Transcript: Committee of the Whole - 2026/07/09

Good morning everyone and welcome to the Thursday, July 9th meeting of Victoria City Council's Committee of the Whole. We are a full compliment in person today, which is nice to see. Today we have for a consideration two sets of minutes, two land use matters, one staff report, and one council member motion. But of course before we begin our work together, we always like to take a moment to reflect and ground ourselves in the reality of the privilege that we share to be here. And these spaces, and to do the work that we do and to live our lives on the territories of the LeQuang and people, the Song He's Nation and the Coast App Sub Nation, who have for so many generations taken the time and taking the responsibility so very seriously to be stewards of these lands and the waters that surround them. The two nations continue to do that work, and we're very privileged to be able to be partners with them, and

some, and sometimes all of that work. And we want to ensure that every opportunity that we have to express our thanks to them and to acknowledge their work that we take, and also to note that as we continue our conversations with the two nations about so many different programs and projects and visions and possibilities that we do so with a very keen sets of gratitude and collegiality and an understanding that relationships at all points require nurturing and sustaining, and that there is work to be done on the part of every participant in that relationship. And so it's important for us always to start our days together by just remembering that that's where we are and paying a little homage and recognition to those folks and to remind ourselves that redesion we make. We hope reflects some of the good work that has been done already.

Faces of the very daunting challenges. They're ahead of us these days, but also an eye to the future, thinking that we are indeed building and rebuilding and renewing a city for everyone here now, but those who are coming. With that, of course, we always say thank you in the language of the La Quang and Hedgesiam dekully, and that is just to say my respect to all of you who are here to the nations and their leadership, to the leadership on our communities, and to every person who chooses each day to spend a moment doing something good for someone else. Hi, Trickess Yamniquelia. I don't have any additional remarks to offer today, and I'm not aware of any late items that need to be added to today's agenda. So I would look for a motion to approve the agenda as published. Thank you, Councillor Coleman, seconded by Councillor Kim. Any discussion of the published agenda. Not seeing any, all those in favor. Anybody opposed. That is

unanimous. There are a number of items proposed for the consent agendal. Just read them for the record, and then we'll ask the question I usually ask. So proposed today, our items F1, the minutes from the Committee of the Hole meeting, held May 28th of this year. Item F2, the minutes from the Committee of the Whole meeting held June 11th this year. Item H1 proposal to appoint a number of bylaw officers, and item I1, a council member motion confirming previously made decision around framework agreement specified funding for the police department. Anything anyone would like to add or remove. Not seeing anything. Alright, so I'm like to move the Consent Agenda. Thanks, Councillor Gardner, seconded by Colourdell, all those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you for that. That would usually take us on to consideration of Minutes, item F, but of course both items F1 and F2 are minutes from previous committees of the whole, which we just put onto the consent agenda. So

those will return to us for a final consideration at a future daytime council meeting. Which then takes us on to item GU1. This is the rezoning application and development permit with variances application for the property at 741 fistguard street. And I'm sure we have a number of staff, and we do here to help us work through this. And so gentlemen, why don't you take your time to get yourself settled, and when you're ready, we'll hand it over to you. Welcome. Good morning. Nice to see you. Good morning, Meralto. Members of council. My name is Miko Batenzo, senior planner urban design with development services. I'm here with Jim Handy, our assistant director of planning. This is a rezoning and development permit with variants'application to construct a. 22 - story strata residential tower with ground floor commercial uses. The application also includes amendments to an existing master development agreement, or MDA, and the key considerations for council, are the proposed amendment to the MDA, which include permitting residential uses above

the second floor, and to reduce the required amount of office space, and removing the historical requirement to certify the building as complying with lead silver standards. Development environment considerations include the application's consistency with design guidelines insofar as its form, character, landscaping, and design, and the impacts of the proposed variances, which include height, unit mix, and setbacks. The site is at the corner of Fisgard and Blanchard within the Downtown Corps, seen in this aerial slide. Uh, the subject property is currently a Surface parking lot. It was formerly a commercial building with Surface Parking, which was demolished in 2019. Moving to the site context, a neighbouring properties.

The site is surrounded by a mixture of commercial and residential buildings, uh, to the north. It's the image of the top left. That's the Hudson District, which is primarily residential with ground floor commercial uses. Across the street into the east is a small commercial building with Surface parking to the immediate west is a 10 - story office building. And then to the immediate South, again, we have a nine - story residential building, and that's the image in the bottom right - hand corner. The subject property is located within the Downtown Corps in the OCP Urban Structure Concept. And this area of the core anticipates the city's tallest buildings along the Douglas Blancherd and Yates corridors.

While the OCP does not specify maximum building heights or densities, the Downtown Corps area plan provides these details. Similarly, the OCP broadly supports a mix of employment and multi - unit residential uses, while the Downtown Corps area plan adds specificity as to where those uses are envisioned. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the OCP. At 22 Stories, we're roughly 78 metres with a density of 7. 6 to 1 FSR. The proposed building form and massing has been organised on the site to be consistent with the OCP's urban structure concept. This consistency supports the overall planning framework, which in turn creates a predictable investment ecosystem to support the city's overall developability and livability. Additionally, the proposed dentity is consistent with the existing zone, which the OCP notes as a consideration for assessing an application's consistency with the planned. As noted in the report before council, the existing zone was part of a rezoning in 2007, which sought to permit a 15 - story commercial building on

the subject property. At the time of that rezoning, density bonus regulations were established, as well as the master development agreement with the MDA to secure at least 60 percent of the total floor area for office space, as well as a number of other amenities. Uh, which are outlined in the current zoning. Uh, and these were in exchange for the increased density of up to 7. 6 to one FSR. And so the current application is consistent with the density bonusing provisions in the existing zone. As such, the proposed density is supportable. Further considerations to assess the proposed height, direct us to the DCAP map 29, and you'll note for this area, the anticipated building height is up to 24 stories or 72 metres, and again, the proposal is for 22 story building at 78 metres, or 6 metres higher than what the decap envisions. This inconsistency is mitigated by utilising a smaller floor plate than what's envisioned within the design guidelines. As such, the proposal is

for a slightly taller but narrower building. Uh, and just sort of generally makes the height consistent with what we'd expect and the variance for the height as well. Uh, moving into the downtown core area plan, uh, looking for looking at land use, um, the OCP is broad in terms of land use, but decap indicates that this area is intended to serve as the Central Business District, which primarily seeks to limit residential use and to prioritize commercial uses, as shown in this map. Uh, and this is the Central Business District, all the area highlighted in red, and obviously the big red arrow is our site. Now looking a little bit more closely, some of the key policies within the Central Business District include concentrating commercial uses and limiting residential uses to a maximum of three to one FSR. And as a reminder, and to offer a bit of a clarification, the existing zone does not limit the amount of residential density permitted beyond the existing zone

density, which is 7. 6 to one FSR. And the proposal is for 7. 6 to one FSR, and the residential portion of that is 5. 8 to one FSR. Council, however, is considering if the MDA should be amended to reduce the requirement for office use and to increase the permitted density of residential use. Given the focus in the OCP to address the housing crisis within the framework of the urban structure concept, the subject site presents as a candidate to consider increased residential use. The factors that make this site a candidate include its underlying zoning, its consistency with the urban structure concept, and its proximity to other residential uses. So what this slide shows, and I can flick back and forth, is just the amount of the core business district that already contains residential uses. And so these areas are all highlighted in yellow. And in most cases, those residential uses existed prior to the policy update that sought to reserve city lands for commercial uses.

So looking at this slide, it's noted that the majority of the block that contains the subject site is already occupied by residential uses, and in general terms, the area of the Central Business District North of Quoront is largely residential. So this makes for a bit more of a contiguous residential area. To consider some of the development permit issues, this slide shows the site plan, the ground floor plan is a bit clearer, and it shows the statutory right away on the left - hand side of the image there, uh, running along the western boundary. This SRW was secured as part of the previous MDA, and it's proposed to be completed as part of this application, constructing that stature right of way was also part of the bonus density conditions. Um, other aspect of the proposal illustrated on this plan include the large plaza area in the northeast corner. Um, the frontage improvements beyond bylaw requirements. And so this includes a boulevard rain gardens on Blanchard and

Thysgard, and the extended median just at the bottom right hand. You can see how the medium goes beyond the sight boundaries. So those are all conditions that are secured within legal agreements, and the recommended motion to counsel includes wording to that effect. Uh, you can also see the commercial retail units, um, at grade here. And so those are along Blanchard and Fizzguard, and then there's also these very small commercial retail units running along the Statutory right - of - way. Uh, and that's sort of a bit of a novel approach to commercial retail units, uh, just something to consider an association with this application. Moving to the floor plan for floors two and three, I can speak about the first variant for council's consideration, so it's along at the bottom of the image here, the southern boundary. And so that variance is reducing the setback from eight metres to 0. 3 metres. And the thing to point out on this plan is that that 0.

3 metres is to the patio area itself. The actual building is 5. 5 metres from the property line. So it's sort of less of an impact than sort of anticipated than what the number might indicate. Um. I'll just return to this in a second, but I just want to move to the third floor, and the roof, or the fourth floor rather, and the roof of the third floor. And so, uh, this is the key amenity area for the building. There's a mixture and hard and soft landscaping features on the rooftop level, and the entire fourth floor interior is dedicated to amenity and office space. So there's a 1200 square foot shared working space for Busing Residence, a sound studio and a fitness space on this level. Moving back to the setback variances, and so here you can actually see how those setbacks actually work. So the setback to the podium is 5. 5 metres, and the setback to the tower is 8 metres. Uh, and

so that tower setback is a reduction from 10 to 8 metres. Um, and then I'll just speak to the podium variance. So this image shows an aerial view of the existing site conditions, which have influenced the recommendation to support this variance. The building to the South is located about 12 and a half metres away from the property line, and redevelopment of this parcel is unlikely giving the properties age. As noted, the actual residential units are 5. 5 metres set back from the property line, making the separation between the buildings roughly 18 metres. The separation distance is generally consistent with our policy. The challenge is that to gain this separation distance, the subject site relies on its neighbor's airspace, which policy generally discourages. That said, looking at the existing site conditions, the fact that this variance is only relevant for floors two and three, and the likely redevelopment scenarios for the adjacent property. This variance is recommended as supportable. Moving into the tower floor plans, the

variety of layouts that you'll see in the next few slides, um, the aspects to draw council's attention to include the sky gardens. So these are proposed on floors 7, 9, 12, 17, and 19, as well as at the penthouse for a total of six sky gardens, not including the penthouse sky gardens. And these all range in size from about 600 to 700 square feet. Additionally, as noted in the applicant's letter, there are dedicated work from home spaces within each unit type. So I'll just sort of flip through these. Not that they're completely discernible at that scale. Um, once we get to, oh, so here's, just, I need to mention this as well. So once we get to the Penteus level, uh, which is this level, the floor plate reduces in size, and the three distinctive sky gardens that define the level. I should also mention the unit mix variances at this stage. And there is a correction in the motion that's recommended to counsel. So

right now the motion says that the three bedroom units are being reduced from 10 to three, and the two bedroom units from 20 to 15. There should be a percentage sign with each of those figures. So correct in the body of the report, just not in the motion. And I can make that recommendation again if once the motion comes up. Um, so that means that the actual three bedroom units are being reduced from 16 to six, and the number of two bedroom units are being reduced from 31 to 24. So these variances are also recommended to be supported, because this application came in prior to the enactment of the family housing unit mix requirements. Um, and so the applicant did attempt to, uh, increase the number of family units. And so they went from having zero three bedroom units to actually six, three bedroom units.

And I believe, uh, four additional two bedroom units were added since that enactment came through. And so, you know, largely that the design was complete. And so, uh, it was deemed at further changes to meet the actual housing unit mix. We're not feasible. Uh, looking quickly at the Section View, you can see that there are four levels of underground parking, which provide a total of 140 parking stalls. Uh, this is consistent with the zone requirement and noting that there are 156 residential units. Moving to the elevations, this is the South and West elevation. You can see the four sky gardens facing south, not including the penthouse sky gardens. Uh, looking at the north elevations, sky gardens facing north, keeping in mind that they're also open to the east and west. Um, looking at the building elevations within the street context, so the upper image is looking south with the building fronting onto Fizzgaard, the bottom image is looking west with the Hudson District on the

right to the north. And it's evident that while this proposal is for a tall building, it is consistent with the urban structure concept. And both complements and fills in the city skyline consistent with the urban amphitheater goals. This is a view analysis. This is sort of taken from, you know, bird's eye view. And so typically, and you can see in the middle of the screen there, that is the proposal. Um, typically we look for this analysis to be taken from the ground view. And so this would be that ground view from the Song He's Vantage Point. And I don't know if the, it's the building is continually being referred to as gateway green, but it's labelled on this plan as gateway green. But that's the proposed building. And so you can see it sort of fits with that general urban structure and the urban amphitheater concept as well. Uh, moving to the shadow study, the proposal does have shadowing impacts. It's noted that these are

less than what would be permitted on the site now with 15 - Story office building. So because we have a podium and tower, uh, distribution of density, we actually have a narrower building and less of a shadowing impact. And it would be consistent with our policy from that respect. Moving to the landscape plan, uh, I can just briefly point out, we've got rain gardens. There's a large public plaza area in the northwest corner or northeast corner. And we have our SRW on the, um, uh, Western property line. Landscaping is also proposed on that third floor rooftop level. And then these are the sky gardens throughout the site. Each of them, uh, around 600, 700 square feet rather. And this is sort of amenity space for all of the residents of the building. I'll flick through some renderings really quickly here in case there's any questions about, you know, how that the building is perceived. You know, looking, it's best to look at the street level

views, um, and you can see, uh, sort of how that building relates to its general context. Material board, I can answer questions on materials. Should there be any. And then I'll just conclude with, you know, the proposalists were a 22 story residential tower with ground four commercial uses. It's generally consistent with the OCP's urban structure concept and anticipated downtown urban form. The proposal also offers amenities required as part of the density bonus conditions within the existing zone. And therefore, its density is consistent with the zone. While the proposed amount of residential use is inconsistent with the use goals and objectives of the downtown core area plan, the underlying entitlements within the zone, the density bonus provisions, continuity with other residential areas and the OCP's flexibility around use make this application a reasonable candidate to consider for increasing the amount of residential use within an area of the city primarily envisioned to support employment uses. For these reasons, the proposed changes to the MDA are supportable

and the application is recommended for support. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Patanzu. Let us start with any questions. Councillor Loughton. Through you, mayor and good morning. Thanks for the presentation. Um, I just have a couple of questions. There's a note in the report that the applicant is indicated they're willing to redirect the amenity funds identified in the MDA to other community amenities at councils direction. Where is that at right now? Do you need direction from us? Or how do we move forward with that? Denzel? Yes, through the mayor. So the density bonus provisions outline, I believe it's 350, 000 towards an art contribution and, uh, another hundred thousand towards the housing reserve fund. And so at council's direction, which would be a motion to amend the motion, uh, those funds can be directed as you see fit. Um, but they weren't proposed to be changed as part of the application because that would then, um, mean that the applicant isn't meeting the density bonus requirements. And

so we've left that for council's discretion. And that could happen at another time. It doesn't need to happen today. Uh, through the mayor of the preferences that if you should counsel wish to make that change, um, uh, now would be the time to make that change in the recommended mother. Okay. Okay. Um. The, the fourth floor, the entire fourth floor is amenity space. So I'm just curious that you mentioned office space and a workout space and a sound studio. What's the sound studio. Chenzo. Yeah. Thank you. So through the mayor, I can just speak to that a little bit. And so, you know, there's, uh, the number of conversation staff have with applicants as they program their amenity spaces. And one of the aspects with living in apartment dwellings in a stratified condominium building is that, um, you know, inevitably end up with musicians. And it's great to have spaces specifically designed for those uses within the building. Uh, you know, to prevent sort of conflict within the building. And so I think

the sound space is the common feature that we've seen in other, um, multi - unit buildings in Downtown as well, but they've proved popular amenity space, um, within our residential, multifamily buildings. Okay. Great. Thanks for that. And then the, the, um, the parquet, I mean, I guess it's basically one, one to one, not quite, but almost. If, if there is a possibility that they aren't all rented out to tenants, is there any way that that could be public parking just in the, is there room for that in the future. Mr. Potenzal. So through the mayor right now, the amount of proposed parking is meeting. The, so there's a site - specific parking requirement with this zone. It's 150 parking stalls. They've met 150 parking stalls, rather. They've met that requirement. Um, I don't think that the city would regulate the parking beyond meeting that, um, sort of at this stage, but I can turn to.

Mr. Handy. Yes, thank you through you may an applicant is satisfied or parking regulations and provided the parking. We don't interject in how those parking spaces are managed. So if there's an underutilization of those parking spaces and they wish to be used for general public parking or kind of least are rendered out, then we don't play a part in that. Great. So there is a possibility there. Okay. And then just my last question. Is those, um, is it the sky gardens that I think there's about four of them spread throughout the building that are amenity spaces. They look incredible. Sorry. Commentary mayor. Um, are those just for the people on that floor or can anyone within the building access those sky gardens or pocket gardens, whatever, however we are referring to them. So through the mayor, there are six sky gardens in total that I believe are publicly accessible for all of the building residents.

Um, and then the only sky gardens that wouldn't be are the ones that penthouse level. Okay. Okay. That's great. Thank you. That's it for me. Thank you. Councillor Gardner with questions. Um, I think you may have answered this one. The corner decks, which I think are wonderful. Amenity to the, cause the larger than someone's little patio. So I think that they're very, very positive. And, uh, so you said there were how large 600 square feet? Yeah. I believe they range in size from 600 to 700 square feet. Yeah. Which is, and will they be outfitted, I guess? I mean, furniture, et cetera. Yes. Do the mayor. So what you see in the plan are what the landscape plans are for these areas. And so they're seating, the raise planters, um, uh, I imagine it'd be the odd barbecue. Thank you. Um, what year was Hudson 1 completed?

I only asked this because of communications that we received from residents. Does anyone remember approximately. Do you remember that? Yeah. Through the mayor, I believe the Hudson One would have been completed. Either 2018 or 2019. Sounds about right. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Um, the comment was made by someone who had written in, uh, that there are still vacancies in the Hudson. In other words, they're occurring whether or not it was appropriate to put in so much more housing there. Now I realised we're not talking about housing today when we're talking about a bill like this. We're talking about housing down the road. And so, um, do we anticipate or to staff anticipate this development approved to be built within the next five years or later? Do we have any idea whether it's going to be. So through the mayor, the development permit, um, expires after two years, uh, and so it would be anticipated that this project would commence within that time frame, but

we don't have any indication that it's a priority or anything like that. Okay. Okay. Mansion has also been, this is people writing in, I mean, uh, about the 2007 MDA agreement. And you've already referenced 100, 000 for the House Reserve and 350 for the art. Um, what would that be those amounts in real dollar terms today? Dansell. So through the mayor, um, the master development agreement didn't, uh, include CPI adjustment, um, and I'd have to do some math to tell you what that would be in today's dollars. Um, but as it's a regulated through the master development agreement, that wasn't a consideration when that was written at the time. Yeah. I realised that. So it cannot be changed now again. We ran into something like this with a previous one, but it was, uh, when it came before. So it was asking for something different.

So that's because this is a whole new really proposal. Then what was proposed in 2007. So that's why I'm wondering, you know, the other one was just more or less a paper stamp with a few changes. This of language. This is a different proposal. Sir question, Her? No, can it be changed? Oh, I see. Mr. Pretend's a yes, the question is, can it be changed to this point? Yes, through the mayor. I think that that council's discretion. Um, I, you know, we haven't conducted a landlift analysis or any of those aspects, uh, on the application, um, but it would be, um, something that typically we would go back to the applicant with and discuss whether or not the application could actually support changes to, uh, an amenity contribution. Thank you. I don't see our wonderful assistant manager here today. Fought director of finance. So we don't know what those values would be in real dollars and as opposed to nominal. Through the mayor. I do

have an estimate that I provided, but it might just take me a moment to bring this up. That'd be great. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions, councillor? That's it for questions. Any other questions just well, Mr. Patazzo is looking up that piece of information. Don't think the other questions, but I suspect there are quite a few comments. So we'll just pause and not place any silent pressure at Mr. Potenza to look that up.

No, through the mirror, I don't think I, uh, have an accurate estimate that I would be valuable to share in this forum. So it'd be something that I like to return to if that question is, um, consideration, but I'd rather have that looked at. Well, I'll ask that question once we get to comments. We'll just leave it at that for now. All right. I think we've asked all the questions. Anyone wish to put the motion on the floor. Councillor Dell is moving. Councillor Coleman is seconding. Councillor Dell, your comments, please. Uh, we'll keep them very brief. I think this looks like a wonderful development and very thoughtful. And I'm happy that staff I've worked with the applicant to make the changes to the use that are needed in the city right now. Clearly the office use is not as, as needed with what we're seeing and residential is. And this is going to revitalize that space. So I think it's a really beautiful development and

happy to support it. Thank you, Councillor Coleman. Thank you. Um, I remember this, this application coming in the past. It's gone through generations now of applicants. Um, it is something that I think is eminently supportable. And I, uh, recognise that that won't make everybody happy. But the landscape is changing and we are seeing a variation on an office space with respect to downtown developments everywhere. Moving this to residential actually makes some sense. And I appreciate very much the comments that came out of the advisory design panel. Who unanimously supported this moving forward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Councillor Loughton. Through you Mayor, I'd like to try an amendment. Okay. Go ahead. Which is around the question I had about. The, um, the amenity funds. So I didn't have this prepared ahead of time. Well, maybe I'll say what I would like to add 100, 000 to the housing reserve fund and then dedicate the remaining 250, 000 to the planned park across

the street. I don't have the address, but the Romeo site. So, um, Mr. Batanza, where would you suggest such an amendment would fit in the context of the rest of your recommendation. Just give me one moment here. Sure. Right. Uh, uh, through the mayor, I believe it'd be under number three. Separate to the reading of zoning amendment by law. The application completes a father. So you would add, um, sub five. Would you? Yes. Okay. Yeah. She's made that's correct. Councillor, would you like to say that again in language that our staff can follow as for an amendment. That, um, how about this? Confirm 100, 000 dollars. To, uh, the housing reserve fund housing reserves that what you want to do? Yeah. The only thing is that there's already a hundred thousand allotted to the housing reserve. Right. Which is why we're saying confirm. Okay. Oh, gotcha. Okay. Housing reserve fund. And 250, 000, I believe you said. Yet park. Park development at. If we had

the address for romance at 1733 blend shirt, 1723 blend shard, something like that. Do you remember the actual address of that property. As CU mayor, the address, one of the addresses is 1703 Blanchard. So if we wanted to be specific for that alternatively, um, the funds could go into the park redevelopment reserve. Um, which is currently, uh, we are holding funds in that reserve for that future redevelopment. But I suspect that the intent, one of the intents of the councillor is to ensure that it goes to that specific site. So would that not need to be specified to prevent it going somewhere else, though that somewhere else might be beneficial, but not necessarily that site.

Through you mayor, that's correct. So in that instance, the specific address of 17. So let's leave it the way I believe staff of put it down there at the 70. What I want to say, the 1703 Blanched properties? Yes. That's it. Is that way it will be allowed a little bit leeway? And just for clarity, Mayor, this is that 100, 000 to the housing reserve fund is an addition to what's already been allocated. In addition. Yeah. Because there is a hundred thousand already going towards the housing reserve fund. So you're suggesting actually 200, 000? Because we were dealing with 350, 000 altogether. Right. Mr. Batenzo, um, or Mr. Handy, I mean, my understanding was that the fund that we're referring to was 350. So what's there now would be 350. If what I understand that councillor is saying they want to add an additional 100, 000, that would be 450. Is that not right? Is that what you're correct. So at the moment the 100,

000 towards the housing reserve fund and 350, 000 towards public art installation. So the simple fix could be to just say that rather as an alternative to the 350, 000 for public art, this be redirected to the reps to be clear then what it should say since we're using confirm as a verb. It would say we would say 200, 000 to the housing and 250 to park development. Yeah. Is that right? Thanks. That way you can. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Through you, ma'am. I suggest just for clarity, um, for where this money is coming from that we say as an alternative to the public art installation.

So it's clear that this is start the sentence with as an alternative to contributions to the public art. That's what you're requiring for direction. Okay. As an alternative to contributions to public arts. Council confirms. Council confirms that. 200, 000 dollars will be allocated to. And then the houser was your fund. And 250, 000 dollars to park development at the 1703 blindure properties. Councillor Lauten, is that what your intention? Exactly. Councillor Carrillon is second day. Councillor Loughton, your comments on your amendment, please. Yeah. It's pretty straightforward. We were just told a few minutes ago that it's best to do this today. So I thought we should just get it done. And in my mind, adding to the housing reserve fund is always a good thing.

We, it's one of our, it's our number one issue. We need to focus on that. So that's fairly straightforward. And then also the park across the street is going to need more funds when the time comes to redevelop it in downtown is in need of more green space and a dog park and all of those pieces. And since the new residential going there, it just kind of makes sense that the amenity from this building would go towards that project. Thank you, Councillor Cardone, on all the amendment. Yeah, I'll just add that we have drawn down the housing reserve fund a bit because of all the projects we've been investing in. So it's good to replenish that. The park I think makes sense. It's been a bit on hold because of financial constraints, but it's still in our long - term plans to turn that into a park. And I think maybe this 250, 000 dollars helped get us there. There's certainly going to be people

own dogs in this building. They're going to want to have access to green space and maybe a little dog run and just having that green space across the street is an amendment for the folks living there. It's no offence to art in public places. But if I recall correctly, that reserve has something like a million dollars in it. And we've struggled to actually draw it down. So I think the priority there is not. I don't think it needs another 350, 000 dollars in there. I think this money would be better spent here. Thank you. On the amendment, any of the comments, Councillor Gardner. Question, um, given the 350 originally assigned to the ARP, was there at any time in 2007 onwards and the intent as to how that would be spent. Mr. Pretenso. It's too the mayor. Thank you for the question. So that initial 350, 000 dollars was intended to go toward a green wall as an art installation. And so there was a

lot of specificity within the master development agreement of what that would be and images of that as well. And so part of the wording in the motion to counsel is just to amend that and had counsel not redirected those funds. It would be sort of at staffs discretion how what an art installation may be, um, but we didn't really want to have that conversation at this table. And so there is specificity in the MDA that it would go towards a green wall. But, um, as a result of this direction, um, the MDA would be updated to be consistent with what's being said here today. Thank you for that clarification. So that green wall was supposed to be. On the original 220. I mean, we're disturbed what's going on in the Northeast corner. Is this going to impact in any way the public space that's going to be in the Northeast corner? Are we taking away from that is what I mean in any way through

the mayor? No. Um, you would not, what's, what's occurring in the Northeast corner is what's shown on the plans now, which is, um, by all intents and purposes, you know, uh, well articulated building that meets that, uh, Northeast corner well. And none of those funds were intended to be directed to any of that. Great. Cause I didn't want to interfere with that. And do you have yet anywhere in the real dollar value. To the mayor, I do. Um, and so it would be, um. Sort of, so in total, there was, you know, the 450, 000 dollars set aside for amenities. And in addition to that, um, adjusting for CPI, it would be an additional 216, 000 on top of that. So it would be 650.

56. Today if we were doing that, I think that's something we might want you to think about. Councillor, after we consider this amendment to your welcome to suggest another one, if you'd like. Uh, anything else in this amendment, Councillor Thompson, just to explore the connection between, um, 1703 Blanchard and this building, uh, what is the approximate timing for the Blanchard project to go ahead if we have that. Director Newman, do you have that information. Through you mayor, we're currently, have included in the Financial Plan that public engagement on the design for that would commence in 2029, uh, with plans to undertake that work in 2030. No further questions. Very good. Anything else on the amendment, Councillor Cardano. Okay. So I didn't know about the additional 200, is it 216, 000? So I'm sorry.

I'm getting a bit lost. So the total CAC here is more like 650, 000. I believe it was just doing the math, but that's not, as I understand it in the actual motion, unless we make it further amendment. Is that correct? That's through you, Mayor. Um, just for everyone's clarity. So the amenity contributions currently, uh, in terms of the dollar amenity contributions equal 450, 000. That's what specified within the MDA and the rather the density bonus in provisions. The additional 216, 000 was in response to Councillor Gardner's request for us to calculate what the CPI increase in today's dollars would be. And so the increase in today's dollars from 450 and 2007 would be an additional 216, 000. Okay. So mayor's not in the agreement at this point. That's the place. And through the mirror, that is not in the agreement. Yeah. Would it be helpful to say something to the effect that if there is additional CACs calculated that they just go towards the

park development? So we don't have to deal with it later. I suppose, although I suppose that anticipates that there would be additional conversations. And certainly if we pass the motion, uh, the rest of the motion once we consider this amendment, uh, I would suspect that there is no direction to have any further discussion on updating it. So the expectation that there would be increased funding. Okay. Now, I can leave it as this then. On this amendment, Customer Hammond Councillor Coleman. Thanks. And through you mayor, the green wall, is that what you're referring to. So does that mean it won't go ahead. Yeah. Through the mayor.

So that green wall that was the, um, subject of the public art contribution was specific to a previous design for an office tower at this location. And so, um, if we could return to the slides, I could actually show where the green wall was intended to go, but it's a completely different proposal from 2007. And so the position on this building to locate a green wall. So there wouldn't be a green wall. Instead, uh, we would need to get like if, if what has been identified here as an alternative to direct those funds wasn't identified, we would have to invent something to put that art contribution toward, uh, because a green wall would no longer be appropriate for this proposal. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor.

Council Coleman. Technical question. What happens if council changes its mind and we don't do a park at 1703 blitchered. Question. This appears to be parks related. Through Merd. There's a few considerations that would, um, come to mind on that, that those properties were acquired through the, uh, Park's acquisition reserve. Therefore, um, those properties, uh, can only be used for park purposes. So we would have to report back to council at a later date or hold those properties until such time as the city were able to develop them into Parkland. Thank you. That explains part of the issue. But if a different council were to decide to sell that property, the money's some of the monies would go back to replenish the parks reserve fund, I think. That's what would happen. And this 250, 000 dollars would then be left floating somewhere. Mr. Budman? Yeah. And through you mayor, it's a great observation. I would, um, advise that we would bring that consideration forward at the

time that council were considering the future uses of those properties as a consideration for what to do with the funding. Um, I'd have to look to, um, the director of finance to see how those funds would be held. But my understanding is that those resources would be held in a reserve until such time as they were used or redirected into another reserve. Mr. Connor, I see you're leaning in. Would you like to add something? Yeah. Um, I just wanted to agree that that is correct. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Considerations. Yes. All right. Anything else on the amendment? Yes. Not to your can we have an amendment to the amendment? Yes. Absolutely. Thank you.

So, uh, instead of to park development, I would like to put an amendment that I go to the park acquisition reserve. And then if we can add something with putting that paraquisition research. I don't know the wording. Seventeen Oh, three bronche would be a priority. If appropriate, I don't know something. So we're going to go back and forth and back and forth. So you need to say after park acquisition reserve with use at. And strikeout park development. That's what properties as a priority at the end of properties. So at the end of the sentence you add. Use. Sorry my mic was off. Perhaps use 1703 blanchet as an example rather than a specific. Well you don't want it to be a priority. Well, our priority if it continues, but I quite take the comment that was made that we're presupposing that we know what's going to happen down the road. So it just made you use it as an example. So you'll need to clarify

because my understanding of the intent by the original amendment was that it is a priority. If I understood you correctly, you're suggesting it simply as an example. Which is quite different. So you need to just clarify what you intend. Yeah. The internet is to the staff to understand that if we proceed with that development of that park or unblindshired, which I personally believe we will, but I think the point was made that we could have this floating around different reserves and the proper place they put it would be the park acquisition reserve. So I think if I understand you correctly, you'd want to say the park acquisition reserve. And then say, for example. Use at. I don't know if that's rap that is different than the original intention as I understand it. But that is appropriate as an amendment to the amendment. So that would be, I remember, for example, yes, that's right. And you would delete the words park development. Is that what you intend, Councillor Gardner? Park acquisition. For example, use at

17 with three blanche properties. Okay. So that's an appropriate amendment to an amendment for a secondary for that. All right. Um, there is not a secondary for that. I would usually second, um, an example or rather an amendment for discussion, but I actually think this is contrary to the, what I understood to be the original attent of the amendment. So I'm not going to second it for that reason. I'm not seeing anyone else wishing to second it either so that amendment to the amendment does not proceed. But Councillor Gardner, you still have the floor. So Steph, if you can just adjust that as in return as to the original amendment. There you go. That's right.

Park development at. Very good. I believe that is the original amendment. Councillor Gardner, any comments on the original amendment? Nope. Okay. Anyone else in the original amendments? Councillor Hammond. On this issue, it's very easy for me to, and just a matter of a few minutes talk about how we move around hundreds of thousands of dollars. But I have some difficulty with making this kind of decision right here. And whereas I appreciate Mr. Patenso saying it's best to do it here. It's the kind of stuff in which when I think about 200, 250, 400, 000 dollars or more for me to be thoughtful, I'd want to give it more thought. I mean, sure, that's why not the housing reserve and, you know, why not have it for this, uh, the potential park across the street, of which our colleague brought up, the dilemma, if it doesn't go ahead. So, you know, I can go along with this, but the difficulty is this is the application is

the big thing. And I don't want us to, to be seen as using these kind of monies as a piggy bank for even very good reasons. Of course, I appreciate the housing reserve fund. Of course, I appreciate the park that is there. But it just seems to be doing stuff that's up around a half a million dollars or more. It seems, I don't feel comfortable just doing it on the fly. So actually in that sense, as much as I appreciate where this is coming from, and I'm sure it'll pass, I'll just vote against it. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the amendment. Just have a question just to clarify in my own mind what we're doing is not increasing the total amount of the community medicies. We're just placing it in different places. Then with the original MDA, is that correct? Yes. Through you, Mayor, that is correct. Um, as an alternative, when we come back to council with the, uh, updated bylaw amendments,

we can come back with recommendations for wording in terms of, uh, reallocation of those funds should counsel wish to pursue that option instead. Okay. Would that be materially different than what's before us as an amendment. Through the merit not likely, we'd probably come back with the same recommendations. Very good. Thank you. Uh, on that, then given that answer in particular, and the answer to my previous question, uh, I don't see this as adding something that is a challenge to the application. So I will actually support this concert Thompson amendment. Thanks Mayor. Just a quick question arising from that. Um, given that this is, uh, like directly across the street, is this what staff would recommend as an amenity relating to this project in any event.

Mr. Pachenzo? Yep. Stuth of the mayor, I would affirm that. I think this would be, um, you know, it's largely a conversation with our sister departments as well. We represent just the planning department, but our parks department as well. But likely the amenity contributions are intended to support and contribute toward, um, the immediate application and its immediate surroundings. And so that adjacent park would be a good candidate. Thank you. Councillor Loughton on the amendment. Through you, Mayor, I just want to, to add that, um, we could amend this or to my colleague. This could be amended when it comes back to us again, right? Like, so this isn't, this is our idea. Um, but it's not necessarily set in stone. So it can, we do have some time to think about it. And I just also want to note, I know this has been mentioned, but the green wall is, is not feasible right anymore.

So we do have to figure out where that money is going. Thanks. Thank you. On the amendment, anything else. Not seeing anything else on the amendment. All those in favor. Cause we're dela. Councillor Kim, councillor, crew. Donnie comes through low in myself. Councillor Thompson in opposition. Councillor Coleman, Councillor Hammond, Councillor Gardner. Uh, so that amendment, uh, does pass and will become part of the main motion. Councillor Lotten, you still have the floor. Um, yeah, thanks and three mayor. I just, just before I have, I've brief comments, but one thing that wasn't mentioned, I don't think was the mid block walkway that's connecting Fisgard Street to this South boundary of the site. I'm just wondering if you could just give us a quick overview of that.

Cause I think that's a really important part of this, this, uh, development that we haven't talked about this morning. Mr. Patenza, do you want any images up on this screen for this. Stuff? Steph, could you pull up Mr. Townsend will tell you which image. This might make it more clear. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you for the question. And through the mayor, so that the mid block crossing is there on the left - hand side of the screen. And so what's being, so this was originally intended as part of the original MDA as well to have this mid - block crossing. And it's important to keep in mind that actually on CORMERON Street, half of this mid - block is already completed. So that actually already exists. Uh, and to a portion of it falls on this site, a portion of it falls on the site to the west and sort of how this is intended to operate is it does provide that mid block crossing

throughout. Um, it's, it's a non - gated mid block crossing. And so it's, uh, a consistently open. There are challenges with gating it just in terms of, um, sort of some of the existing infrastructure and how that building is located on the street. Um, there, um, I suppose the other things to mention is that it's intended as a bit of an outdoor food court. And so the commercial building or the commercial units facing the mid block crossing are intended to provide sort of like almost, uh, food truck type services. And so it's, it's an activated space. It has an active entrance into the, uh, bike lockers as well or sort of the long - term bike parking. And then it has the sort of food court type quality about it so that it's activated and benefits from that passive surveillance, uh, with the activity along there. Thank you so much for that. I just, um, that's really important to me. I think it's a huge

win for finishing that, uh, the, um, the connector between CORMA and Fisgard and also a place of activation, which is great for downtown. So, you know, I'm very supportive of this. I think that the, that site has been underutilized for too long. It's something needs to be built there. And I think this is the right thing. It's sort of been, been stuck. Um, trying to deliver a commercial building, which was proven unsuccessful. So this is a reasonable, um, change to the MD8 to make it, uh, a functional project. Um, it's, I'm always a bit disappointed when the family housing policy can't be completely delivered. But as was noted by staff, the proponent tried. They did, they did what they could. And it did come, it was in stream. So it's a, it's okay to let that one go. Um, and just the amenities that it's, that it's bringing to the community that, that mid block crossing, the rain garden, those sky gardens are something that's

unique. And I think going to look very beautiful, um, and I do think it's a gorgeous building and I always want to give kudos to the proponents when they bring something so aesthetically pleasing to us. That is going to enhance not only the livability, but the look of our downtown. So yeah, I'm happy to support this today. Thanks. Thank you very much. And we'll send the amended motion. Councillor Thompson, Councillor Burda. Thanks, Mayor. I'll be brief. Uh, thanks very much for the, uh, report and discussion so far. I would just add that I think it's a great contribution to this part of the city. We definitely need more vitality in this area. Um, and, uh, with work from home, uh, happening, uh, residential is the way to get that. So I'm very grateful for this coming to us. Thanks. Thank you very much. Councillor Caradona.

Uh, thanks Mayor. Um, can we pull up attachment B page 29. I just want to take a quick look at the, uh, the rendering of the, of the narrow alley that was, uh, mentioned. And while that's being pulled up, I'll just motivate generally and say that this file has been a long haul. And I appreciate that the proponents have stuck with it. There was a previous concept here that would have had much more, uh, office space. And as we all know, the demand for office space has really created in recent years. So it's probably a good thing that we didn't end up with another office tower here that probably would have had really soft demand.

Um, I think this is the right location for 22 stories, 156 stratified units is welcome. I saw snarky comment online the other day. I know on the internet of all places, right? Um, referring to all the condo buildings that are being built aroundwn. And I stopped and thought, what condo buildings? Uh, if you think about all the construction that's going on around the city, it's basically all either market rental or non - market rental or a combination of two. Harris green, the charred arise, all those projects that are being built downtown are rental because we didn't build rental in this city for basically 30 years.

There's not a lot of large stratified projects in the works at all. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is the chard project on Celladonia Douglas that has a non - market rental and anacondo tower. That's the only one off top of my head I can think of. All the rest of the Shotify development that's going on in the city is happening in residential neighbourhoods because we've successfully changed the policies to encourage more stratified housing in residential areas in smaller buildings that are ground oriented, which is where most people, especially families, want to live. Not all, but most. That said, there still is some demand for downtown stratified living.

And we haven't overbuilt on condos in this term. What we've been catching up on is market and non - market rental. So it, but we still need to be building stratified. If there's one misgiving I have going previous comments is around the Family Housing bylaw. It's not a policy anymore. It's now regulation. But I do accept that this project was in stream. I also accept that the demand for family housing downtown is probably a little bit softer. Downtown that it is in residential neighbourhoods. All the first missing middle buildings that have been built and sold in the last year and a half or so. And I pay really close attention to this. Uh, the family housing units are selling. The two and three bedrooms are selling because there's demand for ground oriented stratified housing. I don't know if there's enough, if the demand downtown, I'd like maybe at some point to hear from staff about that maybe when the decap analysis comes back and maybe

we, we tweak our policies or something, but that's a conversation for a different day. But for today, I recognise that this project was in stream, but there still will be some, some two and three bedrooms. And so that's good. The amenities have already been spoken to. They're phenomenal amenities. The piece I want to attract attention to is the top right image. It's a little bit small. I don't know if we can zoom in on it. It floated under the radar a bit in the staff report, but yeah, to the right. The idea there is to have this cool little alleyway that goes between this building and the building to the West with at least two or possibly three CRUs along there. I just got back from a trip to Japan in March with my family and it reminds me a lot of these narrow alleyways in Japan where you have these small little restaurants that activate the street and create these little nooks and crannies

that people can gather in. So I think that's going to be a really big addition to this neighbourhood here. This is still a neighbourhood that's in the process of becoming something, right? It's, it's still kind of its character is still coming into being. Eventually the cool park across the street hopefully with a little dog run. I think the housing and the street activation here will help. It'll complement what's nearby at the HUDS and District. So I really like that little alley and I thought it was worth a tracking attention to it. So the design here is superb. The housing is needed. The 450, 000 dollars going towards the park and the housing reserve fund is a bonus. And my hope is actually that it helps stimulate that park and get it going. You know, 2030 might sound like a long time from now, but it's not. It's only four years. And a building like this is going to take a few years to build anyway.

So, um, I think it's all good. And I'm really happy to support this project movement forward. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Councillor Gardner. Thank you, Mayor. While three bedroom units are required by policy, this complex overall is not designed to be found by housing. Meaning with young children, towers are not usually being sought after by, uh, families with young children. However, I appreciate that the three bedroom units here, hopefully to be occupied by families are going to be in the lower levels. I think that is very positive. When I first saw the schematic for this, uh, proposal, my immediate reaction was how pleasant design is. It is not a cookie cutter design.

And it's got a lot of visual interest to it without being cluttered. I really quite appreciate the design. The fourth floor amenity space will be a unique draw to the building. Flexible indoor space and outdoor amenity on the same floor, I think will be very appreciated. And I also appreciate the lead silver standard that will come with this building. Parking's a bit light, but very supportable. So overall I found this, uh, development permit with variances to be more than supportable. It's very welcome. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Councillor Hammond. Thanks Mayor. For someone like myself who's not a planner, but I get to vote on very complex proposals. I feel confident voting for this project. Another aspect where I'm no expert is on the look of a building and the creative aspects of it. But I actually was taken by it. And I'm very impressed with the outside corner open spaces referred to as sky gardens. I would have liked more two

and three bedroom units. Others have commented on that. However, I can live with the rationale that this was midstream. And they've included more two and three bedroom units than they originally proposed. And I also hear from some developers that, just like my colleagues said, the downtown is not necessarily the child rearing place that we would like it to be. Um, while I do believe in some minimum requirements for housing and have voted for minimums, I don't want to interfere with the developer who decides on the number of bedrooms downtown, especially when they've, um, got a number of the men here. Some of the opposition, uh, which was from two years ago related to parking. And I see that this proposal has quite a bit of parking, which I think they'll need. So thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Um, I'm not going to add to the positive comments other than to agree with them. The words that come to mind on this, um,

I think, um, are slightly different. I think it's incredibly elegant and amazingly innovative. I think in eventually that this will become an iconic building to which people refer as let's go meet at. And I think the demonstration of how you can provide livable spaces and make them interesting and remarkable and something that you would talk about. Is a demonstration that other developers should consider. You can make it cool and still make it work. So I'm completely supportive of this going forward. All those in favor. Is anyone opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you very much stuff. And thank you very much of course to the applicant for sticking with us. And we're all these years. And I can't wait to see it under construction and look forward to seeing it when it's done. All right. That takes us on to our next item of land use.

This is item G2. This is the Rezoning application and development permit with variances application for 235 Russell Street. I believe we do have different staff with the different presentations. So once again, once our staff get themselves comfortable and ready, we'll pitch it over to you. Welcome. Nice to see you again.

Good morning, Meralto. Members of council. My name is Matt Kuziak. I'm a planner in development services in the planning and development department. Before you today is an application for a rezoning and a concurrent development permit with variances application for two, three, five Russell Street in Vic West. The proposal is to rezone to a new site - specific zone to increase the permitted density and to allow residential use to enable the construction of a new six - story predominantly residential building with 30 dwelling units and at grade park aid and one story of light industrial space. Here are the relevant sections of the local government act.

The rezoning application proposes increasing the density from 3. 0 to one FSR to 4. 77 to 1 FSR. And adding residential use, while the development permit addresses the building's form and character and includes variances for height, setbacks, parking, and loading. Due to lack of alignment with city policies, regulations and design guidelines, as well as the impacts of the proposed variances. Staff recommend declining the application. Here's the aerial photo of the subject property. The property is currently vacant and is located on the east side of Russell Street, south of the squamout road and the ENN rail trail. The surrounding area includes a mix of light industrial uses, low to mid - rise residential uses. The site is located within the Esquimate Road Employment area and adjacent to the new Lime Bay village. The area also hosts a number of heritage registered and heritage designated properties. Here's a photo of the subject property from Russell Street. We can see the Victoria cannabis company on the left there

and the Ormonds Biscuit factory, which is currently a self - storage facility on the right. Looking at the neighbouring properties. There's a parking lot for the Victoria Cannabis Company to the north in the image one. There are three - story residential buildings across Russell Street to the west in image two. And the Ormonds Biscuit factory to the south in images three and four. Beginning with a discussion on the rezoning application. Council should consider the land uses proposed on the site as well as the density proposed. We can see the subject site on the left in Vic West in the blue star. Within the context of the official community plan, this property is located in the residential fabric of the urban structure concept. On the periphery of the lime bay village. This designation envisions a mix of uses as well as a low rise fine - grained rhythm, meaning typically smaller - scale buildings with active uses to create and retain that village feel. The OCP

envisions a perimeter block form for residential development with buildings framing the street while providing substantial landscaped open space in the rear for trees and amenity space for residents. Disproposal occupies nearly the entire site. And does not provide any open space or landscaping. As a result, it is inconsistent with the urban structure concept. The rezoning and development policy provides more detailed site - specific guidance for land use and built form. This identifies the site in the Esquimalte Road Employment Area. The proposal aligns with the Envision uses here. Including industrial employment and residential mixed use, again at the blue star. Up to 2. 5 to one floor space ratio and five stories in height. Is envisioned with light industrial uses on the ground floor. Although the land uses proposed are generally consistent with the OCP and the rezoning and development policy, the proposals significantly exceeds the envisioned density and height. Looking at the heritage context. Development should reflect the local context and can both enhance and conserve

heritage while creating buildings of future heritage merit. New development should provide a thoughtful design approach, adjacent to such buildings. The neighbouring Orman's Biscuit factory holds significant heritage merit based on its architecture, location, and past uses. The proposal has not provided an appropriate response to the heritage context. Looking at some additional rezoning considerations. Typically, in order to achieve additional density for residential rezonings, significant public benefit is provided. This may take the form of public - oal improvements such as parks or plazas. Affordable housing commitments or secured rental tenure commitments. Sufficient rationale for this increase in density has now been provided. Additionally, a 0. 64 metre road dedication is required at this site to achieve the mobility and urban forestry goals for Russell Street. This road dedication has not been provided. The proposal also includes three small trees in planter boxes. Which does not satisfy the requirements of the city's tree protection bylaw. The reasoning and development policy also encourages meeting the family housing requirements of zoning

by LOU 2018. The proposal includes approximately 24 bedrooms that would not be considered bedrooms under the zoning byla 2018. As they did not have operable windows. The reasoning application is considered not supportable. Moving on to the development permit with variances. Council should now be considering the form, character, and design of the proposal and impacts of the proposed variances. As I move through the plans, I'll mention the supportability of the variances and note the main areas of concern regarding alignment with the design guidelines. Here's the site plan for the proposed Six Story Building, and here is the footprint of the building. The proposed variances to the rear yard setback in north side yard setback. Would enable the building to occupy nearly the entire site. This is inconsistent with both the perimeter block form and the design guidelines. The setback variances are not supportable. On the ground floor, we can see a portion of the industrial space here. As well as the vehicle parking. Long - term

bicycle parking. And short - term bicycle parkind. The proposal includes seven vehicle park installs where 36 are required, resulting in a variance of 29 stalls. Staff did not consider their proposed transportation demand management measures. Sufficient to support that reduction. Here's the floor plan of the 2nd story, which is entirely allocated to the light industrial use. And the third story is the first residential floor with one studio unit. One - one - bedroom unit. Two - bedroom units. And two - three bedroom units. We can also see here the three trees in plantar boxes on the terraces of the two, three bedroom units. This slide shows the floor plans for stories four, five, and six. These floors host one studio, five, one bedroom units, and two two bedroom units. So each of those three stories has that unit breakdown. These upper floors also contain light wells, intended to introduce additional natural light. However, again, 24 bedrooms would still lack an operable window, which is inconsistent with

the design guidelines. Moving to the building elevations. The proposal exceeds the envision height and density by one story and 2. 2 FSR, a suitable rationale for this increase in height has not been provided, and the variance is not supportable. The proposal also lacks a well - designed interface with the street. With the parkade entrance dominating the frontage, in no transition zone, or landscaping. It also does not respond appropriately to the neighbouring heritage context. This sow - facing facade would be approximately four metres from the biscuit factory, highlighting staff's concerns with heritage incompatibility for the north - facing windows and signage of the factory building. Here's the rear facade of the building. Similarly, composed of metal cladding cementitious panels, glass, and concrete. And here's the north side elevation, which would be facing towards the squad molt road. Looking at the landscape plan, we can see the small green roof sections, as well as the solar array area, and the three trees planted in planter boxes on

level three there at the bottom. The proposal provides limited landscaping, no shared amenity space for residents, and only three trees in planters. These shortcomings reinforce staff's concerns regarding livability. Open space, and alignment with the city's design guidelines. On balance, the proposal does not provide a sufficient response to the city's general urban design guidelines. The development permit with variances application. Is not supportable. Here's a recap of the variances. Staff support the loading zone variants and the other variances are not supportable. Ending on or rendering of the building. Overall, this application proposes land uses that generally align with the OCP. However, the proposed density is nearly double the envisioned FSR, and a supportable rationale for this increased density has not been provided. The proposal also deviates significantly from the expected height and sighting and does not align with the design guidelines on Foreman Massing. Relationship to the street. Livability, shared amenity space for residents. Open space landscaping in trees. And neighbouring heritage context. The proposal is also

inconsistent with the city's true protection bylaw and has not provided the required road dedication. As a result. Staff recommend council decline the rezoning application and the development permit with variances application. Thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Kruzyak. I think given the time before we move into questions, as I expect, we'll be quite a few. I suggest that we take our usual morning break now. It is 10. 20. Let us return at 10. 3. We'll move on to questions from there.

Thank you Mayor and thank you staff for the presentation. Context to neighbourhood is important. You have mentioned just fit and form and this kind of thing. But I want to ask some questions about the neighbourhood. And do we have a map of some kind that shows us where the co - op is because we've had correspondents from people in the neighbourhood and comments about the family housing to co - op. Do we have any idea where that all fits. Ms. Kouziak. Through the mayor, thank you. Yes. I'm just preparing a map quick that I'll send to legislative services to pull up. So I'll just be one moment. Okay, thank you. Do you have a different question that? Well, a lot are going to relate to that. Okay. Let me think. Oh, perhaps I don't want to distract Mr. Kooziak. Maybe Mr. Handy can answer a couple of questions. Could be Mr. Hendy condens for a question, I'm sure. Okay. 24 bedrooms on a 24 bedrooms

aren't going to have windows. How many bedrooms are there. Mr. Hedi, do you know that? How many bedrooms in total. Through you, Matt. I might have to refer this one to my colleague, kind of kiss you up with that level without level of detail. However, I would point out that the co - oposing. I'm looking at my colleague for confirmation here is directly across the street on Russell from the subject site. So I don't know how much, how helpful a map is going to be, but it is directly across the street from it. Yes, I have questions about that whole block. So be good if you find the map. Okay, leading on to the question book bedrooms. Perhaps Mr. Handy, you can answer. Does not the building code have some rule about having. Bedrooms having windows. Is there not something? There used to be. I don't know what the current is. Mr. Handy, is that something you know. Through you, Matt. I'm sorry, I'm not

an expert in the BC building code with respect to that. I can only speak to our own regulations and design guidelines that for livability reasons. Um, we expect and encourage windows to be provided in all bedrooms. Screw you, yes. Do the marriages to supplement that. Uh, I believe the BC building code does require bedrooms to have windows unless they are, uh, externally ventilated. So the applicant for this proposal has proposed ventilation for all of the bedrooms. Thank you. And this is your, is this the map that you were preparing? Right. Okay. So Councillor Garner, go ahead, here's your map. Yeah, thank you. So thank you very much for the map. So the large complex we're looking at on the schematic, I'm sorry, on the map.

That is the co - op, is it, or is it 270? Is it 250? Which is a co - op. And what are those two different structures that are across the street? Through the mayor, the co - op facility is at 250 Russell Street there. Okay. What is 270? 270 is a residential condo building for stories. Okay. Thank you. So do we know how many children or what have you are in 250? Just approximately. I mean, this is mostly family or with kids. You know that, Mr. Mayor, no, unfortunately. I don't know how many, how many children live in that facility. Thank you. We had before further down the block, I development coming forward on supportive housing, but we also had something about the cannabis.

Can you tell me which of these properties are now associated with cannabis now. Through the mayor, yes. So the building and property to the north of the subject site highlighted in blue there so that L shaped building to the northwich fronts onto the ENN rail trail. That building is zoned for cannabis retail use. And it is currently operating as the Victoria cannabis company. And no other properties in this area to my knowledge are zoned for cannabis retailer. And then the subject site is currently, uh, included in the proposal is for a light industrial use, I believe for cannabis processing handling storage, et cetera. So also not cannabis retail. Thank you. That was my next question.

So, cause there was, it wasn't mentioned, it was kind of alluded to that part that the commercial part of this proposal before is today is to be cannabis processing. So that is an expectation. I threw the mayor, yes. That's my understanding. Um, however, the zoning applies to the use that's permitted, which would be light industrial cannabis retail would not be a permitted use. Thank you. Mayor, that's all the questions I have right now, but I'd like to move the staff recommendation, uh, for decline when other questions have been completed. Very good bull cannabis. All our questions first as usual. Any questions councillor Cardinal. Uh, thanks Mayor and through you. Um, not really sure where to start on this one. Uh, maybe starting with the industrial capacity. If we could go back to the, I don't know if it's a rendering or a blueprint or whatever it is that showed the, uh, the industrial capacity. If we could bring that image up would be great. It

looks like only a portion of the ground floor has light industrial capacity. It looks to me like maybe twenty five percent like a corner bit there. What image would demonstrate that best. To marry the best would be the ground floor plan? Can we find that one from the presentation. Here highlighted as the industrial use in orange. Yeah. So that does seem kind of low and that's noted in the staff report. Was there a conversation or where the conversations had between staff and the proponent about increasing the industrial capacity. Ms. Kazekroomir, yes. The intent of the policy is to have 0. 5 to 0. 65 floor space ratio worth of industrial space on the ground floor of the buildings in this area. And that was communicated to the applicant. And what is the current amount? The current amount. Whereas the policy would desire approximately 300 to 350 square metres. And in your estimation, is there a way to design this building given the shape of the lot, etc. to meet that objective realistically. Through

the mayor difficult to say, difficult to speculate on the design feasibility, um. Well, let me put it differently. Is there an opportunity to increase the industrial FSR in this footprint? Go ahead, Mr. Henning. Uh, through you, Matt, I think it's clear to see here that the ground floor design has been driven very much part by the access, the vehicle access to the site and the provision of parking at grid and conversations have been had with the applicant because they're a design guidelines issues there in terms of not having a frontage, which is dominated by, um, a parking entrance. So could there have been a slightly narrower entrance in a different design for the, for the garage, which would have, um, allowed more commercial space on the ground floor or even, um, zero park project in this instance, you know, what kind of solutions could be, we could could be look at there. Um, I would flag that. There are, um, non - residential uses on

the second floor. So actually the overall FSR, the density in this building for non - residential is in line with the policy expectations, the shortfall is on this ground floor plan. And it's as a result of the parquet design and the gas. Okay. I get that, but I'm looking at the alternate motion. And the staff report. Points out several times that the industrial capacity is low. But the alternate motion doesn't provide direction to increase the industrial FSR. And I'm wondering why. Through the reason there is because there is, they are technically meeting the expectations around the commercial density. Um, just the shortfall is on the ground floor plan. We expected to be on the ground floor in this instance, most of it is on the second floor. Um, we don't get into the specificity of, um, how that could be addressed. Through that alternative recommendation.

Because as you have heard through Mr. Koozyak's presentation, this project falls short of a number of bylaws design guidelines, policy directions. Um, so this is a very broad brush motion, which would refer as buck to staff to have multiple conversations about different aspects of the proposal. Okay. And, and some additional questions. I mean, this zone is kind of hard to wrap my head around the zone because it's, it seemed to be a zone as like a light industrial mixed use zone. Is the priority meant to be residential or light industrial or is it meant to be both. To the mayor, the site is currently zoned solely for industrial. However, through the update of the official community plan introduction of the rezoning and development policy, there's still an expectation that the property includes some residential use.

However, the flexibility with addition of commercial, employment and residential uses. Okay. That makes sense. Cause what, what I found puzzling in the staff report is that it seems to be treated to a certain extent as a somewhat normal quote unquote normal residential proposal. And some of the comments are more in line with what we would see and just whatever residential part of Victoria. For instance, the perimeter block concept. I don't understand why the perimeter block concept would be applicable here in what is meant to be an industrial zone. Can you comment on that? Ms. Krusiak. Yes. Thank you through the mayor. Um, it's the proposal is predominantly a residential building. A majority of the floor space ratio in the building is residential. Also the OCP designation of the site is within the residential fabric. However, within the rezoning and development policy, which zooms in a bit further and it provides more specific guidance, it shows that within that residential fabric, this is also kind of

a mixed zone that where we should have some industrial use while also permitting residential uses. So because this is predominantly a residential proposal and in the residential OCP designation, the perimeter blog form is expected to be followed. Okay. That's a difficult one to square. And the same with the tree protection bylaw. I mean, obviously if this were again a normal residential zone and normal proposal, we would have much greater concern for the onsite green space. But given that this, I mean, I spend time in this area. It's a lot of warehouses and parking lots. It feels like an industrial zone to me. So I'm just a little bit, I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that we're trying to like get trees and perimeter block into what is essentially an area of warehouses. So I guess the question is how flexible are we able to be? If we want to actually add light industrial capacity in the city, which we have

not added a lot of because it often just doesn't pencil for people. Are we able to be flexible. In some of the stuff around perimeter block and tree protection bylaw in what is effectively a warehouse zone? Ms. Chris, yeah? Yes. Thank you through the mayor. So the design of the proposal and the supportability is predominantly dependent on the uses that are proposed in the building. I would like to note that as this is currently a light industrial zoned property. A warehouse project could be proposed and constructed here that could be essentially a full floor plate building similar to what is proposed here. However, because this has a majority residential uses is then treated more so as a residential building requiring the alignment with the design guidelines and alignment with policy to meet those residential objectives that the city has. So it's in the follow - up then is that if this project had a greater ratio of industrial or commercial, would we treat it a

bit differently? Mr. Handy. Through you, Matt, and thanks for the question. Yes. I think it's fair to say that given the mix of uses and the context here, there would be a degree of flexibility. But, um, we look at this, there's no outdoorman shout out our managed space. There's no green space on this site. Yeah. Um, this, this is a project that, um, Mrs. the target in a number of our objectives here for this area. Um, and, you know, we've had conversations before about, you know, there's no such thing as a perfect project. But I think we need to get more check marks on this, on this project. And maybe we wouldn't expect for the same kind of open space we would find in the general urban fabric and residential neighbourhood, but we would expect to see something. Yeah. And I guess that's fair. Um.

Uh, in terms of the heritage, I mean, again, it's, it's a sort of mixed use industrial area. So why, I mean, obviously if this were just purely residential, I think there'd be a greater interest in the heritage context. But why is that germane here if we're trying to add industrial capacity. Ms. Krusia. Through the mayor, I think regardless of the proposal, regardless of the proposed uses, we would still be taking into consideration the heritage context for a rezoning application. Um, it may carry slightly less weight if it were already a permitted use, but because we are going through the rezoning process, we want to be looking holistically at how the proposal fits in with the context. So then we look closer at the compatibility with the adjacent building specifically, the Heritage Building. Okay. And drilling down a bit further on light industrial, I think probably everyone would be happy if this were like a three or four story non mixed use, just a light industrial

building. That's what I would love to see. All things being equal. We need more industrial capacity. But when I look around the city, there seems to be right now a conflict between our policies and economic reality. Our policy is want more commercial line industrial capacity and employment lands and all of that is great. But there's been very, very few of those projects proposed in the city. If I think back in the last four years, the only non - mixed use line industrial buildings that I can think of that have been proposed off top of my head is the one downtown, which was, um, a self - storage unit. Which actually might have even had a little bit of mixed use in it. I cannot think of any other example. And I mean, I'd love to be corrected by staff. Have there been other proposals in the last four years. Of non - mixed use commercial line industrial anywhere in the city. Mr. Johnstown, is that

a question for you. Through the mayor. Nothing's immediately coming to mind. Uh, but it could check in with the team canvas, the team to see if anyone's, um, aware of anything. And I'd appreciate that. And I know this sort of pulls us a little bit of field from what we're talking about now, but I do think it's, it's germane because the reason that we're seeing these mixed use proposals is because the nonmixed use ones just don't pencil. Even if you have some developers that's like really jazzed about light industrial capacity, it just doesn't make financial sense. That's a caradine. I appreciate your commentary, but it is commentary. Okay. Um, so I guess bring it back to questions. Would this increase the light industrial capacity of the city. Screech. Mayor, as this site is currently vacant, the proposal is to add approximately 600, 650 square metres worth of light industrial space. That would be increasing the capacity. And could we envision a scenario in which there

is a mixed use building here. That has residential and line industrial that works. It's good enough. And we're willing to be a bit flexible because they're adding light industrial capacity. It's your handy. Uh, through you, Matt. The rezoning and development policy actually envisages that. It supports a mixed use building on site. Um, you know, with light industrial on the ground floor with residential above, um, albeit to, you know, a smaller height and a smaller density. Yes. Okay. I'll leave it there, Mayor. Uh, with questions, anyone else. Just questions. Councillor Thompson. Questions and then Councillor Coleman. Thanks, Mayor. I just had a question about the perimeter block just to, just, uh, elaborate on that. And I sent a an image to legislative services. So, oh, actually that image that was just flashed up there would be perfect. There it is. Okay. Um, is that the address there with those white boxes, uh, or whatever those are trucks or something. I'm not sure what those are. Excuse

you. Through the married, yes. That's the correct property. So on the perimeter block, I totally appreciate and support the idea of perimeter blocks when I think about the residential, uh, uh, single detached residential streets. You know, having, having homes moved out towards the street and having a big backyard sounds great. Um, but I'm wondering, do we normally anticipate, uh, perimeter blocks for, uh, areas like this, like you can see north, south and east. It's completely hemmed in by other buildings. Um, is the idea that, um, the perimeter block would develop over a period of many decades. Mr. Krusiak through the merit. Yes. I think the foundational idea is that the OCP is a very long - term vision for how, how neighbourhoods will redevelop over time. However, in the short term, again, based predominantly on the uses that are proposed for a residential proposal in this location, we would still expect to see that kind of landscaped green backyard. Um, maybe not necessarily for the

same goals as being achieved in strictly residential neighbourhoods, but over time still supporting, um, the same goals of increasing the city's tree canopy, um, providing stormwater management, that kind of thing. Okay. And the properties around this one, uh, are they zoned industrial or residential or a mix. Excuse, yeah. To the mayor, they are also both zoned light industrial. However, within the rezoning and development policy, they have the same designation. So the same mixed use designation of flight industrial employment and residential. Okay. Um, when it comes just switching gears here, if we could go back to the presentation and look at one of the floor plates, one of the higher floor floor plates. Which one are you looking for. Um, like third, fourth floor. That kind of thing. Yeah. Four to six would be great. If we could look at the floor plate for Flores, four to six. Sorry, I'm not sure what slide number that is. Thanks, Chris. There you go. Okay. So if I'm

reading this correctly, we've got, uh, on the north side there, we've got an elevator. Um, and stairs. And on the South side, we've got a stairwell. I'm not sure if there's an elevator there. And then the hallway, the main hallway is connecting those two running north - south, is that right? To the mayor, yes. That's correct. Okay. So that, um, seems to result in these long suites. There they are. Yeah. Um, is it, have we seen, um, buildings with this overall shape where the, where the main corridor runs with the length of the building. It's krysic. Through the mayor. Yes, I believe we have. I can't think of a specific example now, but. Alternative, yeah, alternative interior configurations of the units. Yeah. Could, could result in a different, in a different unit shape potentially with a quarter running east - west rather than north - south. Right, okay. I mean, I don't propose to redesign the building on the floor here, but I was just

curious about that. Okay, thanks. I don't have any further questions. Catch you Coleman. Thank you. Um, am I correct that this is 30 units with 42 bedrooms on the residential side. Through the mayor? Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Could you go to slide 22, which is the variances. So if I heard properly, you said that you supported the increasing the very first variance, increasing the permitted height. But the rest of them were not supportable. Is that correct? Scusi, eh? Through the mayor, apologies if I, if I misspoke. Stafford supportive of the requirement to remove, uh, the removal of the requirement for a loading zone. However, the first five variances are not supportable. I suspect it's not you misspeaking. It's me mishearing. So no need to apologise. What would for the first five, what's the play?

What would be acceptable? And I'm looking particularly at reducing the required vehicle parking spaces from 36 to seven. What would bring it back into an area that might be supportable by staff? And I realised that's a theoretical. And I apologise for that. Is it? To the mayor specifically for the vehicle parking variants. A supportable transportation demand management package would be required in order to gain staff support. Um, currently the current TDM proposal has not been deemed sufficient to justify the 29 stall variants. And the six stall variants on the short term cycling parking as well, I suspect. Is that correct? Specifically for the short term bicycle parking staff, we're working with the applicant to, um, staff could be supportive of the short term by skill parking variants, um, but we're working with the applicant to provide the road dedication area as that would likely have infringed on the area for the short term bicycle parking.

Um, but as it stands now, that variance is not supportable. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions. I'm not seeing any other questions. Councillor Gardner, you indicated you wanted to move the staff recommendation. Is that correct? Yes. The staff recommendation to decline. Very good. Is there a seconder for that. Councillor Hammond, your second go ahead, Councillor Gardner on the recommendation to decline. Thank you. With this proposal, we're, uh, Cena building, which were really dominate the area overpowering both industrial and residential portions. Yet it's attempting to use setbacks and other attributes, which we all, which we often find with industrial properties. This proposal is also for an out of line increase in density, almost housing density, almost a doubling of what is the two to one to two point five, two to five envisioned in the rezoning, um, and development policy. The summary provided by the Vic West Community Association Cleary Identifies issues.

The proposed building would obscure the historic two - story building to the South, the biscuit building. No landscaping on residential Russell Street, shortfall on parking. Um, for residential and commercial tenants from clients and potential use of the commercial area to be cannabis processing. Comment has been made about the heritage and industrial areas. As Victoria representative with Councillor Lauten on the Canadian Capital Cities organisation, I've travelled to a few Canadian cities in the last couple of years with historical areas in them. And what is happening in many cities with the terror industrial husband incredible. Transforming them into community amenities through compatible industrial and commercial uses. This proposal, in my mind, is so very wrong. Both as a residential building and light industrial. It does not fit.

And I don't think it has really considered the local context. Quality of life matters for residents. This proposal doesn't meet that expectation. I'm going to just read to you a part of an email that was sent, it's attached to the file. And it's from a resident on Russell Street and just says, enough of the discussing stink in air pollution from cannabis producers. And he goes on to talk about this being a residential street with a co - op with kids that live there. And frankly, he ends it with a very rough sentence, which is what has Russell Street ever done to you people to make us want to ruin our lives. And I think that the cannabis cannot be overlooked. Now we learned only days ago, at least I assume most people learned about it.

Of a global survey of research and policy of the legitimization of cannabis. The study titled International Cannabis Policies and their association with cannabis use, cannabis use. Quint of art mayor. This has absolutely nothing to do with the proposal on the floor at cannabis's immaterial to the proposal. It doesn't even come up in the staff report. So it's not, it's not material. I would disagree with you, councillor. Uh, it may not be material to the considerations of different council members. It is part of the application insofar that it can forms to a certain percentage of the ground floor. So I would suggest that if the councillor wishes to use their time to comment on any aspect of what's included in the design, that's entirely appropriate. Please go ahead, Councillor Parker. What time do I have. You have just over five minutes. Sorry? Five minutes. Thank you.

The study titled International Cannabis Policies and their association with cannabis use, cannabis use disorder and other psychiatric disorders. Shows the Canada's widespread commercialization of cannabis has led to increased hospital visits for psychosis, psychiatric disorders, and an addictive use. Other countries that legalized cannabis but gave a tighter regulatory regime, the didn't involve widespread commercial availability haven't had the same problems. It takes years for the impact of decisions made at this table and other levels of government to be known. This is all, there is already a significant cannabis operations that practically join this building that it's before us today. I will conclude, well, I already read to you part of what that neighbour said. And I think it's very true. We have to be very careful. Processing cannabis will also have odour and will impact people, if any of the odor's escape. And I suspect they will.

I recall many years ago when I first moved to the area, I lived in Sandwich for 10 years. And it was when Broad Mead Maul happened to be just under construction. And one of the first buildings putting in there are commercial operations with a sausage company. It didn't take long for all the other retail operations to leave until the sausage company left. And it was just the smell. And cannabis smell is also a real smell. And, uh, processing there that close right across the street from the co - op, I just can't support in any way. So that's why I support the staff recommendation to decline. And so it's not just the cannabis, of course.

It's the impact and the fact that it doesn't meet all of the other policies of the city. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Hammond is the seconder. Thanks, Mayor. I felt the 15 page report from the staff and all the attachments were quite clear and I support them. Thanks very much. Anyone else on the motion decline? Council Caradona. Thanks. Uh, back to the question of cannabis. Is the proponent proposing to operate a cannabis operation in the light industrial zone? Is that have anything to do with this proposal? Ms. Kuziak. Through the mayor, this would not be zoned for cannabis retail. However, the processing of cannabis, I believe is the research processing storage handling. I believe is the intent of the industrial space, which would be, which would fall under light industrial use rather than a cannabis use. And just to be clear, is that actually, does that form part of the formal proposal. Of this? Or is that just what has been indicated. Mr.

Handy through you, Matt, we regulate use not the user. So what would you consider is allowing light industrial activities with residential on this property, not specificly cannabis activities, although, as Mr. Kuziak has mentioned, that could operate their cannabis processing under the light industrial use. And to be clear, if that were to be the intent, would council at a later date have the opportunity to weigh in on that when they sought permits, et cetera. Mr. Koziak. To the mayor, no, this would be the time by permitting industrial uses here. That would then permit any use that falls within that umbrella of light industrial uses, including the cannabis research processing storage, et cetera. Okay, so that did not jump out at me in the staff report. So is the, did I miss something? Or is that, is there supplemental information that we don't have. Mr. Kruzik or Mr. Handy? Through the mayor, it's, again, it's provided by the applicant as their intent for the space. Um, but

again, as Mr. Hendy mentioned that they could pivot and utilise that space for any industrial use, light industrial use. I'm just want to clarify though, is it reflected in the staff report? Who's the act? Through the mayor, I don't believe specific cannabis use any relation to cannabis use is included in the report. I don't believe. I guess what I'm struggling with is how that's supposed to be material to our decision making, because it's not, it doesn't appear in the report. I think if I can suggest from the procedural perspective, not from the substantive perspective, because that use is permitted. And in fact, in previous discussions has been referenced. It's not excluded from the consideration, but from a land use perspective is just what we're doing.

We're not considering what use. We're considering all the possible uses, which might include cannabis production research, et cetera. Is that correct? Thank you, and thank you for the clarification, Mayor. And also just to supplement, it is a permitted use on the property now as an M1 light industrial zone. So that use would be permitted now as well. So it's already a permitted use. Yes. So then the permitted use does not changing here. Correct from adding residential. Is the only change in use that is relevant for this rezoning application. So I'll just ask again, is the question of cannabis, really, material tried to decision here. Ms.

Krzysky. Through the mayor, only the permitted uses are relevant to the council's decision today. And the only change of use that council is considering is the addition of residential. Okay, I'll take that as another way of saying no, because the permitted use is already there. So back to the topic at hand, which is the staff recommendation to decline. I'm going to oppose it, but not because I think that this is a perfect application. I think it's actually a bit of a mess. And the bunch of problems with it. And so implicitly, I will suggest that I would move the alternate recommendation. However, I think I'll just note it here. That we are in a situation where we are desperate for more light industrial capacity. And as noted previously, unless some of us can come up with an idea or proposal or a project that we're not remembering, there's been exceedingly few examples of non - mixed use like industrial proposals in the city. With maybe

one exception being the storage unit. That was proposed somewhere over by Douglas and princess, I think. Soide from that, none of us can think of any other examples. So we're at a bit of a crossroads because we want light industrial capacity, but the non - mixed use forms just don't pencil for people. So nobody proposes them. So we're sort of pushing into a situation to be being flexible and allowing other uses. In this case, residential. So I am okay with the idea at a high level of having mixed use residential light industrial. Conceptually I'm okay with that. I'm willing to be flexible for that. But this project definitely needs a lot of work. So I'm going to oppose the decline motion and then move the alternate if it comes to that with some amendments. Thanks, Mayor. You very much on the motion to decline. Anything else. Not seeing anyone else wishing to comment in the motion to decline. Council Coleman, go ahead. Thank you. I

will also oppose the motion to decline. Not that I think it's a perfect application. As we heard earlier, they're virtually none of those. Um, it might be seen as a faint hope clause to continue the discussion. But I think, uh, actually the impact on the neighbourhood is concern. Um, and it's interesting that on although you overheads we saw the maps that we saw, um, the parking issue is relevant because the streetscape was filled on the other side, which is residential was completely filled. Um, this one, and I very much appreciate staff signalling that the drop from 36 residential parking stalls to seven is way too big. Um, that will have an impact on the way the building is reformatted. Um. I'm not concerned about bridging of residential and industrial at the moment. It's an open space. We will get something out of it. And with some industrial use, that's good. And the way to pencil it in has been referred to earlier, is to see

blended applications. I don't support declining it outright now, but as I say, I think there's a fairly, it may be a faint hope clause or a hail married. But I think that there is some work that can be done. But I want staff to hold fairly close to their concern about the variances. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else on the motion to decline. Thank you. Aside from cannabis, the building itself does not respect neighbourhood context. The setbacks almost not existent. The absence of many for amenity for tenants and residents. And the overpowering height and density. And the insufficient parking makes this proposal on acceptable, hence my support to decline. Thank you very much.

Anyone else. Uh, I'll just comment that I'm not going to support the motion to decline only because I think the possibility that exists for some use on this particular piece of property. So I'm curious to see, uh, council has an appetite to decline this outright right now or is inclined to enable staff to have a further conversation. So what's been referred to as a faint hoat clause. I think that's true for this option. And for this location, rather. With that, all those in favor of the motion to decline. Councillor Him and Councillor Gardner in opposition. Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim, Council Caradona, Councillor Loughton, myself at constant Coleman and Councillor Thompson. So the motion to decline is defeated. There is an alternate motion in the report that staff have provided. Someone wished to move that Councillor Caradono wishes to move that. Is there a secondary councillor Coleman. Councillor Caradona on the motion, the ultravision. Thanks Mayor.

I think we can now shift our attention to how we can make this project less problematic. Um, I think I want to offer two. Amendments. And I think the first one would be, to add a new bullet. That says. Cancel tricks, I have to work with the alpha. I get to ride sand. Including. To improve the overall livability. Of the project. Or Mr. Handy, how would you interpret that direction if it was a dock pit. Through the mayor, it may be more helpful to be a bit more specific as to what's referred to for improving the livability. Sure. I'm getting out, for instance, the numerous interior windows, for instance.

The lack of an amenity space. Things like that. I don't want to be overly prescriptive, but I was going to say to improve the overall debility in line with comments and the staff report. So you can refer back to that. Would that be better? To the mayor, yes. Um, it may also help to say improve the overall livability of the project. With reference to improve the overall livability of the project in alignment with the general urban design guidelines. Sure. If that's helpful for you. In general, alignment. I think that's an important word so that it's not rigidly applied. Adrenal alignment. With the design guidelines. With the City's design guidelines. Yeah, specifically through your mayor, the city's general urban design guidelines are what is being used to review. The project. General River Design guidelines. Okay. That seems adding a level of specificity that sounds helpful. Is there a seconder for that amendment. Councillor Kim is seconding.

Councillor Cardona on your amendment. Yeah, I think it's problematic. That you have fewer than four minutes for all this. I think it's generally problematic that the so many interior windows. I gather that on zero lot lines, you can't have windows, but you can have them on interior courtyards. Like there could be a concept here where maybe above floor two, area where Windows, even if the spectacular view, at least the natural light, I think that there are some design and architectural solutions here. And I just want to push these folks a bit more to do better because we are being flexible because they're adding some light industrial capacity. I mean, if this were a non - mixed use building in South Jubilee or Oaklands, I'd have very different things to say about it. But I'm trying to be flexible because I really value light industrial, but still, it doesn't mean that there should be such poor livability. So they, the more work to do. Thank you

for that. Uh, Councillor Coleman, you seconded that, I believe. No, Councillor Kim, my apologies. Good, Councillor Kim on the amendment. Thanks a question to staff through the chair. Um, when we're talking about the BC building code and ventilation, what does that mean. Like event in the wall that just pumps air out or like, yeah. Ms. Kruziek? Explain it to me like I'm six to the mayor. I myself have a very rudimentary understanding of the BC Building Code, but my understanding is that when bedrooms under the BC building code are ventilated, meaning they are, they have air circulation through the room via event of some sort.

They don't necessarily need an operable exterior window. Um, however, we really can predominantly comment on the requirements or what, what is directed via the design guidelines, which is to have an operable window in every bedroom. There were a couple of three bedrooms proposed here. And did they have windows. Miss music. To the mayor in the two, there are two, three bedroom units currently. And each of those in each of those three bedroom units, one of the bedrooms has an external window. Okay. Thanks. Um, I thank you for that. Um, the reason I ask is because, um, many moons ago, I used to be involved in property management of a residential unit. And it was three bedrooms and had windows. And fans. And it still developed mold because humans free. We breathe wheat. Exhale, moisture. And just because this family didn't think, um, turn on fans and keep things ventilated even with windows. It developed mold.

It, it's just the nature of being in this climate. So, um, I think it's quite smart that we include windows in our design guidelines. And I think it's actually a health and safety thing that we should be following a set guidelines. Um, moreover, I worry about honestly heat, extreme heat and how, um, not having adequate ventilation, even if it meets the BC building code, um, could really be another public health matter for us to consider. Okay. Thanks. Thank you on the amendment. Oh yes, go ahead, Mr. Cazier. Apologies through the mayor. I misspoke. I just like to correct myself that for each of those two, three bedroom units, each of those units has two bedrooms that have external windows, meaning one bedroom in each of those units does not. Expect clarification. On this amendment, any other comments. Let's see, get out of your comments, all those in favor of this amendment. Does anyone opposed. That amendment is unanimous. Thank you. Councillor Cardona, you still live

the floor? Yeah, two more, I think. So the one on meeting the requirements of the tree protection bylaw. I've struggled with this one because again, looking at the aerial view, it's essentially zero lot lines all around with warehouses. In theory, there would be your amendment before you motivate, please. Okay. Um, I think what I would do then is say to provide, well, this would be, sorry, there wouldn't be a new bullet. It would be modifying the tree protection by law bullet. To say provide for flexibility as pertains to the tree production bylaw. So let me just ask you, you're intending that it does not necessarily need to meet the requirements. Is that correct? That's correct.

Okay. Right flexibility is a prince of beatings required. Okay. So there you go. You just strike that out. Thank you for a seconder for that. As I asked for clarification, it is adopting this would essentially say make an effort, but not necessarily meet it exactly. Yeah. Councillor Dyna. Okay. Councillor Cardono on the Summitment. Part of me wants to just cut it, but I also would like to leave it in there in case there's opportunities to add green space and trees. But I am personally thinking of this as a light industrial zone in which there's some residential that's being shoehorned into it, but it doesn't radically transform this into a residential zone in which we need a perimeter block and we need all the trees and or the things that we would ordinarily have in a residential area. This is like look at the, at the aerial of this. These are warehouses with zero law lines.

So I just think it's somewhat absurd to expect that that we're going to transform that into something like we might see in Oaklands or something like that. So I, again, I'm willing to be flexible because these folks are trying to add light industrial capacity. And I don't want to take up more of the footprint. For green space. I mean, the people who are going to live here eventually, if this ever gets built, have to understand that they are moving into basically an industrial zone. There's going to be smells. There's going to be sounds. Irrespective of whether or not there are, uh, cannabis uses in a future building here. The VCC has a couple doors away.

There's definitely smells that come from that. Every time I go buy on the goose, you smell it. So, you know, copy out emptor. If you're moving into the zone, you're moving into an industrial zone. And that is just like something people need to be aware of. So I don't think that the expectation of a future rented here is that they're in a tree line street in Southiblee or Oaklands. They're moving into industrial zone. So I'm happy to provide some flexibility as pertains to the tree protection bylaw in this instance. Council Doll is a secondary of the amendment. Anything on the amendment. Yeah. Okay. Councillor. Through you, Mayor, I just want to, this, from my understanding, this is a residential zone that also allows industrial. What technically is it in the OCP. Mr. Kruziek. Through the mayor, in the official community plan urban structure concept, this site is identified as residential fabric. And then within more detail provided by the rezoning and development policy, this is

identified as a mixed use zone. So it's this zone, this property is not in the industrial land reserve, for example. This is intended to provide more flexibility with a mixture of uses. Okay. And can you just confirm for me at 250 Russell Street, which is across the street. That's a, it's a co - op housing. Project. And what is 270 Russell, which is at the corner of a squamol road in Russell Street. Through the mayor, that is also an industrial condo complex. I believe four stories and height. Okay. And then, um, I know this isn't happening yet, but we did have an application. I think it was two for maybe 247 and 249. I'm not quite sure. But, um, the Russell Street, it might turn into supportive housing there. It was a shelter. It was a shelter. It's been closed. And yes, but it was going to be, from my understood last I heard it was going to be converted to supportive housing with, with

BC housing. Is that, does anyone have information on that. That's a project that hasn't yet come forward. Okay. So I think just with those, you know, as much as I understand what the mover is, um, the intention here. And but I don't agree that this is just an industrial zone. There are, there are significant amount of residential here too. So I won't be able to support this amendment. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Coleman on the amendment. Cave at inventory was a phrase that was used. That applies to future people coming into live there. It doesn't apply to the rest of the residential zone facing. This application.

This is a mixed used application that has to respect and work with the livability not only of residents coming into the building, but the rest of the, uh, street as well. So yes, 250 is a, uh, co - op housing 270, but just down the street at 216, there's a strata, um, all of which are tree lined facing this. This talks in volumes about the change or the evolution we're seeing as we are trying to find applications that will support not only light industrial, but residential. And I think that to take away the tree protection bylaw would not be helpful. Thank you. Anyone else on the amendment? Councillor Gardner, Councillor Thompson. Covey at mentor. The residentials were there first. And we should never play the game who is their first. Everyone needs a livable area and a safe area to work in or to live in. Thank you, Coltzer Thompson. Um, so if, if we were back with the original wording meeting the requirements of

the tree protection bylaw, what would that entail? What would the pathways be for meeting those requirements. Thank you for that. I was going to ask Mr. Kuziak that same question. How could it meet the true protection by law? Through the mayor, not an expert on the provisions of the tree protection bylaw. However, I do know that currently proposed our three small trees. And there are a variety of ways that applicants can meet the tree protection bylaw, meaning that the three small trees each account for 0. 5 of a tree. So currently what is proposed is satisfying approximately 50 percent of the tree protection by lot, which could result in the addition of three more similar trees that could then satisfy the bylaw or reduction of the building footprint to enable the addition of three mature trees, three large trees that would then satisfy the bylaw.

Thank you. Councillor Thompson. And are those three trees in any of the images. In the presentation? I believe there was an image which indicated the locations of the three trees that were in pots on upper story balconies. Is that correct? Okay. So they're not on the ground. They're on in pots and balconies. Is that right? Correct through you mayor there in planter boxes on level three on the terraces of the three bedroom units. Right. Thank you. Any other questions, comments on this amendment. Thank you for answering asking answering that question. That's what was I was going to ask. Uh, so in favor of the amendment in the bolded language, which adds the bold print and deletes that, which is struck through all those in favor.

Councillor Dell, councillor Caradona, councillor Thompson. In opposition, Coltzer Kim, Councillor Loughton, myself, Consta Coleman, Councillor Hammond, Councillor Gardner. So that particular amendment is not approved and we will return to the original wording and Councillor Caradona. You still have the floor. Thanks very much. Third and final one that I think I have is actually just to delete the first bullet. Very good. Is there someone you'd like to second that, please? Uh, Councillor Kim is seconding that. Go ahead, Councillor Cartano. Yeah. I mean, for me personally, I'm not at all fussed by the idea of having a sick story makes use building here. The other buildings are relatively tall. It's going to increase it a little bit.

But I also think that if we're going to go back and make them do a bunch of new design work around livability because I do think it's going to be significant redesigned work to increase the overall livability. I think it's a reasonable to allow them to work within six stories. The problem is that if we both reduce the height and density and have them redesigned for livability, there's probably a very good chance they say this is just this project doesn't make any sense anymore. In which case we've lost out in the ability to have some additional light industrial capacity and some new housing. So I think it's the future of Victoria. I think we're going to be looking at more and more makes you a six story buildings. For me, my subjective is aesthetics and what works in that neighbourhood and acrosstown. That's, that's fine, especially if we want to be enabling the mixeuse light industrial that otherwise probably doesn't pencil for people. Thank you,

Colter Kim. As the secondary of this amendment. Thank you through your chair briefly. Um, if I voted against lifting the requirement around the treat protection bylaw, I think this strikes a balance for me and I can support that now. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone else on this amendment. Not seeing anyone else on this amendment. All those in favor of deleting bullet one, filter dalic. Council Kim, Councillor Carrigona, myself. Councillor Thompson in opposition. Council Lotencer Coleman, Councillor Hammond, councillor Gardner. That fails on a wait. No, that's not right. That is adopted five to four. Just check with stuff. Yes, that's what I thought. So that's five in favor for an opposition. So that amendment is approved. So that will be removed. And that councillor carry on it.

You still have the floor in the main motion. I'll leave it there. Councillor Coleman, you seconded the main motion. Yes. Now having taken that last amendment into, I'm not sure that I have to think about it. Um, I supported the alternate motion and I described it before the fact as I hailed Mary or. Last gasp attempt. Having changed that little bit around height, this is about working something and we shouldn't describe it as shoehorning. I also don't think we should talk about the area as industrial. It is that borderline between industrial and residential. And they have to respect each other. Um, that means that you do have to talk about height. You also have to talk about the adjacency to the heritage building. Should something go in there? Yes. Um, it puts more pressure on staff because now they don't have the height restriction to work with. I will continue to support this, but it made it more difficult. Thank you. Thank you very much

for that. Anyone else on the amended motion? Councillor. Thanks. And through you, Mayor. I have a couple of questions about the windows. Again, you said operable or staff mentioned operable windows. So is there a window, but it just doesn't open? Or is it no windows period. She goes yet. Through the mayor. Um, when I was referencing through the, what I was referencing the bedrooms that do not have operable windows, they do not have exterior windows to the outside, meaning a majority of them have clear story windows that are internal to the unit. Meaning some light can penetrate into the unit via other windows. However, the bedrooms themselves do not have a window to the outside.

Sorry. Am I understanding this correctly? There's, there's a window to another area of the unit. Common in hotels actually. This is like a hotel. I guess that's what I've been thinking too. Okay. All right. So yeah, this is. There's a lot of things that are working against this project and those windows are the number one thing for me. I don't. I just fundamentally don't believe that bedrooms should not have, um, airflow period. Like I couldn't imagine living in a hotel room. But that's just, I just don't think that that is acceptable. The other problem with this is the housing agreement and that it, um, it's not, um, guaranteed providing rental housing. So it could be converted to strata at a later date. But that doesn't align with ROCP policy because we need to have a vacancy rate lower than, than four percent or part of me, uh, vacancy rate. Higher than four percent for at least two years. So that, that doesn't work. Because the,

the applicant is opted not to secure rental tenure. And I think that is a really big problem. It also has been mentioned it doesn't align with the perimeter block form. And the outdoor or indoor amenity space provided. That's also, you got to provide amenity space. And we've made an amendment for that. Also the relationship to the Heritage Building. And that's why I voted against, um, the heightened density bullet because they, I think the proponent does need to take into consideration that heritage element. And they need to, to reorganise how the massing of that building in order to do that. And on top of that, the materials used are not reflective of the nearby historic properties.

And finally, the TDM package, um, they, they, um, they're not including the ECO pass contribution, which is also, um. You've got to include the ECO pass contribution. So in my opinion, this isn't ready to go. Um, I don't want to stop it entirely. I think that it can go, the proponents can go back and work with staff on this. But the biggest problem with this for me is it's not designed with people in mind. And I fundamentally have a large problem with that. I don't actually think this should be in front of us right now, to be honest, but it is. And that's the proponent's choice. Um, but it needs to go back and they need to work with staff to make sure that it is aligned with what's envisioned for this neighbourhood. And they need to put people first. Thanks. Thank you very much.

Anyone else on the amended motion. Council Dell. Um, I'm happy that we have done some work here to help this project alone. I think sometimes some of us are so eager to reject things and that's not our job. Our job is to help proponents move forward along with staff. And so I think staff have done some of the heavy lifting for us. We have tweaked that. This is a wonderful area of the city to live and to build new projects. It's going to be, it's right by the water obviously. So it's great for that. It's on good transportation roads. It's already in a light industrial area. Um, I think my risk here of kind of what I hear around the table is we want this building to be everything to everyone. We want it to be industrial site. Great to live. Have trees. Have all this stuff. It just doesn't work. And that's why we're in a housing crisis because we've layered all this stuff

on every single project. So I think we've tried to strip out as much as possible here. I don't know how the tree bylaw is going to work. I really, I'm not sure. I'll have to lay that to staff. I'm hesitant of that. But overall, I don't want to kill this project today. I want to work with them. That is our job. And, um, I think this will allow you to get, work with the applicant to get it to the next state. And I trust the next version is going to be really nice and soothe the neighbourhood. So, um, thank you for your work. And I'm definitely going to be supporting this. Thank you very much.

What else am the amended motion. Just a procedural question, Mr. Kuzyak. If this motion is adopted, you and your colleagues go away. With these directions. I presume it comes back to us, even if not every one of these directions is met. So some things can be met perhaps some things cannot. You'll still return with as much as you've been able to accomplish. Is that correct? Through the mayor, yes, that's correct. Very good. Thank you for that. Anyone else on this one? Like all those in favor. Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim. Council Carrion. Councillor Lowen. Myself, Councillor Coleman and Councillor Thompson. In opposition, Councillor Hammond and Councillor Gardner. So that motion is adopted noting two in opposition.

Thank you very much, Saf, for your work on this complicated project. That takes us on then to staff reports. There was one. It was with regard to the appointment of bylaw officers. That was placed on the consent agenda. So that will return to us at a future daytime council meeting for final consideration, as was the one item of New Business to Council Member Motion confirming the framework agreement, um, sections funding for the police department. So that will also come back to us for final consideration to the future council meeting. Uh, we do not have any closed items for committee today. So I would look for a motion to adjourn. Thank you, Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Kim. All those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Uh, let us just take, let's say, five minutes, uh, and then we'll set on to our detect council meeting and see how much we can get result before lunch.