Council unanimously supported a six-storey, 87-unit rental building at 1908 Foul Bay Road, while debating whether its ground floor should include required shops. It also unanimously advanced a citywide update to industrial zoning, but removed Ogden Point from the changes until the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority’s master plan is ready. The most divided decision was whether to put a non-binding Victoria–Saanich amalgamation question on the October 2026 ballot: it passed 5–4 after a motion to refer the matter back to the Province failed. Council unanimously asked the Province to review the higher interest terms for the property-tax deferral program used by seniors and other eligible homeowners.
Generated from the recording's captions and the agenda (minutes not yet published by the council).
What was discussed
AI summary · check against sources
F.1 1908 Foul Bay Road: Rezoning Application No.00896 Development Permit with Variances Application No. 00294 (Jubilee South)
The proposal would replace a former utilities building with an 87-unit, six-storey rental building, increasing density from 1.6 to 2.42 floor space ratio. Staff recommended approval subject to revisions and legal agreements securing rental housing in perpetuity, indoor amenity space, green roofs, and added crosswalk improvements. The design includes 21 fewer vehicle parking stalls than required, bike-lane and sidewalk work, and a landscaped outdoor amenity area. Ground-floor homes along Foul Bay Road would be allowed instead of required commercial space, though live-work studios would be permitted and commercial use would remain possible. Council supported the application unanimously.
Agreement
Councillors broadly supported adding 87 purpose-built rental homes, including larger units for families, at a site close to transit, shops, medical services and Oak Bay Recreation Centre.
Councillors generally considered the six-storey height and reduced parking reasonable for this location.
Council supported moving the application forward with staff’s recommended revisions and secured public benefits.
Disagreement
A councillor argued that allowing homes instead of required commercial space missed an opportunity for a mixed-use town centre and could signal that commercial space is optional. Other councillors said commercial uses are better focused on Fort Street, that ground-floor retail is not viable everywhere, and that the proposed live-work flexibility was enough.
G.1 Recommendation for The Cannabis Room at 1545 Fort Street
The application by The Cannabis Room at 1545 Fort Street for a provincial cannabis retail store licence was included in the consent agenda. Council approved the consent agenda unanimously without a discussion of the application. The chair said the item would return at a later daytime Council meeting.
Staff proposed replacing more than 30 older industrial zones covering over 600 properties with three updated zones: light industrial, heavy industrial and marine industrial. The changes keep the main density limit at 3.0 floor space ratio, raise some height limits, and simplify permitted-use definitions. Council also supported exempting these industrial lands from minimum vehicle-parking requirements while retaining loading, accessible and bicycle parking requirements, and updating industrial design guidelines. An amendment removed Ogden Point from this round until the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority’s master plan is complete; the chair reported that the bulk of that plan is expected by the end of 2026. The amended package passed unanimously.
Agreement
Councillors supported retaining and modernizing industrial lands and making the zoning easier for businesses and staff to administer.
Council agreed that Ogden Point should be held back for consideration alongside the Harbour Authority’s master plan; staff said this would not delay the remaining zoning work.
Staff confirmed the changes would not alter the noise-district map or add new industrial land.
Disagreement
Some councillors and James Bay residents were concerned that the Ogden Point changes had arrived with little notice and could affect nearby neighbourhoods; others said this phase mainly transfers existing industrial permissions into a simpler bylaw.
A councillor raised concerns about neighbourhood compatibility, consultation and potential impacts from industrial activity. Other councillors emphasized the value of industrial jobs and a working harbour.
Councillors differed over whether the design-guideline process should explicitly require consultation with additional federal and provincial agencies; an amendment to do so failed.
Council considered what to do after the Province said it was not prepared to authorize a binding amalgamation referendum and wanted more analysis and consultation. The Mayor’s motion, as amended, directed that a question asking whether Victoria and Saanich should become one municipality go on the October 2026 ballot, with a statement that the vote is non-binding and access to the Citizens’ Assembly material. It passed 5–4. A competing motion to refer the work back to the Province was defeated 6–2. Councillors who supported the ballot question said the City should honour its commitment to the Citizens’ Assembly and keep the issue alive; opponents said voters could mistake a non-binding poll for a decision that settles amalgamation. One Citizens’ Assembly member’s email was read aloud, arguing that the Assembly had understood its recommendation to lead to a binding vote.
Agreement
Councillors said the Province, not the City, has the authority to make amalgamation happen.
Councillors recognized the Citizens’ Assembly’s work and the importance of giving residents a chance to express their views.
Disagreement
Supporters of the ballot question said Council should honour its commitment to put the Assembly’s recommendation before voters in 2026, even if the question is non-binding.
Opponents argued that a non-binding vote could mislead voters, produce a low or unclear turnout, and leave the question unresolved; they preferred further provincial work toward a binding vote.
Some councillors argued the Province should undertake and fund the additional analysis and First Nations consultation it requested; others warned that referring the issue back could remove it from the 2026 ballot and stall the process.
H.1 Council Member Motion: Advocate to Province to restore better terms for property tax deferral program for seniors and others in need
Council unanimously asked the Province to review the property-tax deferral program and develop more favourable terms for eligible low- and moderate-income homeowners. Councillors discussed the shift from an interest rate of prime minus 2 percent to prime plus 2 percent, compounded monthly. The mover described deferral as a secured loan, not a grant, and argued that the higher rate could particularly burden people with few financial alternatives. An amendment asking for an equivalent program for renters failed; councillors said renter supports warrant separate consideration and should not be folded into this request.
Agreement
Council supported asking the Province to review the terms for eligible homeowners who depend on the program.
Councillors agreed that renter supports may merit separate advocacy, though not as part of this motion.
Disagreement
Councillors disagreed over whether the motion should also ask for an equivalent financial program for renters. Supporters said renters also need help; opponents said the property-tax program is structurally different and the renter request should be brought forward separately.
Decisions
Victoria has not published the minutes for this meeting yet. Councils post minutes only after a later meeting adopts them, usually two to six weeks afterwards. We check weekly. We last checked Fri, Oct 2, 2026. Votes and decisions are taken only from the official minutes, so this section fills in once Victoria publishes them. Anything above about motions comes from the recording and is preliminary.