moment. That a hotel would decide not to build
[34:43] in Victoria without a 10 year tax holiday. The key
[34:48] themes considered a critical in the letter we received as
[34:52] councillors, uh, a week ago from, um, destination Victoria. Where
[34:58] speed, certainty and red tape reduction. Not tax holidays. That
[35:04] was not mentioned in his letter. Given the absence of
[35:07] consultation with Heritage groups in the public and given the
[35:11] 84 million dollar tax holiday, I can't support this policy.
[35:15] Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. We could put
[35:17] the motion back up on the screen. That would be
[35:19] helpful. Councillor Hammond. Thanks. Mine's going to be an easier
[35:24] one. Um, last time I was on the four votes
[35:29] for asking for a public hearing, um, and that was
[35:32] defeated because five Oden in favor of, um, of continuing
[35:37] to not hold a public hearing. And then I, I
[35:40] heard from people afterwards, and some people said, you know,
[35:43] why didn't you have a public hearing? And I said,
[35:45] well, I don't mind saying I was wavering on that.
[35:47] But then there was also some questions that people brought
[35:50] to me. And as a matter of fact, I remember
[35:52] one in particular, I asked one of our directors. And
[35:56] the director gave the right information the person actually who
[35:59] was asking the question had wrong information and wasn't misinformation.
[36:03] It was just, they had, they had a wrong assumption.
[36:05] And it was on that one in which actually the
[36:07] person had this misconception of what was going on. And
[36:10] I got a really great response from one of our
[36:12] directors about this is that I realised the people who
[36:16] have a lot of misunderstanding about this. And therefore, it's
[36:19] not for the whole thing, but for my statement as
[36:22] a whole about not having a public hearing, I'll just
[36:25] be voting no. I get the pros and cons of
[36:28] the tax exemptions and because it's on the lift, I
[36:31] feel more comfortable with this. Um, but it's just on
[36:33] that, that I'm going to change my vote and vote.
[36:36] No, I know it won't make any difference. But, um,
[36:39] and I doubt no one except me, but I just
[36:42] wanted to say that. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[36:45] Anyone else on this is on the floor. Councillor Coleman.
[36:49] Thank you. Um, we will continue to evolve, but as
[36:55] we do so, we need to make sure that voices
[36:58] are heard. At the last meeting when we dealt with
[37:02] this. I asked if item number two could be severed.
[37:06] So we could deal with the issue of public hearings.
[37:09] Cause I think there should be one. I think the
[37:11] collateral impact on Old Town could be enormous. And I
[37:15] think the public would like to weigh in on that.
[37:18] I was told it couldn't be severed. And that's fine.
[37:20] So therefore I voted against the whole motion and I
[37:23] will continue to do so. Thank you. Thank you very
[37:25] much. Anybody else? Councillor Dell. Sure. I would just like
[37:30] to wrap us up. Most importantly while we heard some
[37:32] complaining about this, this is a absolutely key city strategic
[37:36] priority. It's one of the key priorities for destination greater
[37:39] Victoria. And it's one of the most important policies I
[37:41] think in our city. So I'm quite disappointed here. All
[37:45] these small side quests around what is a really important
[37:47] issue of getting more hotels in the area. I mean,
[37:50] if we're going to do our job here, I think
[37:52] most of us should read the deck greater at Victoria
[37:54] Destination Master Plan, which identifies hotel development as a critical
[37:57] issue for Victoria. We directed staff to do this work.
[38:00] They went and they worked with all the critical stakeover
[38:04] in the city and came back with a suite of
[38:05] policies, uh, unfortunately, um, there's been a lot of admissinformation
[38:10] about one particular policy, which we pulled out. And that's
[38:12] fine because it was quite minor. But the rest of
[38:14] these are really important. Um, so I think it's, it's
[38:17] really exciting day for us to support this because it's
[38:20] showing that we want people to come to Victoria. We
[38:22] want to support downtown. We want new hotel development in
[38:25] the city and we're listening to our staff who have
[38:26] put forward a really thoughtful suite of policies to make
[38:30] that happen. Uh, I don't agree with many of the
[38:32] criticisms here. Uh, the public hearing. I haven't really heard
[38:35] much at all about these issues other than the one
[38:37] that we pulled out, which is removed. Um, so I
[38:40] think overall this is a really exciting win for Victoria.
[38:43] And I don't want the negative comments distract for, for
[38:45] how important this is and how much work. Experts have
[38:49] put into this. And I think this is a big
[38:51] win for our council. So I'm happy to support this.
[38:54] Thank you very much. Anyone who hasn't yet spoken wish
[38:57] to do so. Not seeing anyone else wish to do
[39:02] so. I will just comment that, uh, I do support
[39:04] this. I did think that it could withstand a public
[39:08] hearing, which is why I supported actually withdrawing number two
[39:12] previously. Having said that, I also think that the content
[39:16] of the entire thing is very admirable and quite supportable.
[39:20] So I'm not going to let the lack of a
[39:22] public hearing push me into a dispensing with the rest
[39:25] of it, which I think is extremely supportable. Uh, so
[39:28] I will support it moving forward today. With that, all
[39:32] those in favor. Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim, Councillor Carradoni Council
[39:37] Loughten, myself, Councillor Thompson. And opposition, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Hammond
[39:41] and Councillor Gardner. So noting three N opposition. That is
[39:45] adopted. That would take us on usually two item G1AC.
[39:51] Uh, this was the Council Member Motion that was carried
[39:55] unanimously at the July 23rd Committee of the Whole. So
[39:58] that has been dealt with on our consent agenda. That
[40:01] takes us on to a number of matters under the
[40:04] G1B category. These are all, I feel like I'm just
[40:08] talking about point of information. Yes. Sorry. Oh, I'm a
[40:10] bigger pardon. Yes. Uh, would you like to actually, um,
[40:14] provide a motion arising, which I believe you can just
[40:17] do with the information that you had proposed as an
[40:21] amendment, which was not allowed. Let us put that on
[40:24] as a motion rising. So not a new number, but
[40:26] just a brand new motion rising. You just push that
[40:31] up. Thank you, Councillor Gardner. I completely forgot that. There
[40:35] you go. Uh, moving that, I'm happy the second dat.
[40:38] Is there any discussion or anything you would like to
[40:40] add, Councillor Gardner. Um, previous comments. When I hear public,
[40:46] we're going to have a broad discussion. That's we've seen
[40:48] before. It means frequently a survey and really kind of
[40:52] after the fact. And that it's not really, really consultation.
[40:57] And, uh, I think it's very important that this be
[41:00] up front. And that's why the consultation, I suggest that
[41:03] consultation group. So it wouldn't be lost in some general
[41:06] survey, which can be so, uh, used or misused by,
[41:13] uh, special interest groups. And so I thought that it
[41:15] was very important. I realised for staff members were on
[41:20] this committee that created this, the greater Victoria Hotel Development.
[41:25] And these people, the heritage people and the people who
[41:28] love Heritage are as much stakeholders as hotels when it
[41:32] comes to Old Town. So that's why I wanted this
[41:36] in there. So the heritage group supposed to be broad,
[41:41] not a broad consultation process meeting the usual engagement where
[41:45] you just ask everybody after the fact. I believe they
[41:49] should be constituted really soon. And I'm not suggesting who
[41:53] all goes on it. But that we should get, uh,
[41:56] those are our knowledge groups that we have now. And
[42:00] I think people here, yourself mayor more than mere, me
[42:04] can name probably four or five experts were really well
[42:07] known in this city and beyond this city in the
[42:10] heritage field. And there may be some who are here
[42:14] who actually helped do the first guidelines of Old Town.
[42:21] Yep. Let it open. That's it. Great. Um, yeah, I
[42:23] do support this. And I support it for a slightly
[42:25] different reason. Uh, and that is because as I recollect,
[42:28] uh, we have had extensive conversations about a future examination
[42:32] of not just heritage and old town or the decap,
[42:36] but of heritage broadly. Uh, I think that is going
[42:39] to be an extraordinarily complex and challenging conversation for the
[42:43] next council that will have many, many twists and turns,
[42:46] which I don't believe have even been anticipated at this
[42:48] point. And so I think this fits very nicely within
[42:51] the context of that larger conversation. Some specificity, particularly around
[42:56] Oldtime, but for me, this is just one component of
[42:59] what is a very much larger conversation, which is absolutely
[43:02] necessary. And which I hope the next council will commit
[43:05] to doing expeditiously. So I'm happy to support this. Any
[43:10] other comments on this. Senion, all those in favor. Anybody
[43:15] opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you for that. Now moving
[43:20] on to G1B, this is the report from our earlier
[43:23] committee of the whole meeting today. Uh, we are going
[43:25] to walk through all of the items individually, although some
[43:28] of them, uh, we're unanimous. Some of them are not.
[43:31] So just to ensure that we capture everything accurately. We'll
[43:35] do them one at a time. And I would note
[43:36] that the reason they were working through all of these
[43:38] of course is that as I'd mentioned previously, this is
[43:41] our last Council meeting before we take our usual hiatus
[43:44] in August. So we'll just make sure we get to
[43:47] all of the matters that require any attention before September.
[43:50] So up first was G1BA. And this is the review
[43:54] of the tenant protection Bylaw Compensation Requirements, which was amended
[43:58] and discussed at length. So I will ask for someone
[44:00] to move this, please. Yes, but we're going to go
[44:04] through each one, you know, just to make sure that
[44:06] we have the accurate record of well everything. I believe
[44:09] councillor, uh, Hammond, you originally posed this, did you not?
[44:12] Yes. The Ten of Brecht, yes. So you'd like to
[44:14] move it again. Sure. You have to go through each
[44:16] one. Yes. Councillor Hammond's moving is your secondary councillor Kim.
[44:19] Any further commentary. Seeing none, all those in favor. And
[44:23] he would opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much
[44:25] for that. The promise of tax exemptions for 2027 28.
[44:29] This was in fact unanimous, but we will do so
[44:31] again just for the record. This is G1BB with some
[44:34] elect to move those, please. Thanks Councillor Caradona, seconded by
[44:37] Concer Coleman. Any discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor.
[44:41] Anyone opposed. That is unanimous as well. It takes us
[44:45] on to G1 BC. This was also unanimous earlier. And
[44:48] this is the Council Member Motion advocacy to the Provincial
[44:51] Government on continued operating subsidies from a koala housing. Someone
[44:54] like to move that, please. Also, Gerardone is moving. Concert
[44:58] Kim is seconding. Any discussion, seeing none, all those in
[45:01] favor. Thank you. That's unanimous. G1BD. This is the Council
[45:06] Member Motion on Advocacy to improve return to Futures wanted
[45:09] on warrants. Uh, this was amended, but eventually was supported.
[45:13] Someone like to move that, please. Councillor Thompson. I'm every
[45:15] second that any discussion. Seeing none, always in favor. Anyone
[45:22] opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much. G1BE. This
[45:26] is the Council Member Motion with regard to formalizing a
[45:29] fair wages policy. This was also unanimous earlier on the
[45:32] consent agenda, but we'll do one again here just to
[45:34] be clear. Uh, Councillor Thompson, you moved this. I forget
[45:37] who second did it at the time. The Constacardona, thank
[45:40] you very much for doing that. Any conversation on that
[45:42] one. Seeing none, all those in favor, anyone opposed. It's
[45:47] also unanimous. G1BF was the Council member motion establishing a
[45:51] by name list for the City Victoria, which was amended
[45:54] multiple times, but is now here before. It's councillor Loton.
[45:57] I presume you'd like to move that. Someone like the
[45:59] second account for Thompson. Any further discussion. Seeing none, all
[46:04] those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is also unanimous. And
[46:09] finally item G1BG. This is the Council Member Motion with
[46:13] regarding to emergency response to the metatomidine crisis. Wealth Councillor
[46:19] move that again. Councillor Thompson is seconding. Any further discussion.
[46:23] Seeing none, all those in favor. Anybody opposed. And it's
[46:28] also unanimous. Thank you for all of that. So all
[46:30] of those were taken care of this morning. Moving on
[46:33] on to Bylaws. Item H1 is the bylaw for 517
[46:38] 533 and 537 Chatham and 535 32 and 536. Harold,
[46:42] this is the rezoning application and development permit with variances
[46:45] applications. This was on the consent agenda for the Council
[46:49] because it is preliminary readings for second and third reading.
[46:52] And so that will return to us at our daytime
[46:55] Council meeting in September. And that takes us on to
[46:58] item H2, which was on the consent agenda, but was
[47:01] removed. And this is the Bylaw for 26126, 2620 and
[47:07] 2628 Richmond Road, the housing agreement, uh, and that is
[47:11] the first, second, and third reading of that housing agreement,
[47:14] which would by convention be on our consent agenda because
[47:18] it's preliminary readings, but perfectly appropriate to pull it off.
[47:21] So it's someone like to move those readings, please. Thanks
[47:23] Councillor Careguan. It's seconded by Cons for Dell. Caradona or
[47:26] Del any commentary. Yeah. Actually, I do have a, actually
[47:30] more of a question for staff, uh, when I was
[47:33] reading this one on the agenda, I thought, I don't
[47:35] remember approving this one. And, uh, and then it occurred
[47:39] to me. Oh yeah, this, this is now a delegated
[47:40] authority. So I wanted to ask first of all, is
[47:44] this just, I want to ask how this one went.
[47:47] If I'm not mistaken, was this the first delegated authority
[47:49] for a Sixtory building or, or maybe not the first
[47:52] one, but just how did the process go for staff
[47:55] as a delegated authority. Who would like to take that
[47:58] question. Uh, Mr. Handy, go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon,
[48:03] Meryl, to a members of Council, Jim Handy acting assistant
[48:06] direct divine services. This is not the first six story
[48:12] residential project that has been approved under delegated powers. Um,
[48:18] it is, um, one of the first because those powers
[48:22] and the new zoning were adopted late last year. This
[48:26] particular project you're correct. It hasn't been in front of
[48:29] council because it is a development permit. That meets the
[48:32] criteria for delegation. And as per the land use procedures
[48:35] by law, we're the only matter for staff's consideration is
[48:38] consistency with the applicable design guidelines. And in this instance,
[48:43] um, the application is considered consistent with the design guidelines
[48:47] and if council do have any further questions. We do
[48:49] have senior plant majority Gordon here who has been handling
[48:52] the application. Sure. My questions are all pretty high level
[48:56] because I read the report. I get I get a
[48:58] sense of what this building is. But we've obviously been
[49:02] working for some years to try to streamline development drive
[49:05] down costs, make it deliver housing quicker to people, reduce
[49:09] cost. What can't, I mean, I'm not going to ask
[49:11] you how much this reduced the overall cost because you
[49:14] probably don't know. But can, can you give us anything
[49:17] here about why this is beneficial? How many months did
[49:20] this remove approximately from the process? Like what, why is
[49:24] this good to have this, this delegated authority. I would
[49:29] like to take that. How about you, Mr. Justin? Or
[49:32] Mr. Handy. Through you, Mayor, I'll start and then maybe
[49:37] my colleagues can add, but I think, um, the first
[49:40] thing is it does is it gives, um, certainty. Um,
[49:46] about the process when they embark. They know that if
[49:49] they submit an application that is consistent with our land
[49:52] use procedures by a long consistent with our, um, design
[49:55] guidelines, then the path to an approval in just dealing
[50:00] with stuff. Um, in terms of time savings, um, the
[50:04] time savings, I would estimate at least a couple of
[50:07] months because that's the time that goes into preparing reports
[50:11] for, um, for Committee of the whole getting on agendas,
[50:14] things like that. Okay. And so, and thank you for
[50:16] that. And so the hazard agreement still has to come
[50:18] to counsel though. Is there any theoretical world in which
[50:22] the housing agreement is also delegated. Or is that automatic,
[50:26] this is like the local government act require that that
[50:28] come to us. Mr. Johnston. Thank you, Sue the mayor.
[50:36] Um, Alec Johnston acting director of Planning and Development. The
[50:42] housing agreements are adopted by Bylaw. And so those do
[50:45] need to come to counsel for, uh, consideration. So, um,
[50:51] with the density bonus provisions relying on the adoption of
[50:54] a housing agreement, there will be a need for that
[50:58] aspect of a proposal to continue to come to counsel.
[51:01] Okay. Thanks those answers and thanks for your work on
[51:03] this file. Thank you very much. Concert Dell is the
[51:06] secondary any comments. Yeah. My understanding is this housing has
[51:09] a fair number of two and three bedroom units. Are
[51:12] you able to just confirm how many of those are
[51:15] or is that too detailed for today? Scrutin. Welcome. Uh,
[51:20] yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Mary Council, Jerty Gordon, Senior
[51:23] Plunder. Um, so the application does comply with the family
[51:27] housing requirements. I know the Zone Bella, which is 20
[51:30] and 10 percent of two and three bedroom units respectively.
[51:33] Okay. Thank you. On a three bedrooms, which I think
[51:35] is around 10 or something, which is quite substantial. Is
[51:38] that, is that above what we would normally see in
[51:40] the family housing policy? Or like, does the family housing
[51:43] policy contributing to getting that many three bedrooms in this
[51:46] unit. Mr. Gordon? Oh, just a bit surprised, honestly. Um,
[51:51] through you, yes, I think it's fair to say that
[51:53] the family housing policy has made that, uh, a reality
[51:56] for the three bedroom units. I don't know that the
[51:58] applicant of delivered that without that requirement. Great. Thank you
[52:02] very much. Any other comments or questions on the floor?
[52:05] Counsel Gardner. Thank you. Um, I understand that this development
[52:12] and the housing agreement, well, not quite the housing green
[52:15] has to come through by a law, but fall under
[52:17] the OCP 2050 blanket zoning. I get that. But as
[52:21] counselling is on for the North Jubilee neighbourhood, I was
[52:23] present at the comic meeting and have questions related to
[52:26] the issues rated to that meeting. So, uh, first of
[52:29] all, were there variances during your review. Scordan. Through the
[52:37] mayor. Yes, there are variances related to this application. You
[52:40] please subscribe them. Mr. Gordon, I'm going to ask you
[52:44] a question before you answer that. Am I correct in
[52:46] believing that all that is before us today is the
[52:49] housing agreement and that the other aspects of the F
[52:52] application were delegated and approved by a staff? Through you,
[52:56] yes, that is correct. That would mean that the questions
[52:58] that are appropriate and material today specifically would relate only
[53:01] to the housing agreement. Is that correct? Um, through you,
[53:05] yes, that's my understanding. So are there variances, as was
[53:08] asked in the question that would be applicable to the
[53:11] housing agreement. Through you, no, there are no variances related
[53:14] to thousand agreements. Thank you. Councillor, will you please confine
[53:17] your questions today? Thank you, Mayor. I was trying to,
[53:20] just so that public would understand the whole delegation process.
[53:23] Is parking in that agreement. Is that relevant to the
[53:26] housing agreement. Uh, through you, no, it is not. Thank
[53:31] you. And, uh, so there were no setbacks or shadowing
[53:35] considerations. Okay. So, um, during the Calic and otherwise, there
[53:40] were Community asked considering the approval of this development. What
[53:44] if staff do with any of those requests? Were they
[53:46] considered it all or what happens. During the delegated process?
[53:49] Specifically relevant to the housing agreement, but if you feel
[53:52] the ad, feel free you mayor, maybe just like to
[53:56] clarify that at the time of this application, it was
[53:59] a rezoning because it was submitted prior to the changes
[54:02] to the OCP. So that is why a calic meeting
[54:04] was, was held in this instance. But would not have
[54:06] been required. If it had been applied for after the
[54:08] adoption of the OCP and Sony Bella Amendments. Councillor. Yeah.
[54:15] So during that process, even though it was in transition,
[54:19] were any of the community concerns considered at all. Mr.
[54:23] Gordon through you, Mayor. At the time that the rezoning
[54:27] was being, uh, reviewed, uh, yes, those concerns were, uh,
[54:32] reviewed by staff as part of the normal calic review
[54:35] process. Did they change the proposal at all. Ms. Burden.
[54:42] Through my recollection, know the application was not significantly revised
[54:46] as a result of the, uh, CALIC comment specifically. I
[54:51] would note that there were significant revisions to the proposal
[54:53] through the process, but not as a result specifically of
[54:56] the Kellogg comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And again,
[55:00] I understand as we start out saying is that, uh,
[55:03] we do not give any. Real opinion as the like
[55:08] or not like any of these proposals. We are only
[55:10] here just to rubber stamp the housing agreement. Is that
[55:14] not it? We are here to consider the terms of
[55:16] the housing. Yes. Thank you. That's it. Very good. Anyone
[55:21] else on the housing agreement. So you know, comments, sell
[55:27] those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you
[55:33] very much for that. That takes us on to item
[55:36] H3, which would usually be on the consented gender, but
[55:40] it also includes an adoption, which my convention, we do
[55:42] not put on consent so that individuals have an opportunity
[55:45] for any final comments. So we have also first, second,
[55:48] and third reading of the zoning bylaw amendment bylaw. And
[55:53] for also the adoption of the zoning bylaw amendment bylaw.
[55:57] And so I don't believe we need to separate these
[56:00] two. I believe is not necessary. Is that correct, Mr.
[56:02] Johnston? They can be done together. The preliminary readings at
[56:05] adoption, is that correct? Yes. So we'll take that with
[56:07] one motion with someone like to move those, please. That's
[56:11] the concert Thompson's moving, Councillor Cutler's Second Day. Councillor Thompson,
[56:14] any comments. You're doing any comments. I'll just say very
[56:18] briefly that I'm happy we're doing this and subsequent to
[56:21] a coming to Community the whole Iris CD emails from
[56:25] the heavy industry from heavy industry in this, in this
[56:28] community, as I'm sure others did too, who are really
[56:30] supportive and relieved. And, uh, I will note that a
[56:34] number of cities across this country have zoned heavy industry
[56:37] and light industrial out of existence in urban areas. And
[56:39] they've come to regret it. So I'm, I'm happy that
[56:42] we're going to continue to move forward as a city
[56:44] that not just supports residential, but is a place where,
[56:48] where we make things and where we employ people. So
[56:51] this will provide a lot of assurance and certainty to
[56:55] our industrial partners. It's actually really quite important that we're
[56:57] doing this. Thank you very much. Somebody else. Council Gardner.
[57:02] Thank you, Mirror. I'd like to make a couple of
[57:04] changes or corrections, particularly item six. I'm sorry, just a
[57:08] second here. We're talking about a particular bylaws at this
[57:12] point. You want to start amending the bylaws? Yeah. There's
[57:14] a mistake in that. All right. You'll have to pull
[57:17] the entire bylaw up onto the screen. Item six. Thank
[57:21] you. Hang on. Steph, can you pull up the text
[57:24] of the bylaw.
[57:35] So can you direct us please to the section that
[57:36] you are correcting. Thank you.
[57:47] Uh, obviously consultation one. Whoops. I have here amendment one
[57:53] item six changed. Where is these section? It's two smaller
[57:56] prints. Sorry. Where it says with consultation. What page am
[58:00] I in the right place. Mr. Johnston, can you assist
[58:04] here. I don't know why I've written down item six.
[58:13] I think a little bit of clarity on, on trying
[58:15] to amend would be helpful. So the recommendation. Okay. So
[58:21] I'm looking at the recommendation. Just because the error. I'm
[58:24] sorry. The recommendation is simply that we approve the bylaws.
[58:28] Okay. In the documents, we just got on it. It
[58:30] doesn't have where they're supposed to be consultation. Remember. We're
[58:34] adding consultation. And they have the wrong words on as
[58:38] to who they're supposed to include. So I'm sorry, Mr.
[58:42] Johnston, can you recollect a previous recommendation that would have
[58:46] led us to the consideration of the bylaw amendments? Mr.
[58:50] Kingsley, yes. Yes. Uh, thank you Mayor. I'm just looking
[58:53] at the staff covering report now. And just from the
[58:56] sounds of the conversation, it might be that Councillor Gardner
[58:59] is referring to the background section when it refers to
[59:03] the Community, the whole, the original committee, the whole resolution
[59:07] that it refers to. There we are. Okay. Number six.
[59:14] Thank you. Yes. The intention was for the, uh, calorie
[59:20] type neighbour associations, which means the James Bay neighbourhood association.
[59:27] I've got to consult. Maybe wetter have the right group.
[59:29] I'm still not clear. Number six halfway through. Yes. Including
[59:33] the Victoria West Community Association James Bay and it should
[59:36] be neighbourhood association. And the rest of that sentence is,
[59:42] I mean, the rest. That is a correction that I
[59:44] want somewhere if so staff at least understands which group.
[59:50] Was meant. Very good. Then you're proposing, I don't know.
[59:55] Mr. Kingsley, I'm really struggling with this from a procedural
[59:59] perspective because this has already been adopted by Council. And
[1:00:03] so we're now actually revisiting a previously approved recommendation as
[1:00:09] we are considering the bylaws pertaining to that recommendation, in
[1:00:13] my opinion, that is highly out of order. And so
[1:00:16] I'm going to look to you for your comment on
[1:00:18] that. Because if this is the case, we actually need
[1:00:22] to reconsider this matter, which has a proper procedure, which
[1:00:26] cannot be done today. Uh, three mayor, that is correct.
[1:00:31] The staff report, what's the text that's listed in front
[1:00:34] of Council is in a background section. So it is
[1:00:36] referring to a previous committee, the whole resolution that was
[1:00:39] subsequently ratified by council. And this bylaws, the result of
[1:00:43] the direction that's contained within. If there is indeed an
[1:00:47] error or something that council wishes to revisit there, it
[1:00:49] is procedurally possible, but I would recommend the best way
[1:00:53] to do that would be for a submission of a
[1:00:55] motion to amend something previously adopted, which could be done
[1:00:58] by Council at any time. Now, it can't be done
[1:01:02] now. In fact. Just a second, Councillor Thompson. Mr. Johnston,
[1:01:10] what is the impact on this if it's delayed until
[1:01:12] September 3rd. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify first
[1:01:21] if it's helpful. That this particular, um, part of the
[1:01:25] motion, uh, instructing staff, did you broad consultation is related
[1:01:31] to the proposed OCP amendment to change the design guidelines.
[1:01:36] It's not related to the zoning amendments that are before
[1:01:38] council today. So, um, we still have an opportunity to,
[1:01:44] and we also understand the intent here of who we're
[1:01:47] supposed to be consulting with as part of that broad
[1:01:49] engagement on the OCP amendment, which was always intended to
[1:01:52] come after these zoning updates, um, so if that's helpful,
[1:01:57] we can, uh, so let me be clear if I
[1:01:59] understand you correctly. The consideration of the bylaws that are
[1:02:03] actually on the agenda, which we're considering in this moment,
[1:02:06] uh, do not necessarily prevent us from returning at a
[1:02:11] future date to correct this particular report. Thank you. I'm
[1:02:17] going to suggest Councillor Gardner that you cannot amend this
[1:02:20] today. We can vote on the bylaws today. You can
[1:02:25] return to the September 3rd meeting with a motion to
[1:02:30] amend this report. The two are not an extricably linked.
[1:02:35] And that procedurally is what must happen. Thank you. And
[1:02:38] please just so the general public understands this report was
[1:02:41] part of this week's agenda item. We did not see
[1:02:45] it. When on the 23rd. Like I didn't have a
[1:02:50] copy of this until Monday morning. Well, these reports are
[1:02:54] provided the Friday before. And if I'm not mistaken, Mr.
[1:02:59] Johnston, please provide the correct information about when business was
[1:03:03] made publicly available. Yes, through the mayor, uh, this, um,
[1:03:09] this motion was ratified, uh, on the 23rd. So the
[1:03:15] wording here was presented to Council last week. So the
[1:03:17] text of this material was actually considered and approved on
[1:03:22] the 23rd of July. Thank you, Mayor. We didn't get
[1:03:24] a copy of, see, that's the whole issue. But that's
[1:03:26] okay. This material was presented to council last week and
[1:03:30] was approved. This has been in the public prior, the
[1:03:34] Friday prior to July 23rd. So it's been in the
[1:03:37] public domain for almost two weeks. I get that it
[1:03:41] was on the Friday. I picked mine up on Monday
[1:03:43] morning. But even then. But it's at least two weeks
[1:03:45] ago that this was provided. Yes, but if you have
[1:03:47] it, we can still only make an amendment today when
[1:03:49] it comes up. We couldn't make an amendment earlier to
[1:03:52] correct it. Considered on July 23rd is when it should
[1:03:54] have been amended on July 23rd. So leave it at
[1:03:58] that as it is. The correct procedure now is to
[1:04:00] consider the bylaws which are not tied precipitously to this.
[1:04:05] And if you wish to correct, then aspect of this
[1:04:07] report, you can bring a motion to do so for
[1:04:09] the September 3rd meeting. That's the proper procedure. Now Councillor
[1:04:15] Thompson, do you have something to add to that. Mayor,
[1:04:19] I recall seeing that provision and thinking that there were
[1:04:22] a couple of typos in it, but I didn't think
[1:04:23] it was relevant because it's just direction to consult with
[1:04:27] groups. It would be downtown residents association. And then there's
[1:04:30] a typo in burnside gorge communities. So technically. It's really
[1:04:34] not relevant. And it was considered back in June actually.
[1:04:37] So Councillor Thompson, I appreciate your commentary, but I don't
[1:04:40] want to get into debate about this document because this
[1:04:42] is not before us today. Councillor Dale, do you have
[1:04:45] anything to add to this? Okay. So back on the
[1:04:48] bylaws. Here they are. Um, with someone like to move
[1:04:52] and suck in these bylaws. Oh, yes, you did. I'm
[1:04:55] sorry. Um, Ms. Roader, can you remind me who moved
[1:04:58] and seconded the bylaws. No, who was it? You wish
[1:05:05] to know the mover in Secondary. It was, uh, Councillor
[1:05:08] Thompson, second councillor, Caradona. Thank you. And I believe I
[1:05:11] already asked if you wish to commented. You both declined.
[1:05:14] Which is why we went to Councillor Gardner. Councillor Gardner,
[1:05:16] anything further. I'm not too sure what I can speak
[1:05:19] on. Okay. The last speak to the bylaws. Yes. The
[1:05:22] last item is with a map. Is about the, um,
[1:05:28] James Bay with the Coast Guard and it does not
[1:05:30] have autoinport in it because often point has been removed.
[1:05:35] Does that make sense to anyone? Staff comments on the
[1:05:39] mapping that's associated with bylaws. Yes. Please join us.
[1:05:53] Go ahead. There we go. Sorry. I thought red means
[1:05:55] stop. Good afternoon Mayor Counsel Mike Angrove acting manager planning
[1:06:00] and regulatory services through the mayor. That's correct. Out in
[1:06:04] point has been removed from the zoning. So it will
[1:06:06] remain in the old zoning regulation bylaw as per Council's
[1:06:10] direction until they finalise their planning process. Right. Thank you,
[1:06:17] Maya. Make a comment on that. Absolutely. Okay. Your last
[1:06:20] sentence is when they finish their analysis and I understand,
[1:06:24] of course, we've gone through, uh, the MOU that was
[1:06:28] way back, um, first time we went to a meeting
[1:06:31] at all. It wasn't even a formal meeting, but it
[1:06:32] was a City Hall was about the Oden Point Master
[1:06:35] plan. And I believe it's been renewed three or four
[1:06:38] times with the MOU. So when it's completed, do we
[1:06:41] have a date as the MOU going to be rewritten?
[1:06:44] What's happening with the MOU? Cause I think we're going
[1:06:46] through four or five versions of it and an extensions
[1:06:50] since 2000. And was it six. Mr. Bateman, do you
[1:06:55] have any information on that. Uh, Through the mayor, I
[1:06:58] think at this point the Ogden point is just at
[1:07:00] a, at a standstill, and recognising that, uh, in point
[1:07:04] in the greater Victoria Harbour authority are going through their
[1:07:08] extensive planning process, uh, currently, I believe they'll have an
[1:07:11] update. This fall, um, to the public on how that's
[1:07:14] going, but they are in their early phases of the
[1:07:16] process. Thank you. So is there any intention of recreating
[1:07:19] the MOU so that we have a deadline. Mr. Bateman.
[1:07:24] Uh, no, I don't believe so. Thank you. Anything further
[1:07:28] on the bylaws. Okay. Not seeing anything further. All those
[1:07:34] in favor. Anybody opposed. That is unanimous. That takes a
[1:07:41] song to item H4. This is in fact the development
[1:07:43] program with variances application and the rezoning application for 11
[1:07:46] to 18th Street. This is for the adoption of the
[1:07:49] Zoning Regulation Housing Agreement and approval of the development permit
[1:07:52] with variances application. We'd like to move both of those,
[1:07:55] please. Thanks, Councillor Caradona, seconded by Councillor Hammond. Councillor Done
[1:08:00] any comments. Councillor Hammond, any comments? Any other comments. Let's
[1:08:05] sing another comment, sell those in favor. Anyone opposed. That
[1:08:10] is unanimous. H5 is the adoption of the housing agreement
[1:08:15] for 2501 to 2699 Blanchard Street, 825 and 841 Hillside,
[1:08:21] 2500 through 2684 dollar place and 900 Kings Road. Also,
[1:08:26] I believe known as the evergreen properties. This is the
[1:08:28] adoption of the housing agreement for all of those same
[1:08:30] properties. So I like to move that please. Thanks, Councillor
[1:08:34] Kim seconded by Councillor Coleman. Any comments from Kim McCollman?
[1:08:39] Seeing none, any other comments. Seeing that always in favor,
[1:08:43] anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Well, folks, that actually manages
[1:08:48] to conclude remarkably the open aspects of our council meeting
[1:08:53] today. We do have several items to consider enclosed. I
[1:08:57] will note for the public that despite our fractious nature,
[1:09:00] we are trying to continue to do good work. And
[1:09:03] we will, in fact, be meeting again, uh, on September
[1:09:06] the 3rd. At that time at 9 o'clock in the
[1:09:09] morning, you will see us resume our meetings for the
[1:09:12] last six weeks of this term. I'm sure those six
[1:09:16] meetings will be entertaining, if not substantive. So with that,
[1:09:21] I would wish you all a wonderful summer, at least
[1:09:23] for the August portion thereof. And I would ask Mr.
[1:09:26] Kingsley to remind us of the reasons why we are
[1:09:29] either able or required to move into closed. Thank you,
[1:09:34] Mayor. The reasons proposed today to close the meeting are
[1:09:37] under Section 91C of the Community Charter regarding labour relations
[1:09:41] or other employee relations. Section 91F regarding law enforcement matter.
[1:09:45] Section 91K regarding negotiations and related discussions, respecting the proposed
[1:09:50] provision of a municipal service at preliminary stages in Section
[1:09:53] 92B regarding the consideration of information received and held in
[1:09:57] confidence related to negotiations between the municipality and another level
[1:10:01] of government. Fabulous. I have a motion for those reasons
[1:10:05] to go into close. Thank you, Councillor Coleman, Second by
[1:10:07] Councillor Kim. Any discussion. Seeing none. All those in favor.
[1:10:12] And it would oppose. Thank you everyone. Uh, we will
[1:10:14] see you after August and, uh, hopefully everyone will have
[1:10:18] an enjoyable time with family at some point during that
[1:10:20] month. We'll adjourn for 10 minutes to allow staff to
[1:10:24] move us into closed and also because we haven't taken
[1:10:26] a break in sometime. Let us resume at 320.