Transcript: Committee of the Whole - 2026/06/25

Various projects, programs, and policies. And it's important for us to publicly, whenever possible, understand and acknowledge the fact that the resilience that the nations have shown for so many generations continues to be remarkable. And the opportunities that we have to work together on behalf of all of the people who live in the city in particular, but in the region as a whole, is not something to be taken lightly. And in fact, is to be treasure. When we have the chance to work together and to think about the future, we also want to remember what has gone before us and try to face the challenges of the current day with an eye to the past as well as the future. And so whenever we do that, I always want to try and remind people at some point during the day to take a moment to reflect on something or to observe something or to just think about something that they can attribute to the remarkable work

of the nations that provides something personally important to them in their own lives. And sometimes with that, we like to thank them in their own language, which is to say simply hatch asm or hijicacyam d'aguilio. And to do that, we honour a little bit of their history, and we recognise a great deal of the value that we place on our ongoing relationships. Hidricacy, I'm Nick Williams. I have no additional remarks to make today. There are many opportunities to participate during the various items that we have in our agenda. So we'll move on right to late items. I'm not aware of any late items that need to be added to today's agenda. So with that, I will look for someone to move the published agenda as it is. Thanks, Councillor Coleman. Seconded by Councillor Dell. Any discussion on the agenda as published. Seeing none, all those in paper at the agenda. Anyone opposed. And a unanimous.

I will check my iPad a little more frequently than usual to make sure that Councillor Hammond has a chance to participate as he desires. So the agenda is approved unanimously. That takes us on to the consent agenda. There are two items proposed for the consent agenda. Item G1, the recommendation for the cannabis room at 1545 Fort Street. An item H1, the Council Member Motion with regard to advocacy to the province to restore better terms for property tax deferral programs for seniors and others in need. Anything that anyone would like to remove or add? Councillor Thompson. Like to remove H1 and add F1. You'd like to remove H1. And add F1. So H1 is easy to remove. We usually just as a custom, remove anything anyone wishes to discuss. Adding something, look around the table. Does anyone object? The adding F1. Just checking online. Councillor Gardner.

Only because we've had letters about it. F1, so not removing, not adding F1, okay? So F1 will remain and we will deal with that next. That would mean that our consent agenda is just item G1. The recommendation for the cannabis room at 1545 4th Street. With that, with someone like to move the consent agenda. Thanks, Councillor Coleman, Second by Councillor Kim. All those in favor. And I want to pose. That is unanimous. Thank you for that. And we'll deal with H1 when we get there. So that takes us on to F1. This is the first of our land use matters. Actually, our own denlined use matter. This is the rezoning application and development permit with variances application for 1908 foul bay road. I believe if I recall that there is a presentation. So staff wants your settled and ready to go. We'll turn the floor over to you.

Once you're ready, if you will remind us who you are for the public, as well as for council, that would be super helpful. Good morning, Mayor Alto and members of Council. My name is Chloe Tunis, and I'm a Senior Planner here at the City of Victoria. Today I'll be presenting a rezoning and development permit application for 1908 Faul Bay Road that would increase the permitted density and allow for a new six - story rental building with 87 units. The existing site is home to a former utilities building. Here on the screen are the relevant Sections of the local government Act that enable the rezoning and development permit process. Further details on these sections are included in the attachments in the report. For the rezoning relevant considerations include increasing the density from 1. 6 to 2.

42 to 1 floor space ratio, as well as adding studio use with office, retail trade, and personal service as additional permitted uses within a studio for the ground floor units along Fal Bay Road. This effectively allows worklive as a use for these units. For the development permit with variances, the relevant considerations include consistency with the design guidelines and the impact of the requested variances. The variances relate to landscape area, setbacks, sighting, building height, parking, as well as the requirement for commercial uses along Falby Road. Both the rezoning and development permit our recommended for support subject to revisions that would improve consistency with policy and ensure compliance with building code and stormwater requirements. The recommended motion for the rezoning application also includes legal agreements to secure the property as rental in perpetuity. The ground floor indoor amenity space for common use by residents. Green roofs on both the primary building and Bicycle storage room, as well as additional public realm improvements for the crosswalk road beyond

what is required in the works and services bylaw. Here we go. This is the site context. So you can see these subject property is immediately adjacent to the fort at phall bay shopping centre in the Jubilee neighbourhood. The surrounding area includes a mix of commercial uses as well as low to mid - rise residential uses. The site is one block from the Oak Bay Recreation Centre within the Boker Creek watershed and near the Jubilee Hospital. Here is an image of the existing site viewed from the corner of Beuchier and Fal Bay Road. These images show the adjacent properties directly adjacent to this subject site. The first image, the first image shows the area north of the subject site along Faul Bay Road. You can see the site backs onto the BC liquor store within the shopping centre. The second image shows voucher street where the subject cite abuts a mid - block pedestrian pathway next to the savon foods warehouse. On FALBAY across the street,

dwellings and a four - story seniors facility. On voucher street, the street is generally comprised of single - family dwellings. So within the context of the OCP, the property is within the town centre designation and specifically the Jubilee Town Centre. Town Centres are major nodes outside the downtown core that provide opportunities to support interrelated housing, mobility, and public space objectives. It's worth noting here that the City Initiated existing zoning was put into place as part of the Zoning Modernization phase one, which was adopted alongside the OCP in Fall 2025. As part of this work, the maximum envision density for town centres and villages specifically was not embedded directly within the zoning. Instead, the OCP and related policies provide guidance on what may be achieved through a rezoning process. With that in mind, the rezoning and development policy provides further direction specific to

This policy envisions a mix of four to six - story mid - rise building forms with densities of approximately three to one floor space ratio. The proposal for six stories and 2. 4 to one FSR is consistent with this vision. The proposal is also consistent with the housing prioritization direction in the policy by delivering 87 new rental units and exceeding the minimum zoning requirements for the proportion of two and three bedroom units. The rezoning and developed this rezoning and development policy map. Highlights that the site is adjacent to two frequent transit networks shown by the yellow lines as well as several existing and desired pedestrian connections. I'll now go over the details of the proposal as well as more analysis on the proposed variances. This rendering shows the proposal looking toward the corner of Beucher Street and Faul Bay Road. As you might be able to see in the rendering, uh, the ground level units have direct access to the street on both front edges.

Here's the site plan. Um, the application would provide significant frontage works through the works and services Bylaw as they are required through their works and services bylaw, including separated bike lanes and sidewalk realignment. The proposal also includes an additional approvement beyond those required for a portion of the crosswalk bay road. And this would be secured through a legal agreement. Which is included in the recommended motion. Here is the parquet level, the applicant is requesting a 21 stall vehicle parking variance. Based on the site's proximity to multiple transit priority networks and the provision of significant mobility supporting infrastructure, the requested parking variances considered supportable. This shows the ground floor plan. The proposed plans are for a fully residential building. However, the current zoning requires commercial uses along Faul Bay Road. The development permit would vary this requirement to allow residential uses along foul bay road. Policy direction supports flexibility here as commercial activity is generally focused further north in the town centre along Fort Street and

in the adjacent Richmond village. The rezoning would, however, add worklive or studio as a permitted use. This would provide potential opportunity for active street frontages. While the building design does not fully meet the guidelines for future work, live, or commercial conversion, it still offers some potential adaptability. On balance, both the rezoning change for studio worklive and the variance to allow residential units along Fal Bay Road are considered supportable. Here's the level two floor plan. And typical floor plans for levels three to six. Here's the elevation plan along voucher. As you can see, the main entry is along Becher Street. And here's the elevation along Fort Street. This is the area where the studio or workliv units would be added as a permitted use. This elevation is the, this is the North Elevation, which fronts along that BC liquor store that we saw in the, uh, in the surrounding context images. And here's the West elevation that fronts onto the mid - block pedestrian path. And

these are the elevations along Beuchier and Fort Street that also include the streetscape context. Here we have the landscape plan. The amenity area, the outdoor amenity area is located to the north of the building. And a portion of the long - term bicycle storage is located and a portion of the long - term bicycle storage is located in the accessory building to the north. While a statutory rate of way to widen the mid - block pedestrian pathway was not provided as part of this application, the proposal does include improvements to support pathway users at the West Property line. This include lighting directed toward the pathway adjacent plantings that maintained sight lines and a direct gated connection from the subject site to the path. The rear setback variances along this west property line are recommended for support as greater setbacks are provided in the side yard to allow for usable outdoor space. So the side yard is considered the area where the, uh, the outdoor amenity

space is. While the outdoor amenity space may have limited usability in cooler months given its location directly to the north of the building. This is offset somewhat by the provision of revised indoor amenity space secured through legal agreement, which will provide additional amenity options for residents. The variance to reduce the amount of landscaped area is inconsistent with the general urban design guidelines direction to limit underground parking footprints. However, it is recommended for support due to the provision of green roofs, a revised and secured indoor amenity space, as well as compliance with minimum tree replacement requirements and stormwater requirements. Overall, the proposal is generally consistent with the applicable policy - related to land use, density, and built form, and it advances policy objectives for the creation of new purpose - built rental housing. The proposal does depart from some policy directions, specifically with respect to the impacts of the large parquet footprint and the design of the outdoor amenity space. That said on balance, the proposal

is considered acceptable given the site context within the Jubilee Town Centre, the public realm improvements, and significant frontage works, the secured rental housing, secured amenity space, and the inclusion of green roofs. Therefore, staff recommend that Council advance the application subject to the revision's outlined in the motion. That includes my presentation, and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you very much, Planner. Let us start with questions. Councillor Gardner. Yes, and I don't mind moving it and doing questions at the same time. That'll speed things up. Let's just see if there are any other actual questions first. I have questions about questions to start. That's fine, then I'm pleased to move it. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for the presentation. Now I have several questions, and they relate to the, oops, my computer's opting up again. Uh, to the fact that, um, we do have some letters and concerns. So, um, what is the density and height limits for the property to the north? In

other words, what you show there in that schematic, uh, with the actual, um, should we say, mall area where the Sevon complex sits. What will be the actual density and heights permitted there down the road? Mayor Jeannes. Through the mayor, so the existing density maximum is it's currently in the same zone as the subject property. So the, the existing density is, uh, 1. 6 to one FSR. However, as mentioned in my presentation, uh, the zoning update for town centres and villages, uh, focused the policy direction within, or the envisioned use for these sites, um, within the policy direction rather than within the, uh, actual zoning.

So the policy direction envisions for that site, uh, three to approximately five FSR, depending on the provision of a number of strategic priorities within the rezoning development policy. And on that, sorry, in on that site, in other words, to the north, uh, given the three to five FSR, what kind of height would be anticipated down the road. If the OCP is maxed out? Unertunous? The existing permitted height is 14 metres. Uh, the envision tight is, uh, is four to six stories or up to 12 to, I'll just have to double check. I believe it's 12 to 18 stories where significant, um, uh, public benefits are provided and it meets a number of strategic priorities within the rezoning and development policy and OCP. Thank you. I just wanted the public to understand the relationship of the.

Proposal before us with what may be coming down the road right next door. Cause I think it adds context. On the junior 11th report, page six states that a caliq report was not received at the time of the report was written. However, the loss attachment to the file, uh, is an email from the South Jubilee Caluke. So that attachment is not dated. Can someone tell me what date that was received. Mary Tini. I'd have to double check on that. Just take a look here.

I don't have the information on when this was submitted. The meeting was November 20th, 2024. Um, at the time of writing this report, uh, I wasn't aware of, of this being submitted. So it's possible that it was submitted after, uh, the posting of the, no one knows the date when it was submitted, even though it was two years ago that they had the colour. As tuna's. Through the mirror, I can confirm with another one of our staff members. He'll give me a moment. Ms. Rain, you do have a staffer, I think, standing behind you who may, I think he wants to answer the question. Is this move your staff? Thank you. Okay.

Uh, so I see here that it was actually submitted after the CALUC meeting December 12th, 2024. Um, so that's, that is, that's an error in the report. It was received, uh, we were aware of the additional correspondence. But thank you, because it just begs a question as to whether or not the Calic input is actually really considered. By staff or whether it's just performer for public to know that someone has seen it. So I just raised out because it was very important for me to see that. I think it's something we make, one, I'll think about. Okay. The Community meeting was suggested. Hang on, Councillor, Ms. Wendy of something you'd like to offer at that point. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate Charlotte Wayne, manager of neighbourhood development planning. And through the mayor, I think just for clarity, one of the intents of the calact meeting is really for providing feedback to the applicant. Um, and really they obviously attend that meeting and

they take on board the comments that come out of that meeting and the intent of that is really to, um, start the consultation early, um, so they can incorporate changes to their proposal when staff receive the actual official official record from the CALOC, that time period does vary. Sometimes it's immediately after the meeting. Sometimes it can be up to a year or longer before staff received that information. But really the intent is for the applicant to hear the feedback from the community. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Johnston. The Community meeting Councillor Disecration. I'm sorry. Mr. Johnston's. Thank you through the mayor just to add to that. Um, staff, uh, complete their review against Councilprove Policies and Regulations and provide that analysis to Council for consideration along with any correspondence, including the record of the meeting, um, from the CALOC meeting to help inform council's decisions.

So, um, just wanted to elaborate on that in terms of the purpose of the record is to help Council in making, um, their decision. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you. Uh, at the Community meeting. Sorry at the Community meeting, it was suggested the exterior colour scheme be lighter. Now this doesn't look that dark to me. So I didn't know, was there an earlier version that was actually much darker. Students. There were some changes to the materiality, um, and part of that was the outcome of the, uh, advisory design panel. But generally, um, the colour scheme is consistent. With the original proposal. Okay. Thank you. Um, the indoor amenity on slide number 22.

If you go back one slide. Okay. I assume it's in the top right corner. Or where was it. Through the mayor? Um, so there's an area within the building labelled amenity space just to the south of the outdoor amenity space. Written the centre of the slide. Oh, right there. Okay. Thank you. And is there a slide there was some concern about access to the outdoor there, but it looks fine. I assume they're sliding doors. There was something that opens up to the garden area, does it? Is there? Through the mayor, there is in the recommended motion, a condition to revise that, uh, indoor amenity space to provide greater permeability from the amenity air indoor amenity area to the outdoors. So to sort of make it a more cohesive set of amenity spaces. Great. Thank you very much. Are there to be any accessible units. Yes.

It's in compliance with the BC building code 2020 or 2018. And there are six adaptable units. So no accessible just adaptable. I believe the building code term for accessible is adaptable. Instead of it, I think it's instead of accessible, but that's okay. Okay. They live work units. How does the City treat these units with respect to Zoni and taxation. Winer tunas. Yeah. I think it's. Going to. The mayor unless their primarily commercial. My understanding is that they're deemed to be residential units. Thank you very much. That's my questions, Mayor. I have comments and would be willing to move it. I have Councillor Thompson and Councillor Cardino with questions. Thanks Mayor. And through you, thanks very much for the analysis and presentation. A lot of my questions have been answered, but I did want to ask a little bit about those bike lanes. On the foul bayside there, there's. You know, as somebody who rides a bike as well as drives my car, uh, when I'm on a major street like that, I just

want to get somewhere. I'm not out for a leisure ride. Wondering why we have a curvy bike lane in there instead of just something going straight through. Yeah. I'll defer to our transportation team for that question. Mr. Kenny, did you hear that question. Good morning, Mayor and Council. I was just pulling up the drawing myself. So the, um, so the curvingness, are you reflecting as you're coming down foul bay road than Councillor Thompson? So the intent to the curve there is to create a pedestrian refuge. Um, between the two - way bike lane and the street, um, which helps to shorten the crosswalk and the crossing distance across Falvey Road and improve pedestrian visibility for a left turner is coming off goldsmith. Okay. Thanks. That makes sense. Um, on the front of, uh, coucher.

Voucher. But your guess is as good as mine. Um, uh, we have a bike lane going, I guess, westbound. And then it abruptly curves out. And I'm just wondering, are we anticipating any conflicts with people kind of just zooming out of the bike lane. And entering traffic? Mr. County through the mayor. So, um, I think one of the, just overall when we're doing these frontage designs, sometimes we do rented a challenges of the refinements of the designs where we want to, um, trying to save the development community time at respective points along the process. Um, but generally with the idea was that right now there's a temporary two way claim that we installed on Falby Road. It ends right at the intersection of busher and the intent of this connection is to get people from the Jubilee neighbourhood, um, up to say the Sablent foods and over to Oak Bay Rec Centre, bringing it around the corner and away from the intersection of Fal Bay

Road just improves sight lines, uh, for vehicles that are turning off on and off of Falbey Road to see people that are cycling onto the connection here. Um, but what we have done with the design is there's a, uh, it's just South of where just below where the drawing is cut off. Um, but the bike lane extends further out into the road. And then the parking bay behind it. So people that are cycling have a very good, uh, line of sight to the road and people, um, being able to see them who might be driving. Um, I also believe that Boucher has speed humps on it again to control speeds. Um, and keep speeds low for everybody. Right. Okay. Thanks very much. Thank you, Councillor Caradona. Thanks very much, Mayor, and through you to staff.

Thank you for the report. I want to focus really squarely on the question of mixed use, which is the main issue that jumped out at me here. And if we go back to the map that shows where this subject site is located within the town centre, yeah, that one, I think. So when I'm reading the report on page seven, it says current zoning requires commercial uses along the Falvet Road frontage. That seems clear. The next sentence says the rezoning and development policy supports act of frontage in this area, but does not require commercial use at this site. With stronger emphasis plays closer to the core Jubilee Town Centre. Those two sentences seem directly in contradiction to me. Could you explain that and also explain why mixed use was not required when this is clearly in the town centre zone. Honour Tunis? Through the mayor, thank you for the question. Um, so as part of the zoning update, uh, work that was done, uh, focus of

that was, was simplifying the zone's, you know, down from the 900 we had, uh, and so what that means is there's one single zone for town centre. But all of the same requirements may not apply in the same way. And therefore, there may be some sites where certain variances would be justified. And in that way, we look to the policy. So for the policy here, this is the rezoning and development policy. You can see the red lines, the solid red lines are where active ground floor uses are required as through the policy. And then they're desired where there's the dotted red lines. So for the area of this site, uh, that isn't, those aren't specifically identified. Well, there may be some benefit to having commercial along there. Really, the, the focus of the, uh, the Jubilee Town Centre policy is to focus that those commercial uses, um, along Fort Street and the Fort and Fal Bay intersection as well as further, further west toward the

Richmond village. Okay. And following up on that in terms of the live work sites or the units that are presumably at grade, I mean, as far as I understand, there's an option for the people living there to say, have an art studio or pottery studio or something like that, but no obligation to do so. Someone could just live there and use it as residential. That, that's through the mayor, that's correct. And what, what exactly is the live work site policy allow folks to do there? Exactly. Are you allowed to have offsite sales? Like if you wanted to run an art studio, let's say, or maybe a florist, let's say, um, is there a situation in which customers are walking onto the site and purchasing goods from that live workspace. Entertainers? Yeah. Through the mayor, the proposed use would be the studio use, which is already defined in the zoning, which is really like an artist space, um, as described. Um, but with additional potential for

office retail trade and personal service within a studio. So, so there could be the potential for people on site. Of course, depending on the nature of the business, um, and, and, and this does not preclude commercial as a permitted use. That'll still be a permitted use in the zoning. Um, though there may be building code challenges depending on what business would go in there. Okay. So if I'm understanding correctly, there's a possibility that there could be a retail component there, but, but no guarantee. And the limits based upon the zoning. I guess my question for you is given that the OCP is brand new. The ink is barely dry in it. This were ground truthing and testing a lot of these things that are really quite new for the community. This is clearly within the town centre. Is there a risk here. That we're sending a signal to the development community that says, you know what, when it comes to Community Villages or town centres,

MIX uses optional. Through the mayor, I think with the policy shows that the focus for the Jubilee Town Centre is that commercial use at the, uh, along the Main Street, specifically talks about focusing and in general, not just for the Jubilee Town Centre, but for town centres in general, focusing employment uses on Main Streets. In this case, the Main Street would be Fort Street. So in that way, this is consistent with the policy. Okay. I'll leave it there. Thanks. Okay. Any other questions. Let's see another question. This concerner you wanted to move this. Is there a second. Councillor Dell. Go ahead, Council Carter. Yes. Thank you. I'm going to start with a quick question. Um, which follows something, the comments just made. We have seen, of course, the live work on Cook Street. Uh, which is really quite activated. That area is be the same kind of zoning. The same kind of, uh, opportunity. Martinez.

Yes. Yes. That's correct. Yes. Thank you. It's really quite activated that area. The South Jubilee Calick report states. This proposed development location is one of the better locations in South Jubilee for building development. The site has a large commercial property that saved on shopping centre immediately behind into the west. And there are no residential homes on any side of the site. I think that's a very positive statement given the developments we have seen. This report goes on to say that those living on the South side of Bochar Street will have some impact, which is true. There will not be any rooftop of many space. And that is actually good for those residents and bouchard street.

The OCP 2050 has an upper limit of 18 stories. As you've mentioned, this proposal has six. OCP 50 permits to density of up to 5. 5. Where's this proposal is 2. 42. Negative, uh, I believe is that the parking is a bit light. But given the location and proximity to transit, many retail outlets and medical services, the parking may suffice. The side amenity space of 3, 000 square feet will be well used, especially if families with children move into the complex. Access to the pathway also gives a good feel for the side facing ground - oriented housing units. So I'm in full support of this proposal. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much, Councillor Dell as the secondary. Sure, I will also speak in support of this. I just want to note, uh, maybe as a resident settub Jubilee that the existing site has been, uh, what I would basically call a blight on the community for many, many years is a vacant telesbuilding. God

knows what's in there. But, um, it's basically been essentially boarded up and fenced off for a long time and really not adding anything whatsoever. So I think the project I've seen many iterations, I think about three years ago, 16 story building plan there. So hopefully people are a little bit happy with six stories. Um, one of the only things that has kind of torn me a little bit about this is the lack of commercial space on Foul Bay. I think with time, that will be a mistake because this area is going to densify a fair bit. There'll be a lot of people moving in. They'll be density down the corridor foul bay and elsewhere. And I think there will be a lot of shops that don't necessarily need parking in the front, but can, um, just add some vibrancy to the neighbourhood. But that's it.

That's not something that I'm willing to, uh, to move at this time. Cause I think the proponent has a good plan. And I think there's enough flexibility that once there are more people, we can add that commercial space back there. Um, but otherwise, I think this will be a good addition. And I definitely haven't heard much about it in my own neighbourhood. Although recognising one family wrote in across the street, uh, and I understand those concerns for sure. But otherwise, I think this is good to move forward. Thank you. Consent cardinal. Uh, thanks very much, Mayor. And similarly, I think there is a bunch of things here to support. And I will support this proposal moving forward at 87 Purpose Bill Rental Units are much needed. I think the density is the right level. I like the green roofs. I like the fact that it exceeds the family housing policy. All of that is supportable.

The problem here is lack of mixed use. And to put it bluntly, I simply disagree with how staff interpreted the OCP and the zoning here. If this were across the street from a town centre, okay, maybe, but it's actually right in a town centre. And I do think that there is a very, very big risk that we are going to today send a message to the development community that if you don't want to build mixed use in our town centres, you don't have to. You can vary your way out of it with live work or whatever. That's a problem. The OCP makes it really clear that we're supposed to be supporting a mixed use city, especially in our villages in town centres. Otherwise, what's the point here? So I think it's a mistake, frankly. And I think it's a missed opportunity. And so I just really urge staff for future applications in urban villages and town centres to push harder for mixed use. Because the

reality is that CRUs just don't make the kind of revenue that the residential does. So if you're just a single bottom line thinker, as a lot of developers are, you're going to go for a residential residential residential unless the zoning really forces you into mixed use. I think others want to do mixed use, but some just don't. So I do think it's, it's a mistake here. And potentially precedent setting, but I don't want to stand in the way of adding important purpose - built rentals to the city. But I do have serious misgivings about how this one played out. Thanks Mayor. Thank you Councillor Lawton.

Good morning. And through you mayor. I just have a quick question. And apologies that this is in the report and I missed it, but was this a project in stream when we adopted Victoria 2050. Honour Tunis. Through the mayor, yes, that's correct. So is that part of the reason around the, you just flexibility with the mixed use component of this. Uh, through the mayor, in relation to the commercial uses specifically, uh, the main consideration was really the consistency with policy, uh, where commercial was not envisioned for every ground floor space within the town centre. Okay. Okay. For me, I'm just sort of going to interpret it that this was, it was in stream. So there's some kinds of maybe a bit of boars that not accurate. Like it's just a little bit of flexibility there because the project was already. In like significantly into its planning stages. Connor Tunis. Through the mayor, uh, I can think of other aspects where maybe the in - stream

element was, was a consideration such as the landscape area, uh, requirement, which was a new requirement, um, and created a new, a new variance, uh, as well as design guidelines around, uh, reduced parking footprints. So, so in that way, the in - stream process, uh, the fact that it was in stream was a consideration there. Uh, I, I can't, I wouldn't describe that the lack of requiring commercial on the ground floor as being a result of it being in stream. Okay. All right. Thanks for that. Um, I just, I just have a brief comment here. I think this is exactly the kind of project that should be delivered on this site. It aligns with the vision for Victoria 2050. And it brings together the essentials that we're looking for, much needed family oriented housing, proximity to everyday amenities. And seamless multimodal transportation not making this not only critically needed family housing, but it's meaningful climate action as well, which is strengthened further by the inclusion

of green roofs and the and sustainable design. So I'm, I'm happy to support this today. And, uh, thanks for the presentation and thanks to staff for your work. Thank you Councillor Thompson. Thanks Mayor. Yeah, I'm glad to see this one move forward. Um, the, uh, the work done for the OCP shows a really bold, vibrant vision for the area. The sketches that we saw. And I think this is going to be a great start to making that happen and contribute vibrancy to the area. Um, it'll also bring more customers to the existing businesses that are at Fort and Valais Bay, which need customers. It'll deliver the much needed housing. We're still thousands of homes short thousands of units of latent demand. It'll be a good part of the Jubilee town centre. Um, I'm there several times per week. And right now the existing building is a dead space that actually brings the, uh, vibrancy of the, of the neighbourhood down. So, um, I do like

the vibrancy that, uh, ground floor, uh, retail, uh, brings, but not every building needs to be a mixed use building. And some of them, uh, they're not always going to be viable. And sometimes we see these ground floor, uh, retail spaces in a mixed use building that are empty and are actually deadening the area. So, um, but this building, uh, you know, it has the flexibility that, uh, if in the future, um, something more intensely retail, uh, becomes viable in that area. Like if the foot traffic, uh, it can be used that way. So very happy to see this go forward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Kim. Through the chair. Thank you for this. A question to staff. Um, this is right on the border of oak bay. What can you speak to anything oak bay might have envisioned for the area. And how it interfaces with our vision. Who would like to take that. Ms. Wayne. Thank you for the question. We

don't have that information. No, we base our decisions based on council approved policy. But I know through the OCP update IX. That would have been communication with oak bay as a joining municipality through the policy preparation. Okay. Just to add through the mayor, the crosswalk upgrades do include collaboration with oak bay as it's going across the centre line. And we'll involve upgrades there. Okay. Thanks. Just the reason I ask is because, uh, it, it is on the border. And we can't think of it as just like the town centre on the one side of the road. It is a bit of an ecosystem. And, um, I mean, part of the reason I like this project is because you're offering rentals, uh, right next to a recreation centre that is not within the City of Victoria.

Um, but would serve those residents anyway. Um, on top of not being a food desert, there's also this small businesses on oak bay avenue just a few blocks away on both the Victoria and oak base side. So to me, it's actually a collection of, um, amenities and businesses and things that will create a livable space that are not just within the City of Victoria boundaries that actually make this really, um, quite lovely for me. That's why. Thanks. How's it Coleman. Thank you. Yes, I too was struck by the fact that we have a village town centre. On the border of the City of Victoria with another municipality and how town centres actually aren't constrained by municipal borders. We might want to think about that later in the amalgamation discussion, but it's not germane to this particular one. But it does have an impact and it was referenced earlier that if you take a look at Cook Street Village, particularly at Cook and Sutledge, um, the

live work units there have added enormously to the vibrancy of the village centre, which is all within Victoria. It was particularly useful to read the, uh, minutes of the advisory design panel as it came forward. It was a good discussion in late 2025. Um, and we have seen some changes within the, uh, application as it came forward. It's the developers looked at it. Um, I think that this is an extraordinary opportunity to what number of us have described as dead space in the past. It is the right move. I know it's never going to be a perfect application, but this is one that works. And if you take a look at the adjacency, particularly to recreational opportunities, not within our municipality, but one block away, it becomes an incredible addition to a village centre or a town centre, as we call it. That speaks vibrantly about community as opposed to municipality. So I'm quite supportive.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Hem and I see you are there ready to vote. Do you have a comment to make. Go ahead. Yeah. Just a short one. If you don't mind mayor. Go ahead. Sure. Sure. Um, I cycled by this building once or twice a week and I, uh, when I saw the plans, I like the height, uh, the two bedrooms to support family housing. And I understand the parking, especially in this location. I even like the look of it. Not that I should have any say in that. But I think this will make a good contribution to the neighbourhood. Thanks. Thank you very much. Everyone's had a chance to question and speak. I would, uh, echo and while not repeat all of the positive comments made by my colleagues. I do think this is an elegant use of it underused period of land. And it's nice to see something designed in this way to really maximize the use. With that, it's

been moved and seconded lots of conversation. All those in favor. Is anyone opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you, my grandmother watched out for that presentation. And thank you to the applicant for continuing to invest in the city. That moves us on to staff reports. The first one item G1. This was the recommendation for the cannabis room at 1545 4th Street. That was placed on the consent agenda earlier today. And so that will return to us at a later daytime Council meeting. Does then take us on to item G2. This is phase two of the zoning bylaw modernization program. Uh, number of prisons or presenters rather from staff. Point of order. You folks get settled just a second place. Once you folks get settled, uh, then you'll be able to get going.

Yes. Go ahead, Councillor. Given the importance in late notice for this, I would really ask that we expand the time available to councilrs to give comment and ask questions, et cetera. You are aware certainly that you have every opportunity to do that. And all you need to do is move a motion to suspend the rules of procedure for this particular item. You need to specify a time the item itself. You need a seconder and two thirds majority of council to extend the time. Thank you. I move such emotion with an extension of Seven more minutes. Thank you. So you would like each person to have 17 minutes. Off to 17. It would depend maybe a lot shorter. Last time I asked for extension, it was a lot shorter in the end. All right. Is there a seconder to extend the allowable time to speak on this matter to 17 minutes. Councillor Hermond is seconding that.

So it's been moved in seconded. On you have a very brief opportunity to, uh, explain why you wish to suspend the rules brief. Just you will go through their usual procedures. So first the mover, then the seconder and then we'll go to questions. We have received many, many emails in the last couple of days. And it was a very short notice. And it's actually, uh, this is the first time that Council was presented with all three zones for the entire urban industrial land reserve, including areas close to residential areas. We had not received any really advance of this before. Good. Councillor Henry. You seconded the motion. Uh, do you have any comments on the motion to extend. Nothing further, Mirror. Okay. Councillor Coleman, you have a question. I have a question. If we are opposing questions, that is not included in the time. Yes, it is. Both your questions and your comments. Thank you. The responses from stuff or not. Okay. So it's been moved.

Second into question has been asked. Yes, Councillor, can you have a question? May I'm motivate against? Absolutely. Yeah. Um, we were actually given a heads up in the emails that we received from staff ahead of time listing agenda items. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the motion to extend the time from 10 to 17 minutes. Checking online. Nope. Okay. So remember this requires a two thirds majority that requires six votes in favor. All those in favor. Council for Hammond, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Gardner. And opposition. Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim, Councillor Cardona Councillor Loughton, myself and Councillor Thompson. So the motion to extend from 10 to 17 fails. Councillor Gerner, do you have any other emotions to make at the point. Nope. Okay. So that will take us on then to consideration of item G2, the zoning bylaw modernization phase two. See, we have staff ready to present over to you folks. Good morning, Mayor and Council. My name is Mike Angrove Acting Manager of

Planning and Regulatory Services. And with me today is Jim Handy acting assistant director of demot services. And Robert Batallis, Senior Planner in Citywide Planning. Today, we will be presenting on phase two of Zoning Byla Modernization. And I'll hand it off to Mr. Batalus to begin. Thank you very much. Welcome Mr. Patellis. Good morning, Mayor and Council. Uh, we are here today to present three updated industrial zones that have been developed through phase two of the Zoning Modernization Project that was directed as a priority implementation action. As part of the recent approval of the official Community Plan. The presentation will also provide background information and highlight related implementation steps. It should also be noted that modernizing zoning for the city's employment lands aligns with related directions from the City's corporate plan and strategic plan. As a reminder, phase one of Zoning Modernization was primarily focused on introducing new residential zone Citywide that align and implement the OCP. While phase two has been focused on updating zoning

for industrial properties contained within the OCP urban industrial reserve as generally shown on the map and an attachment be of the Council report. Key out comes from this work include transitioning the regulation of over 600 industrial properties with over 30 zones from the older zoning regulation bylaw to zoning bylaw 2018. Using three modernized industrial zones. Further protecting, maintaining an intensifying the city's industrial land - based. And better supporting the economic health and viability of highly important industrial businesses and activities. Development of the proposed industrial zones has been largely informed through in - depth and extensive engagement efforts from the industry arts and innovation district action plan and the official Community Plan update that both occurred throughout 2024 and 2025. This included targeted engagement with industrial landowners and businesses, including those along the working harbour to better understand their current and future needs, existing barriers and opportunities for growth. These earlier engagement efforts were also available to the broader Community through - in - person and

online engagement opportunities. In addition to the earlier engagement, in January of this year, the City further engaged directly with heavy and marine industrial stakeholders at a workshop hosted at Pointhope Maritime to discuss the review and update of the City Victory of Noise bylaw and zoning modernization. Then in April, the City hosted the draft industrial zones on the city engagement website for public feedback and mailed information postcards to over 600 individual property owners and businesses Citywide. Only a few questions of clarification or received through this engagement process, however, the City has received recent correspondence that's included in attachment D for reference. Mr. Angrove now provide an overview of the proposed industrial zones and next steps for implementation. Thank you. Strangro. So going through the three zones, the first one is the light industrial one zone, which would replace similar light industry zones in the zoning regulation bylaw. The intent is similar to that for the industry arts and innovation district in order to preserve ground floor

light industry while allowing for some flexibility on the upper floors, both through use in a slight increase in height. The FSR would remain the same at 3. 0 to one FSR. The heavy industrial one zone would replace standard and heavy industrial zones in the zoning regulation bylaws such as the M3 and M4 zones. These properties tend to be buffered by light industry and are therefore suitable for more intensive industrial uses, which are critical for services and jobs in the region. The FSR again remains the same at three to one FSR. And the height is increased from 15 metres to 25 metres. In both of these new zones, the use definitions are consolidated compared to the zoning regulation bylaw, which results in greater flexibility and adaptability for industrial businesses. The marine industrial one zone was introduced in phase one of zoning Byla Modernization for the industry arts and innovation district. This Zonex similar to the heavy industrial zone, but more focused on marine industries that benefit

from the deep water harbour. Similar to the heavy industrial zone, the FSR remains at three to one and height for buildings increases to 25 metres. In this instance, the height for structures increases to 30 metres, which is similar to some of the taller silos already existing along the harbour. A new definition of port has also been created to reflect the unique and existing operations at Ogden Point. On the last point, the modernization work does not supersede the comprehensive planning process that the GVHA is currently undertaking. The city is simply moving properties from the zoning regulation bylaw over to the modernized zoning Byla 2018. The GVHA planning work is ongoing and will likely result in a future applicant - led rezoning, which would include various stages of Community Consultation. The City is currently in the process of reviewing the off - street parking regulations with a Council Ened approach from fall of 2025 and engagement that occurred in fall and winter of 2025. More recent conversations

as part of this industrial zoning work have identified a desire from industrial stakeholders for greater flexibility in the proposed off - street parking rates. For instance, changing work conditions, including eb and flow of contracts, mean parking rates change from week to week. Similarly, the on - site space being used for parking one month could be needed for laydown equipment the next month. Under the current regulations, these sorts of changes would potentially need variants applications, and therefore options have been presented for council to consider to update the parking approach, as we'll be identified later in the presentation. Engagement with stakeholders also identified a need to update the design guidelines for industrial uses. The harbour road industrial waterfront design guidelines do not reflect the current operations at point - home maritime. Similarly, the industrial guidelines in the general urban design guidelines are more geared towards light industry.

Staff are therefore requesting direction to rescind the Harbour Road guidelines and update the good guidelines to better reflect the current industrial landscape. Finally, vehicle sales and rental are currently permitted in a number of existing industrial zones in the Zoning Regulation Bylaw. And indeed can be found on some of the urban industrial land reserve properties. In the past, this uses previously been identified as a highly land - intensive with low employment numbers, and more recently we are seeing it become more of a retail use with smaller showrooms and vehicles stored offsite. Therefore, staff proposed excluding this use from the land reserved to better protect it for actual industrial uses. That said, there still is a place for vehicle sales and rentals in a city, and as such, staff will be considering opportunities to include this use through upcoming policy work and phases of zoning modernization. In summary, the recommended motion before council would bring bylaw amends to modernize the zoning for the urban industrial land reserve

by bringing the lands over from the zoning regulation bylaw, two zoning bylaw 2018, as well as give direction to update the design guidelines. The recommended motion also includes exempting the lands in the urban industrial land reserve from vehicle parking, similar to an exemption that is proposed for downtown and will be before council in the coming months. Loading accessible and bicycle parking would still be required. However, an alternate motion should council choose it would maintain the current rates for industrial uses. Thank you in this concludes our presentation. Thank you very much. Let us begin with questions. Councillor Dell to start Councillor Cardinal. Okay. Council Bill? Oh, thank you. Thank you so much. Um, through the mayor, um, I'm the representative for the James Bay neighbourhood, and that's probably where we have received the most feedback from in the last week. So, um, my questions are about the particularly the Ogden Point Zone and some of the other areas around there, the marine industrial zone. Um, I

think leading to my question is the concern that something is changing. And so I've seen a couple, the technical amendments that are changing. We're moving the zoning bylaw from an older one into a new one. Can you just reiterate? I know this was in the report, but just at a simple level for the marine industrial zone. What are we transitioning from and what are we transitioning to in terms of the bylaw? Mr. Angrove. So through the mayor, Ogden Point is currently zoned M2, which is a light industrial zone under a former memorandum of understanding. It was also proposed to be zoned to the M1S zone, which is a marine industrial district. So we are shifting it over to the marine industry district in Zoning Bylaw 2018, which has similar uses to both of those zones.

Okay, thank you. Thanks for doing it. Can you talk about the report talks about some terms that are changing when we're updating definitions and kind of expanding definitions? So can you talk about what. I guess what practically might change in this particular zone? Does it terminology allow any sort of practical differences? I saw two height differences on there. That's kind of something that's measurable. Is there any other measurable zones? Or is it mostly terminology at this point? Measurable changes, sorry. Mr. Tell us. Uh, through mayor alto. Essentially, as Mr. Angrove has explained it, it is primarily through similaritos that we did in phase one as the most sort of a transition from the current zoning ballot to the new one, which is an updated framework.

The densities are being retained. Uh, yes, heights have been increased and largely. That's been informed from having technical discussions with a lot of these operators looking at their needs for buildings, warehouse structures, silos, all of those types of different equipment. That exists there today. Um, in terms of the list of permitted uses, when you look at the current M2, it's quite an extensive list, a very highly detailed prescriptive uses. And that expands in all of our current industrial zones. Am I an eye often. Uh, joke about, you know, the, uh, the vulcanizing of tires, whatever that is, you know, and so it's really about simplifying those uses, to provide more flexibility to respond to a healthier local economy. Um, but in essence, the marine industrial zone is applied to all of the industrial properties that are adjacent to the harbour that rely on that deep water axis. And it recognises essentially their industrial functionality that they have today. And also certainly for the future. And

one of the key things between it and say the heavy industrial zone is that it permits docs, warps, and peers as a key thing. Um, Mr. Engles also noted that for the Ogden Point property, there will be a specialized use definition of port, which is essentially just recognising what has been happening there for decades, right? In terms of the movement of goods, people, equipment, um, and so it's not conveying additional uses or opportunities that would be different than what you would see there today. Okay, thank you. Um, the new term through the mayor, the new definition of marine industrial includes a bunch of, uh, terminology, storage and finished of semi - finished materials or components.

That seems to be happening at Ogden Point already. The production or sale of fishing equipment supplies, that seems to be happening boat maintenance and construction and dry land boat storage. That seems to be happening. Ship breaking, ship marine and marine vessel recycling. That does seem to be happening just north of the, uh, at the point in hope shipyards, I believe. But is that currently allowed in augment points? The ship breaking and recycling. Or is that, would that be a new use do we know? String group? Uh, through the mayor said, no, they, they don't currently do ship breaking, uh, and it's our understanding that they don't plan to either. Uh, this is a general use definition. Um, and so it is primarily for the point hope, uh, lands, because that's where the ship breaking does occur. But as it's, it's a more broader use. It would apply to more properties, but really it's the point hope that would be taking advantage of that. Okay. So

thank you. So Ogden Point is being captured in that just because they're, we're kind of amalgamating the zone. So I guess to exclude that or exclude everything, we'd have to create, I would have to have a specific Ogden Point zone if we wanted to create a bunch of niche uses, which is what we're trying to avoid, I imagine? Uh, so through the mayor, uh, Ogden Point will be git. So under the Zoning Bio 2018, we don't create new site specific zones. We have site specific regulations within these umbrella zones. So Ogden Point will be getting a site specific regulation to allow the use of port.

So if Council did want to exclude ship breaking from, uh, octane point, we could add that restriction in under their site - specific regulation. Okay. Thank you. My next question was about the consultation. So it sounds like the consultation with the businesses that are in the zones, but not anyone outside. And obviously, uh, folks in James Bay and the JBNA in particular, um, were caught off guard by this. Our staff able to, can you just talk about any communication that happened with JBNA and particularly or if his staff is able to provide some information to them? Cause it's pretty technical, the report. And like admittedly a little bit overwhelming. And I'm learning some new things.

So was there any consultation, if not why? And would you be able to basically provide some information explaining what's actually happening? Cause my takeaway is not much is changing, but that's definitely not the perception out there. Challenge. Through Mayor Alto. I guess the main thing, the starting point was all the engagement and work that went into the official community plan. And when we look at the map in front of us on this slide and it identifies the urban industrial preserve, that was some of the key engagement that occurred with Citywide, right? And I think there was over 4, 500 individuals engaged through the OCP process.

And in the OCP is what identifies as urban industrial reserves. So it's not a, right now we're not exploring a land use question where the sites should be industrial or not. It's about how can the existing zoning align with a specific policies that are in the OCP as they relate to the urban industrial reserve. There's specific policies around marine industrial. He uses an activities as well as for the working harbour. And so this process similar to what happened in phase one for the residential zoning has followed a similar process where we look at our existing zoning. We looked at what was in the current approved OCP and went through a process to do ongoing alignment.

So there was not in depth broad community engagement on this because it was really but of a transition to bring the zones into alignment. Um, with that said, as mentioned in the presentation, the draft zones were made available on the City website earlier this year. Um, and as well should council direct these, the bylaws, the amending Bylas to be prepared. All of that information will also be made available in accordance with the City's public notification policy. We may have available on the City website using City social media. Um, and also posted at City Hall. And so we would go follow the city's public notification policies on that information going forward. Okay. I'll leave my questions there for now. Thank you. Uh, Councillor Hammond. With questions.

Yes, Mayor. Go ahead. Uh, two questions to start and actually just at this point. Can we remove Ogden Point from this motion. Uh, Through the Mayor. Yes. That's possible. Okay. Thanks. And, um, as an alternative or just another question, can we ask for a public hearing just for Ogden Point and allow the remaining parts to proceed. Uh, through the mayor. Yes. That's also possible. I think in that case staff would recommend removing it and saving it for a later date, uh, future phase or potentially if the GVHA completed their comprehensive plan, then it would be rezoned at that time with a public hearing, uh, whichever came first. Okay. Thanks, Mayor. That's all the question I have now. You're good. Thank you, Councillor Thompson. Thanks Mayor.

Ship breaking. So my, uh, understanding of ship breaking is the images that I see of gigantic ships being torn apart and all sorts of nasty stuff leaking out of them. Is that what's anticipated for, sorry, it wasn't dog den point. It's the other, uh, area. What is it, what does it actually look like ship breaking. Those? Uh, through Mayor alto. Point halt maritime with the, with the graving docket at the ship yards, a lot of the activities that we've seen since that site was developed over a decade ago is the ongoing repair maintenance deconstruction of a variety of different types of marine vessels and all shapes and sizes. Um, our understanding is we've certainly benefited from engagement in visiting the site and sort of better understanding of what happens there. Um, the one thing that's come to light for us is certainly a lot of the work that's done there is regulated beyond the city, but by other levels of government, whether it's the Ministry

of Environment, Department of Fisheries, um, transport Canada. And so there is a lot of rigor that goes into environmental impacts. For example, in terms of the activities that occur there. But in terms of what that can happen, I guess in the marine industry, it could be from decommissioning a ship, which could be removing its navigational equipment, removing its, you know, registration. Um, as well as ship breaking, which is, yeah, deconstruction recycling of vessels as well in terms of whether it's, say, you know, ripping them apart basically deconstructing them, often recycling certain types of equipment or even just ongoing maintenance, whether it's scrubbing barnacles off a hull, repainting them, et cetera. So it is a broad range of uses that occur there today. And certainly a lot of them, uh, may have been visible this past, I think on Father's Day during the current open house.

Um, and so that's really what is in that definition for marine industrial. It does continue to permit all of those current activities that we see there today. Okay. So we've been, it's happening already. And it's been going on for 10 years, did you say my apologies? I don't know the exact date, how long maritime has been around. But, uh, since our inception, all of the other activities that have been occurring there. Okay. Um, and then with respect to Ogden Point, just moving over there, um, I think I heard just now, or just a few minutes ago that it's not currently the intended use of that area. Is that correct? There's no intention to do ship breaking there? Uh, do the correct. There's no intention. Okay.

But if somebody changed their mind and came up with a business idea to do it there, that the, uh, the site - specific regulation would allow it currently, the way it's written through the mayor, the broad zone would allow it. Uh, if Council chose to restrict in a site - specific regulation, then it would not be loud. Okay. Thanks for that clarification. Um, so what would be the implications of us passing such as site - specific regulation? If you can answer that now, or would that be better answered in a separate, you know, motion arising with you having time to prepare for that. Stranger group?

Uh, through the mayor, if they were to propose it, uh, then they would just need a rezoning. So there would really be no implication other than if they were to propose that they'd need to come in because they don't, uh, currently undertake that activity. Sorry, I didn't, uh, I didn't phrase my question very well. I'm not asking about, you know, the owners changing their intentions, but more about, uh, if counsel were to, um, uh, consider, uh, a site specific regulation, excluding shipwrecking from Ogden Point, uh, would you be prepared today right now to speak to the implications of that? Or would that be better coming at a later time with more warning that you can do some more research on it. Tell us through Meralto.

Um, that is something we could certainly work into this site specific regulations today. And on that though, I did want to again, reiterate the fact that greater Victoria Harbour authority is currently in their process of doing their integrated master planning process for all of their sites. So we do expect to see comprehensive plan with far more detail in terms of what their future aspirations are for Agent Point and the other properties. We also expected that that plan when it comes forward to Council would also include some, uh, rezoning application as well with more site specific applications. So that will also provide additional guidance and opportunities to, uh, drill down into exactly in terms of what should be permitted on each of those sites going forward in the future. But for today, that could certainly be included in there. I don't think it would impact the current functionality of Ogden Point as we see it today.

And through the mayor, just expanding, it would not have an impact on staff timelines. Okay. Okay. Thanks. So, uh, if we were to have a motion just to sum up, if we were to have a motion arising today for a site - specific regulation, excluding ship - breaking at Ogden Point, it would be okay from a staff workflow point of view. And it presumably wouldn't affect the existing ownership in that area, because the intention to do shipwrecking, is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Uh, mayor, I may want to do that later. But I'll don't have any more questions at the moment. Um, I do have a question on that matter, but I'll hold that until everyone else has asked Councillor Gardner. You're next.

Thank you. I have several questions. Uh, I'm glad we're on this slide. Please clarify is the City actually. Suggesting any restrictions or reductions re off street parking for the industrial sites. Strangro? I read different things as I read the package. Tell us. Do you may or alto the current parking modernization that was presented to Council this past September? And I'll certainly look at Mr. Handy to chime in with additional detail. Does include a regime for offstreet parking, one that looks at a zero parking requirement for generally for the downtown core area, as well as a 30 percent reduction for properties that within a 200 metre buffer of a frequent transit network. So with that would mean for the industrial properties that we see here on this map, there are, you can see the industrial properties generally on the adjacent to Bay Street. On the west side of the, on the east side of the bridge, they would receive a zero parking requirement. While properties such

as the point hope maritime, uh, would be subject to a 30 percent reduction for their point would also be subject with 30 percent reduction for parking That's currently what's proposed. Okay. I would like to actually eliminate that. In other words, I don't think that we should be restricting the industrials because I don't know and nor do, I don't think anyone here know what their needs will be later. I'm very conscious of the fact when I go by, uh, Port Hope that I see all of those pickup trucks there in their parking spots because their tradesmen use trucks. And I'm very worried that we may, uh, affect their operations in a negative way. So I know that's a comment, not a question mayor, but when that comes to later, I don't even know where to put it. But perhaps we'll discuss it later. Okay. Another question.

Uh, several emails received in the past two days referred to the August 29th, 2025 public service or public notice of hearing, which identifies Ogden Point as an area not affected by the amendment to zoning bylaw 2018 in the 2025 OCP. Is that true? Sorry through the mayor. Are you asking if it's in zoning regulation bylaw currently or donating Byla 2018. Nothing to do with parking. I'm just talking. No. Do you want to be kidding me? Go ahead. No. I don't want to cheat up my time. No, that's where I won't cultivate this to repeat your question several emails received in the past few days refer to an August 29th, 2025 public notice of hearing. This would have been about the OCPI assume. I don't have it in front of me. And it identifies ogden point as an area not affected by the amendment to zoning bylaw 2018 in the 2025 OCP is that true. And that has been interpreted as being the phase two, which

is before us today. Uh, through the mayor, the August, 2025, uh, noticed that when it would have been about phase one, which was the residential properties. Uh, phase one was approved, uh, I believe it was October of 2025. So August would have been for those public hearings. What was the reference in that to Ogden Point. To that public notice? That's what we've been told by several people that there was reference to Ogden Point. Can someone tell me what was in that hearing? Uh, through mayor, I'll do it. I believe part of it was, I think some questions at the time we were receiving whether Ogden Point was part of the phase one rezoning process. And it was simply to clarify that logdon point was not part of phase one zoning modernization. And to communicate that any rezoning of Ogden Point in the industrial properties would be done to a subsequent phase as we are here today. Can someone read that to me what was in

that notice? Cause people have said referred to it with the phase two also. I want to know what the public was told about phase two in Ogden. Do you have access to that immediately or do you need some time to locate that. Through the thing we would have to have, um, located, uh, that likely would have also been the public notice for the OCP as well though. So it's possible that the two are getting, not necessarily confused, but combined. Then perhaps we can give you some time to locate that so that we can, I think the intent is to have it right into the record.

That's great new. Okay. Uh. The GVHA Commission debunt report in 2017 which showed the roadways in James Bay to be at or beyond capacity with ships in port. What impact were the more industrial zone have on street use? String Roof. Through the mayor. I don't think there would be an impact necessarily because this is just moving industrial zones from the old Byla to the new Byla. Through Mayor Alto specific to the parking. Currently the, and I'll certainly look at Mr. Handy to provide additional clarification. Um, there was a report that was presented to Council in September. Uh, that provided an overview of the proposed parking regulations, the structure that was provided for parking. And so that's what would be carried forward. But through a separate process through the parking modernization, but perhaps Mr. Handy can.

Do through you, uh, Jim Handy acting assistant director development services. I think the question related to, um, activity on the street from industrial traffic. And I'll just refer back to acting manager and groups answer that the site is currently zoned for industrial use. And this is an exercise in modernizing the language and moving from the old bylor to the new bylaws. So it was industry and activities that are permitted. Today would still be a permitted in the future. So when I anticipating any changes to, um, uh, traffic clauses a result of that, unless of course, um, the applicant came forward with an application to redevelop the site, which there would be entitled to today. Under the CUR, under what you're proposing today, there was a greatly expanded. And you've already answered the question use for industrial uses. So if that comes forward, what would be the impact? That was my question. Because you answered a few minutes ago to Councillor Thompson that yes, if this

goes to, they could do it without coming through all of the other rezonings. Mr. Angro. So through the mayor, uh, the, the, the, the uses would be allowed. In fact, many in many cases, the uses are already allowed. We're just consolidating them into, uh, smaller use categories. Uh, the properties would still need development permits though. So they would still come before council for a development permit. Or potentially be delegated to staff. I'm confused. So there wouldn't be building anything if you're deconstructing something. So why would they need a development permit. They wouldn't be developing anything. Mr. I see through the mayor just kind of going back to the original question. There's no, um, intensity of industrial use being proposed through these rezoning changes. Um, if an applicant sought to seek advantage of the zoning allowances on site, then they'd be entitled to. But that would, those entitlements are there today. At the moment, the GVH here could build that site as an industrial park and

intensify their operations. And that would, um, still be the case going forward if these zoning amendments were adopted. So there's been no analysis on what this new type of zoning would the impacts would be. Is that what I'm hearing? Mr. Handy. Mr. Angry, no, just because this again is moving from one zoning bylaw to the other zoning violet as similar zones. That's different questions I have amendments later. Sure thing. Just before I go to the next speaker, um, I believe that stuff at Ledge Services have that, the text of that notice in hand. Is that the case? If that is the case, is it something that can be displayed or is it something that you need to read. Can bring it up. That would be helpful. There we go. Okay, let's just leave that on the screen for a minute. I believe that is the one that was referenced in an earlier question.

Through the mayor, I guess to Steph, if you want to scroll down to the map, I think this might clarify the next map. The areas affected by amendments. This one here. Um, so through the mayor, the marine industrial one zone identified here. I identify as the properties within the IAI district. Um, as you can see in this map, Ogden Point is grayed out, which is under the category of areas not affected by the amendment. And so that was for the August, uh, notice for the September hearings that occurred. So during phase one, this augment point was identified as not being affected. Okay. Great. Thank you for that clarification. Mayor, although maybe I'll just add a little bit further. So what we see on here are all the new zones that we're introduced as part of phase one, but certainly within the downtown core, it wasn't included in there. Is that some future policy work that we'll be undertaking and also excluded the industrial lands? Right.

And just to clarify, did you, one of you earlier referenced a future regulation that will be coming forward, which would have the opportunity to clarify some of this and provide the opportunity for amendments at that time. What is a regulation to which you referred earlier in your remarks. Oh, through Mayoral to pardon, I was referring to the, um, should Council Direct staff to prepare the amending bylaws to amend Zoning Byla 2018 to integrate the proposed zones. That would be coming back to Council as well. Uh, and then as well, that would also be noticed posted publicly for additional public feedback. And would that be the appropriate time to speak to amendments around Ogden Point. Through the mayor, I think now would be the appropriate time because then we could remove it before we add it.

Very good. All right. All right. Council Coleman with questions. Thank you. Do you have the City of Victoria Noe's district map. Available. And could you overlay that on this zone. Is that something that we have available. Noise district map. Mr. Kingsley. Oh, dead microphone. Apologies mayor some trouble with the microphones. That's something that we can try pull up if we take a few moments. We'll try and pull that out. It looks very similar to this. And the question that falls from it, if we were to look at it, it gives us three zones of where noises felt. Would this bylaws change anything. In the noise district map. So through the mayor that these bylaws don't change anything and the noise district map, I believe there is some, uh, work ongoing in updating our noise bylaw. Um, that is not part of this work, but it is ongoing. But part of the concern that we've heard is the increase of impact in adjacent neighbourhoods. So that's the basis of asking the question.

And King Mayor, I think we're working on getting up. But I do have it on my personal laptop and you're correct that essentially, uh, the areas of, uh, louder noises pretty much match this map. Thank you. Anyone else with any questions. I'm not seeing any other questions. Someone like to move the motion. Which one? Can we go back that map again that was on that notice? Which, which meant, Oh, the notice map from, um, last August. We have that. Yeah. There you go. I think the issue here, Mary, is that it says areas affected by amendment to Zoning bylaw 2018. And therefore, that was exempt from it. And I think that's where the understandings coming. That there has been no notice of change of that to the community. And yet it does say lower down areas not affected by the amendment, which is how that district at Ogden Point is coloured. Exactly.

Which is why they're interpreting to me, in effect, now i. e. It has not been brought forward to the Community at all. This change of today until they saw something on Friday night. Right. We can make that point when you come to comments, Mr. Johnston. Thank you through the mayor. I just wanted to, um, I guess that, uh, so this was the notification that went out in advance of Council considering the bylaws for phase one of zoning modernization. Uh, which clearly identified the industrial lens is not being affected by that proposed amendment. Um, if Council were to move forward with the recommendation to move these new industrial zones forward, there would be a notification that would be, um, public notification as part of that, which could also, would include a map showing the industrial lenses being affected by this proposed zoning amendment. So that would be following the same process of notification that was done with phase one and be consistent. With that approach. Councillor

Coleman asked for the noise district map. And I understand we do have that available. If we could pull that up. Just for information that you may have a question on it. It's a noise district map. Thank you. Yeah. And it's just to recognise that this almost perfectly matches the areas we're talking about in industrial, both all three zones. Um, and the impact that I'm concerned about is does it change anything in the receiving, the adjacent receiving areas? And the answer has been no. Is that a correct assessment staff. Uh, through the mayor, yes. Yeah. We're not adding any new industrial zone or properties as part of this. These are existing industrial properties. Thank you for that, Matt. I wonder if it's possible when, um, materials are completely added to the agenda after this of both of those maps could be attached. So they're available in public. We can certainly do that, Mayor. Would that be great? Thank you. Roy, and once again, the questions, Councillor

Dill, are you wanting to move this? Okay. Is anyone wanting to second it. S their, Jim is seconding. We'll go to the mover in Sender and then we will go open the table to amendments. Councillor Dell. Uh, thank you. Yes. I would like to move the staff recommended motion, but I also have an amendment to make Councillor Kim. Are you willing to second knowing that there may be amendments coming? You're still, you're just seconding the main motion. Yes. Okay. Okay. Councillor Dell. Sure. Um, I sent an amendment to alleged services if they don't mind, although it's a bit of an awkward spot to put my amendment in. Can I speak to what the amendment does or should I wait till they pull it up? I wait till they pull it up so that everyone can see what we're discussing. I think would be a new number, like at the very end, new number. Does it relate to parking or to be a new number 11

essentially? Okay. So it relates to everything, including parking. Yeah. Okay. So a new number 11 then. Yep. So direct staff to delay rezoning augment point and surrounding area until the greater Victoria Harbour authorities. Ogden Point master plan is complete. All right. That seems pretty self explanatory. Is there a seconder for that amendment. Amendment you're seconding the amendment, great. Councillor Dell on the amendment? Uh, sure. So I just, Oh, I'm speaking just to the amendment right now. Um, yeah, well, I mean, overall, this is really, really great work and very technical work in one of the more technical reports that we've had. I think transitioning zoning, um, is fairly standardized process. Although it does create a lot of concern in the community, um, given Ogden points, uh, kind of location in a residential neighbourhood. It's different than the other one's point ship point hope and some of the others. Ogden Point kind of brings in a whole bunch of issues around traffic and housing and noise

in James Bay. And I definitely heard that this week from, from residents, um, given that I think there's a master plan coming from my understanding, uh, of the GVHA and staff have acknowledged that there's that this doesn't need to be done right now or could be done afterwards. Um, I just wanted to propose delaying this particular work. So it's not meant to be relayed to point hope in some of the other areas, uh, Rock Bay and whatnot. I know this acknowledge it creates challenges and it's going to make things more complicated. But I think it will just help you know, 12, 000 residents in James Bay just kind of understand what's happening and make sure that, uh, that, that agging point remains an important community harbour, obviously, and industrial site, but that just the bit more awareness because right now there's a lot of fear.

And that's what this is intended to do. So I'll leave you there. Thank you. Before I go to the secondary, I believe, yes, Mr. Handy, do you have a comment. On the amendment? Thank you, Matt. Yes, I think just something to consider when looking at this, um, proposed amendment would be the words and surrounding area. Um, I think stuff would need some directioners as to what the extent in the Cyrus surrounding area would be. Very good Councillor Dell. Did you have? Yes. That could be deleted. Um, the only reason I put that in there is I didn't actually know if Ogden Point is captures the entire area or octain point was considered one particular, um, plot of land. So it was meant to capture that whole Ogdid Point area. But if that can, if that can be captured just by saying Ogden Point and staff know what that is, then I think the surrounding area could be removed. Mr. Angry was at, um, I just

want to see clarification of what you understand that language to mean. So through the mayor, I think if it was just Agnopoint without surrounding area, it would be very clear. It's just the GVHA cogniting that if surrounding areas included, it likely would include the Coast Guard lands, which are just north of Ogden Point. And then also knowing that we have already rezoned fishermen's dwarf, which is north of that to the MI1. Um, so just some clarification around whether or not the Coast Guard lands would be included. Councillor Dell, do you want to remove that language? Sure. I can remember the seconder. That's great. Let's remove it. Thank you. Okay with removing that case. The way to put it is a GVHA properties on the outer harbour. Because fishermen's warps on the middle harbour and that differentiates it with a second place. That is not clear.

And the motion that's been put forward as an amendment. Okay. And so if you want to make a further amendment to the amendment, you can. But I'm going to suggest that I understand this is the original intent of Councillor Dell. And you did second it. So if you wish to, um, amend it, you can. But if not, then we'll leave it the way it is. You're good the way it is. I think apologies just before you go on, I had neglected to note the time. And in fact, it's very rare for us to sit for more than an hour and a half. And so, although it may be, I'm actually going to call a time break here. And we're going to come back in 10 minutes. So it'll be 1045. And we'll continue on with the amendment and Councillor Gardner will speak next as the second year. My apologies for overlooking that.

Everyone and let us resume our conversation on item G2. This is the Zoning bylaw modernization phase two item. We are speaking to an amendment and that is what is on the screen and bold print as item 11, moved by Councillor Dell, seconded by Councillor Gardner, and before we broke we were up to Councillor Gardner speaking to the amendment. I think you'd like to say to the amendment, Councillor Gardner. Thank you, I think this is most appropriate, and I have to say that the Algon Point Master Plan, which was completed in 2016, but did not come to Council actually received more or less and okay from the Community. And it was not the community that held it up over the last 10 years. And when I was viewing last night, the first document I found was from the GVHA Vichy for all the points from 2004.

So this has been going on for quite some time, and this is most appropriate. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the Amendment. Just speaking just to the amendment. No other... Oh, Councilman, go ahead on the amendment. Thanks, Mayor. This is a very appropriate amendment. You know, I can completely understand when people get confused about whether something is in the original OCP or not, where they might come to the conclusion that, oh, we don't have to worry about that. So I can, you know, I get confused on the stuff that we're given and we're given detailed information. And it wasn't too long ago when there was a change that included Quebec Street that a lot of people didn't notice. You know, most, as a matter of fact, probably all council didn't even notice.

And as a result of that, has led to some changes. So I can completely understand why people are concerned about this. And can I ask staff, when is it, I know it was in there, but just for it's on the record, when is it that the expectation for the harbour authority to complete the master plan. Stuff. Does anyone know that? Is that something that's within our understanding. Oh, well, so not staff exactly, but we do have a member who's appointed to the board of the GVHA. So unusually I will go to Consulter Kim for that answer. Go ahead, Councillor Kim. Thanks to the chair. The plan is to have the bulk of it done for the end of this calendar year. And then maybe a phase two come into place, um, in the season thereafter, depending on some internal logistics. Okay, did you hear that Councillor Hammond. Yes, heard it very well. Thank you very much. And as a result of that, this gives people

the second sober thought. Um, when people in and around Ogden Point, people in James Bay around Ogden Point, their gun shy because they're told how wonderful the cruise ships are. And, you know, just to confess, Jack and I have been on a lot of cruise ships. And how wonderful they are, but we recognise as well the impact that it has there. And therefore, if we're saying, trust us, when some other possible industry can be going in there, which is also potentially loud and whatnot, um, I think that people should have the opportunity to have more of a say in that. So, uh, good amendment. Thanks very much. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the amendment. Councillor Kim. Thanks to the chair. I am also in favor of this amendment. Honestly, just with the GVHA background in my head, um, there's a new CEO as well as the, um, integrated planning process happening. And so, um, while I am personally in favor of this motion

going ahead without this amendment, I do actually think it's prudent for the GVHA to be able to operate with the preexisting framework and knowledge and information rather than try to wrangle with, even if it's just to categorization difference, um, wrangle with that new information, uh, so for their integrated planning process. Thank you very much for that. I have a question for staff. Does this amendment should it be adopted effect in any way the rest of the work that you're proposing or the rest of the changes you're proposing. And if so, how. Through the mayor, uh, essentially no, not at all. We would just remove it from our data set in terms of what's getting ported over. It's a pretty simple change for us. Okay. And the rest of it can proceed. That's correct. Assuming it's adopted today. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Councillor Gardner on the amendment?

Yes. I read the amendment as affecting attachment B. Is that correct staff? Essentially. To the mayor. Yes. Yeah. The map. So it would be removed from the map in thus removed from this rezoning. Very good. Okay. Anybody else on the amendment? Councillor Loan on the amendment. Thanks to you, Mayor. I'm also in support of this. We had many, many, many emails from concerned residents in James Bay. And I think it's really important that, that we're listening to those concerns. And also, I just think that it makes good pragmatic sets to do this work in conjunction with, uh, the GVHA and their master plan. So happy to support it. Thank you. Council Coleman, did you have a comment on the amendment? Go ahead. Thank you. Um, the other way that this could have been achieved, I suppose is to disagree with the staff recommendation that we waive the public hearing. I think it makes much more sense to actually aggregate this with, um, the GVHA plans.

So I'm quite willing to support this. Thank you very much. Yes. That was in my mind as well. So I'm able to support this amendment. I think it's a more efficient and cleaner way to deal with the issues that have been raised around Ogden Point. So on the amendment only, all those in favor. Is anyone opposed. That is unanimous. So that amendment will stay. Councillor Dell, you still have the floor on the main motion. Because you were the last. And this was your amendment. I think I'll just say on the main motion, I just want to thank staff for the work. I actually thought the report was very good and transitioning older zoning bylaws into new simplified zoning bylaws aligns with the work that we want to be doing at the city. And so I thought it's very thoughtful, including the pieces on Ogden Point.

I think we are going from 30 zones down to three zones, which just simply makes things more administratively efficient, which most people agree on. And hopefully allow us for better use of the industrial lands, which I think most people agree on. We want to support our jobs and industrial land. So, um, yeah, thank you for the report. And hopefully we didn't slow down your progress too much with the amendment. But, um, I think, uh, I'm happy to support this. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Kim is the secondary of the motion itself. Now amended nothing to add. Nothing to add. Councillor Cardona. Thanks Mayor. I will confine my comments to the area in the upper heart and the light industrial and marine. Industrial zones. Sorry. I think this is a really important moment actually, even though in my reading of the staff report with the exception notable exception of some stuff about parking and design guidelines, it doesn't radically change things. I mean, mostly these bylaws

or housekeeping and administrative. However, it is really important for us as a city to confirm. That we value light heavy and marine industrial zoning. And there has been anxieties, uh, from some of our partners, industrial partners who are worried, who are constantly worried about being zoned out of existence. And we've seen it happen in other cities where they said, you know, that heavy industrial land, you know, the problem with emissions, the problem with noise, maybe we'll just switch side over to condos. And that has happened all across North America. And I've talked about Ute Lee before. He's got that show on CBC and any YouTube channel called About Here. And he did a whole video about industrial zoning, heavy industrial zoning. And the drawbacks that have come from cities that have downzoned or rezone those areas. And the video actually focuses on Metro Vancouver. And what an incredible loss it's been for those local governments.

They've, they've reduced their employment lands. They've also reduced their tax base. And I know our industrial partners don't necessarily want to hear it, but they are major source of revenue for local governments. But more importantly, there are major source for employment. Right? The ROMAX family of businesses employs something like 500 people. If you get rid of that zoning, you get rid of all those really good blue collar jobs. So beyond that, if I think about the trips that I take to, um, to Ellis, our industrial zoning areas in zoned areas provide really critically important services. Beyond the employment, be on the tax base. They are serving people. They're also sites where things are made. I've always really liked rock bay because rock bays is the place in Victoria where things get made. And we have seen this shift of the last 30, 40 years in the Western world where cities have gone from being places where people make things to places just where people consume

things. And I think if we want to have a sustainable urban environment, we have to continue to be places where things are made and things are done. And hands are used. And, uh, and we can't do that if we're just a city that only has residential. So I'm strongly supportive of this and to confirm and said that signal to business partners, to community partners, to those enlightened heavy industry, considering investing here. That we are going to continue to be a working harbour that we're going to continue to be a city that values the making of things that we're going to continue to support industry, responsible industry that reduces their emissions and their effluent into the water. And we've seen that from our partners. And to continue to be a place where things aren't just consumed, but are also made. So while this is somewhat housekeeping, I think it's also sending a really strong signal to the community. Thanks Mayor. Thank you very much. Councillor Gardner.

Thank you. A few other amendments. Recommendation number seven. I'd like to remove the last nine words. Hang on. Let's just see what that is. Okay. Just before I ask for a second, I'm going to ask Steph. Would the removal of this then require there to be consultation with the provincial and federal governments? Is that the implication. Through Mayor Alto, that is correct. And I would maybe just add that we have certainly been working closely for the past several years with transport Canada on a lot of planning endeavours through the OCP, the zoning, um, and looking at ways to improve it even our processes and communications with them. So I just want to highlight the transfer candidate, certainly aware of this work. But we would certainly, uh, with removal of this, we would certainly continue to, we would consult with any affected government agencies. Is the Seconder for this amendment. I'll second the amendment for conversation. Sure. Go ahead, Councillor Gardner on the amendment. Thank you. We learned from the roundhouse development. How important is,

uh, to be sure of who all we're consulting. We also know coming forward, we hope we're going to get a big chunk of the billions of dollars of defence money coming in. And, uh, so I think it's very important that we keep in mind beyond transparent county, you have fisheries and oceans and fisheries is rotine, of course, is the owner of a lot of that land that the Coast Guard's on. And I think even the DND property. So I just want to make sure that they are involved rather than just the tenets of the fisheries and oceans land and also water is, of course, are harbour lands are connected to the water. So I just think that we have to kind of broaden that. And I'm afraid of cutting them out that we might have unintended consequences. Thank you. Thank you. I just seconded to this to make sure it could be discussed. So I'll go to Councillor Kim. Question for staff. Through the chair.

The federal government is quite a black box sometimes. And so if you were to attempt to do consultation with the government, um, and they don't get back to you. Does that count as consultation? Um, like what is the threshold here given their own, um, general unresponsiveness sometimes. Should Ratalos? Uh, Mayor ultimate. I'll speak maybe from a staff to staff level and having a working relationship with transport candidate. My understanding is there really are conduit because we have a good working relationship with the harbour master here in terms of getting that information not only to transport Canada, but their referral to other federal ministries as well that might have a say in matters related to the harbour. How's Kim any further? No. I think also on the amendment. And as to remove this struck through bolded language. Councillor Coleman. Thank you. Just a question through you, your worship to staff. Does this consultation change. Staff's timelines.

In any way? Strang Grove. Uh, so through the mirror, this consultation is for the OCP update that would change the guidelines, the consultation isn't, uh, applicable to the zoning changes, which would go through more expedient late. Thank you. The other questions on the amendment. I have to say I have some concerns about the amendment only because I hearken back to the notion of the breadth of that description and whether or not it would have any narrowing implications unintentionally given the answer that staff gave speaking to their ongoing relationship with their equivalents. Not sure this is necessary. And I'm a little concerned about that unintended consequence.

So I'm not sure about this. Um, that being said. All those in favor of the amendment. Counts their gardener and Councillor Heming. In opposition, Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim, Councillor Cardin, it comes from Loton myself at Councillor Coleman and Councillor Thompson. So that amendment fails, but Councillor Gardner, you still have the floor. Thank you. I'm concerned a bit about, uh, recommendations five and six. For example, five says members of the public may be interested. I think we now know the public is interested. And so I don't know if we have to change these recommendations to accommodate the reality that is before us now or what we have to do. So I seek your direction here, Mayor.

What is your intent. Well, it says a public may be interested and therefore we might kind of contact them. We've already identified them. It says. I think I understand your intent, but I would suggest that given the conversation that we have just had with staff, and the amendment that's been adopted around excluding point from this portion of the work, that the language that's there provides. The ability to have engagements, what doesn't necessarily dictate what kind of engagement. Um, I'm not sure I think anything is required to narrow this. It seems to me that you're trying to make something a bit more proactive, but I don't know that it's necessary. If you have some thoughts around language, certainly entirely in order to suggest me. The public is interested. Right. Steph, can you tell me a little bit more, tell us a little bit more about the purpose of number five in particular. Number six is pretty straightforward. It's provide an opportunity for consultation. So that's fine.

That's proactive. But what's the, what's the purpose of number five. Through Mayor Alto, I'll begin and certainly perhaps somebody from the solicitor's office can probably provide a little bit more information. But number five is a requirement through the local government act at Council needs to turn their attention when there's an OCP amendment in terms of which groups or parties or individuals may be affected by an OCP amendment. So number five and six are related to the direction to rescind the harbour road design guidelines and update the general urban design guidelines with more detailed description or guidance, uh, specific to heavy industrial and marine industrial. And then hence number six outlines how those changes to the design guidelines and that Bylon amendment, uh, would be communicated publicly. So if I understand you correctly five and six, number five directs staff to turn their minds to who in particular would be affected. Not just the general public.

And given that consideration, should there be an identification of those individuals organisations and authorities that there would then be the opportunity to provide that greater public consultation. Is that about right. Uh, just the mayor, it's council actually that is determining this. So, so Mayor Maya is struggling a little bit with what it is that you exactly want to do. May I assist given the comments we've got from staff half an hour ago an hour ago, uh, that might help if in number six was expanded to include, I'm more concerned about the marine rather than the other ones that we've done before. So include the Vic West Community Association and JBNA as organisations. To be notified so they don't have to go through social media to find out about it. So you're suggesting in number six that there'd be an amendment to add those two groups at the end of the sentence. That's a fair amendment.

Yep. Go ahead. So after Song He's Nation, it'd be a comma. And it would be and the Victoria West neighbourhood association. Community Association. And the James Bay neighbourhood association. That would be an amendment. Is there a seconder for that? Amendment. Chris did. Yeah, Councillor Coleman. Yes. Go ahead. Yeah. Go ahead Councillor Gardner. No. Councillor Coleman on the amendment. Well, I just, the recommendation is that Council do these things. It's not that staff do it. Um, and so we actually did that in pulling. Ogden Point off. We've already started that process. So I think it's fair to do it. And I'm, as the lick west rep, I'm meeting with them next week. I'll bring it up.

So I'm supportive of this. I will just point out though that since this is an amendment to number six, it does say provide an opportunity for consultation pursuing to the appropriate hex. And instruct the director to notify the public of the amendment and invite etc. So the information comes back to Council, but it's actually staff who provide the information, right? Just to be clear. Yeah. Councillor. Yes. So there's an amendment on the floor to add those two associations. Any further comment on the amendment. Checking online. Nope. On the amendment. I'll go ahead, Councillor Thompson. Just a question about the meaning. If you look at the phrase, uh, refer any OCP updates to the nations and Vic West and Community Association. So is that what we're just referring OCP updates and nothing about the rest of it. Well, the way it's phrased is the OCP updates.

That's, that's the section that it's in Councillor? Perhaps this word should be moved up to write where I wanted initially was its organisations like up there halfway through that clause. Invite affected persons organisations, including dot, dot, dot, doh. And then in there is where I wanted it. Okay. So staff, uh, let's just cut off the bold material there and stick it in under the word organisations. And the third line, right there. Uh, yes, there you go. Yep. Yep. Including, yes. There you go. All right. That seems to make more sense. Anything further on the amendments. I'm not seeing anything further on the amendments. Wait. Oh, sorry. Yes. Mr. I. Go ahead. Uh, so I think we might want to include burnside gorge community association as well since a large portion of the industrial areas are in that neighbourhood. Good point. I'm going to take that as advice from staff and include that in the amendment.

DOA. Um, yeah, could be. I mean, everything I guess that touches the water is technically relevant. So it would be the burnside gorge Community Association and the downtown residents association. We're being a little, a little relaxed in our procedures here to try and accommodate the interests of Council. And the public. All right. We'll consider that the original amendment. Anything further on the amendment. Not seeing anything further. All those in favor of the amendment. Anybody opposed. That is unanimous. Councillor Garner, you still over the floor. Thank you. Thank you. I'm still a bit confused. I want to make sure number 10 that we don't put any condo restrictions or rules onto the property owners of port hope or often point regarding parking. And so do you have an amendment? Well, this is kind of written in the negative. So I'm not too sure exactly. I've asked the question. I'm still not sure what it means. Cause I don't want them to be saying all of a

sudden a 30 percent applies to them. Mr. Angelo, can you speak to the impact of number 10, if any? Uh, yes, through the mayor, this would mean that there would be zero vehicle parking requirements for these, uh, urban industrial and reserve properties. Uh, they'd still work, this is a similar exemption that we are proposing for the downtown area in which they would still be required to have the minimums that we're proposing for loading accessible parking and bicycle parking. So it would just be about the employee parking would be zero, which allows for flexibility. It just means there is no, um, minimum. They're not required to provide. But they can, they can provide as much as they want. Okay. Thank you. I'm okay with that. Okay.

Recommendation number nine. Can we bring it back this afternoon given that there has to be in a change to the, uh, attachment number two. That actually was a question I was going to pose to staff. Uh, can you explain the rationale for same day consideration. Mr. Johnston. Yes. Uh, staff are recommending same day ratification. Just looking at, um, the schedule of Council meetings and recognising that there is a council break in August, uh, same day ratification would allow us to proceed with preparing the bylaws and notices so that there could potentially be Council consideration of that prior to the break. If we did not have same day ratification, then that would delay the consideration of the bylaws to, uh, after the break. So even though the public hearing, assuming that that clause remains there, uh, it's because of the timing and the requirements for notification on bylaws. Correct? That's correct. Yeah. That work wouldn't get underway until the motion is ratified by Council. So typically

that would be two weeks prior to today. And, um, without that two week delay, we could proceed quickly with preparing the bylaws and notices. And further to the question that was posed given the changes that we've made to the recommendation that has no impact on the same day consideration. No, it would not because Council is directing us to change the Byte to change the map. Um, but it's not a bylaw. So in the Bylaw, we bring forward, it would just be excluded. Very good. Thank you. Anything else? Is this time for comments? Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Over the past 20 years, I've been a supporter of the Working Harbour. A deep water port in the middle of a city offers a competitive advantage for industry.

And this is very important to our city. We'll not involve with the Seoning process. I've participated with the Ogden Point Master Plan effectively signing off, toss it approval in 2026 or in 2016. However, um, this report in some ways missed the mark in that it did not really consider, uh, the neighbourhoods, which might be affected. And so, uh, I'm glad that we've made some changes to that today. It also misses a heavy industry trend. The industry is evolving and softening their local footprint with major facilities adopting pollution controls, engaging in a transparent collaborative planning. We have seen that quite often with the ROMAX group of companies. The general purposes of zoning are to regulate land ensure compatibility with neighbouring properties through attention to issues such as noise, pollution, traffic impacts, and character of structures. And to support a sustainable community, including areas of employment. This reporter in our approach really has not done that. And I would hope that going forward that we see actual

changes in approach. Victoria's land constrained. We do not have the luxury of open space to buffer industry from other areas, such as existing high - density residential development. As a result, in his prudent to conserve what industrial land we have from other uses that can outbid industrial land. I fully appreciate and agree with that, uh, approach. Conserving industrial lands while ensuring compatibility with neighbourhood uses requires regulatory reflexibility, which transitional zoning is ill - equipped to manage. And I noted that the state of objectives of the zoning bylaw modernization to not include the world's compatibility with neighbourhood uses. This is where the approach Mrs. the Mark.

Public engagement has been with industrial landovers and businesses. But so far, but not really involving adjacent landowners and residents. Past efforts to involve adjacent residents have been successful. In particular, the fishermen's wharf plan and the all - component master plan exercises generated considerable interests and support, even though the GVHA chose not to submit that well - considered draft plan of 2016 to City Council. While the current transitional zoning approach achieves administrative simplicity, it may not maximize flexibility for industrial land owners and greater certainty for neighbourhood users that other mechanisms such as performance - based zoning might achieve. Conflict between residents and industrial years is not inevitable. And no example is more illustrative than the very successful operation of the Canadian Coast Guard. Directly across the street from high - density residential developments. The Coast Guard was not subject to city bylaw requirements. They simply chose to be good neighbours while offering what would otherwise be classified as a heavy industrial site. So I think we

need that attitude carried out throughout our industrial area. I know we've seen a lot of it with the RELMAX in the FICWES area. And that has been very important. And there was a promise of it within the 2016 Enquanto Point Master Plan. But I would hope staff to what incorporate in their thinking, the compatibility with neighbourhoods. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the main motion. How'd you Coleman? Thank you. Um, it was recognised earlier that this is much more important decision than I think perhaps even we've turned our minds to, this is about the future of, um, an integrated community that recognises industrial capacity is important. And in this case, particularly Marine industrial, the future 50 years from now, it was referenced that there are perhaps 500 jobs in one operation.

If this works properly, and I think it will, um, that could be doubled that amount in household sustaining jobs in the region. Um, it is critical to our tax base, but it is also critical to the ongoing operation of all marine industries. And they play a critical part. To perhaps even the nation's expansion into the Pacific Rim. I think that this is actually much more transformative than we've been allowed to discuss. Um, I think it's critically important that we move forward with this. And I recognise there's always going to be concern about impacts that we may feel in our neighbourhood, but it's about where our grandchildren may be stabilized in staying in the area. Um, I think I look back to. A transcendent battle that we had many years ago in one of the neighbourhoods and in those days we didn't have email. We had phone calls at home and we had letters. And my wife took just over 300 phone calls. 153 were in

favor 149, if I remember properly were against, um. And council on a 54 decision chose to endorse an application that now is almost 20 years later, a vibrant part of the community. And I will admit that I voted against that and I was probably wrong. Um, but I learned over the years that the decisions we make today have profound impacts two and three generations away. This is one of those decisions. Um, and I'm quite happy to support it because it has a profound impact for our region. Thank you very much. Councillor Kim. Thanks through the chair. I wasn't going to add anything, but, um, I'd like to actually, uh, provide some, uh, fodder to compliment my, uh, preceding colleagues comments. In terms of impacts, uh, coming down the line, being able to support the marine industry and revenue generation actually also means climate action. It means we'll be able to bring in the revenue we need to continue to maintain and support, uh, the marine

infrastructure that at the moment is failing without this kind of revitalization. And then also the Belleville terminal being constructed at the moment actually is staging its materials offsite elsewhere, um, along the coast in Victoria. And so the, the marine area is actually acting as a materials highway specific for the construction that will ultimately bolster our local economy and tourism. So it really is all connected. And this is, um, Councillor Coleman said it really well sort of name you. But in a good way, uh, it's a more important decision than perhaps we've turned our minds too. So thank you to staff for, um, understanding the importance of what we're trying to do, even if we may not all the time. Thanks. Thank you Councillor Thompson. Thanks Mayor. I'll be very brief. We need the jobs family supporting jobs, community supporting jobs. I'm happy to support. Councillor Hemmond. Thanks Mayor last Friday Councillor Coleman and I joined a group called Burnside Gorgeous. In which they take paint

that flows from, who said it flows from. And then it goes through the city and we were painting, um, any graffiti that was in the area. And it was just a reminder for me as we're walking around these businesses that are in this area that how rarely that I go down there, unless there is some business reason that I do go down there and how important the business and the industrial and the marine community is for the city. And so for me, it's just wonderful to be able to not only support, but with our staffs expertise help us, um, go in the right direction to support businesses within our community. And so also I'm very pleased that we're able to take care of Ogden Point.

And so, um, that allows some breathing room for the people in James Bay. And so I think this makes it much easier to support this, uh, looking forward to the positive results for businesses in the area. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Um, I will echo, but again, not repeat the positive comments of my colleagues. The only thing that I would add as to say that, um, I think it is high time that we turned our minds to some policy work that recognises the incredible, um, industrial capacity. These creative maker spaces on small and large degrees, uh, really create an incredible energy of activity, of wealth, of participation, labour, all of the things that have been mentioned. And we can't forget that as our city evolves, um, meet the needs of our residents because this, in fact, is a way for them to ensure that we can. Have a city that they can stay in. And so I'm quite delighted to support this.

With that. All those in favor. Anyone opposed. Is unanimous. And thank you, Staff, for all the work that we know went into bringing us to this point. That does take us then to our final staff report. And that is item G3. Let's see how much of this we can get done before our lunch break. This is the staff report. And the attendant, uh, memo from my office with regard to Victoria Sanich amalgamation. I believe we're going to have a presentation from the staff. And then I'm going to ask staff to bring up the recommendations that are intended to respond to the staff request for direction.

Mr. Kingsley, over to you. Thank you very much, Mayor. We don't have a formal presentation plan for today other than just introductory comments. As noted in the report, the reports and we've brought this report to Council just to provide information on the outcome of us advancing Council's last resolution in regards to this matter. And also to see conditional direction from Council Given in light of the new information, particularly the response from the minister. Um, myself and my colleague, our policy analyst, Barry Nichols are here to assist with any questions of Council Azani. Very good. And so just as a reminder to the public and council, uh, the staff information only has the recommendation to receive.

But I think the important piece and the staff report is the first sentence in which there is direction from council to staff to develop an amalgamation ballot question. And then also for staff to seek further information and direction on an attendant matter, which is around whether or not there's any additional information that the city wishes to provide to the public. In response to the request, I guess I put it of staff for further direction. Uh, I had shared with the public and with council, a very short memo that has a bit of a background and actually provides two recommendations in response to the staff request for direction. And so I'm going to suggest that those two recommendations are a good basis for us to begin.

So I'm going to ask staff to put those on the screen. And then before I move them, I will then open the floor to questions. Uh, if there are no questions or once those questions are asked and answered, I will move the two recommendations intended to respond to the staff request for direction. And we can use those as a foundation for our discussion. So with those two items on the screen, and hopefully made a little bit bigger. Thank you. Uh, first we will open the floor to questions, to staff on anything that is in the staff report. If there are questions about these two recommendations, let us hold those until they are on the floor.

And then we can have those questions as part of our discussion. First. Yes. And I'm sorry, I forgot to mention earlier that Councillor Kim is the city's appointee to our youth justice organisation. And so she'll be departing at this moment to deal with their regular meeting and we'll rejoin us when that is concluded, likely, I would suggest after the lunch break. So first, questions on the staff report to Councillor Cardino. Thanks very much. And thanks to the staff report. My question, we'll focus mainly around the question of bindingness. And we have this letter from the minister from April of this year that indicates that the province at this time is not supportive of moving forward with the binding referendum. There's been a lot of consternation about that. So I'd like to start by asking some questions there. So maybe if we could just bring it back to 2014 and 2018, I was around the table.

A lot of us were not. Could staff provide us with some more background on how the citizens'assembly came about. What their mandate was. What their TORs say and how, and maybe it helped shed some light on how we've ended up in this ambiguous situation where we're unclear about whether or not we were holding or moving towards a binding or a non binding referendum. Okay. I'm going to go to Mr. Nichols for the background piece and then periodically I may chime in to provide the information associated with various meetings and interaction with minister's office. Mr. Nichols. Yes. Thank you. Um, long story short with this one, I guess dating back to 2014, there was a community opinion question throughout multiple jurisdictions in the capital region looking at exploring. Uh, governance review or amalgamation and what came from that was essentially the province putting the ball in the court of the various local governments to do something about that. You know, at the time, Sanich and Victoria's

mayors decided to explore it further. Um, uh, when it comes to amalgamation, uh, to do a, for an agate new occur requires a binding, uh, vote approved by minister's order. Now like the staff report says, uh, there is no legislation saying what needs to occur to lead to that minister's order. Um, what staff have learned and what had been, you know, discussed at the time with the province that the province is preferred method was a citizen's assembly. And that was done with Duncan and North Couch and in 2017. So Sanich and Victoria's mayors at the time had initiated conversations with the province and worked with the province to look at adopting a similar method, uh, for Victoria. And then that was ultimately placed in front of the electorates at the 2018 general local election. And it was endorsed. And that led to more conversations with the province to establish a citizen's assembly similar to the Duncan North Couch and method. Yeah. Thanks. And in the

Duncan, North Couchen example, that was a binding referendum, was it not? Through the mayor, yes. That's correct. Uh, the Dunkin, North Coach and Citizens Assembly recommended, uh, an amalgamation vote. And the minister subsequently issued a minister's order for a binding referendum. So this is through the mayor, but speculative. But is there any indication of why our process was treated differently than that one? Uh, through you, Mirror, I would recommend the answer to that. Are the reasons state? The only reasons we're aware, the reasons stated in the minister's response letter that has been appended to the staff report. I would note that in the minister's letter, it does lay out a fairly succinctly that. The decision of the minister arrested primarily on the fact that there is a, an inclination to wish to have more conversation, uh, before a binding question is put before the public.

And that is conversation with a variety of different interests as well as some further examination of a variety of costs, implications, operational impacts, et cetera. Which I think the citizens assembly would point to its own materials to do suggest that much of that was done. But nevertheless, it would seem that the minister would like an additional work done on that matter. Thanks. And bring it back to since the sound, I'm just trying to get a better sense of what their expectations were, noting I did receive an email from a member of the assembly, which I'll read out later on when we get to comments. But.

Is it reasonable to assume that the citizens assembly, or do we have any textual reason to believe based upon TORs, mandate letters, et cetera, that the citizens'assembly was operating in a governance environment in which they were moving towards a binding decision. Or was that left ambiguous. Mr. Faisley. Through you, Mayor. There's no, I don't think thereafiely one way or the other. The citizens assembly was tasked at exploring the issue and arriving at recommendations to make to both communities, which they did. Their recommendations were listed in their final report. But I would note that their final report, they were recommending for a vote to happen in both communities. And for us to involve the province and that discussion to enable that to happen. That is clear, at least a staff from the recommendations and the specificity that they put in their final report. Sorry, just to clarify for the edification of the public. The recommendation, as we interpret it from the Citizens Assembly was a binding

referendum. Through you mayor, our understanding from the final report was to work with the province to seek off was to seek the next steps, which could include that. So admittedly, it is not absolutely clear. It is an, it is interpretive. It is in the discussions that we had following council's resolution for us to pursue a ballot question with our colleagues in the District of Sanich. That is where this notion of formally asking the province for authorization really became more concrete. And it is in those conversations where we agreed to work with our Sanic colleagues to approach the ministry and seek authorization for lack of a better way of describing it binding, referendum question. Thank you.

And - Just note for Councillor and the public that in the letter that both Mayor Murdoch and I signed to the Minister last fall. It was very specific in noting the reference to the Citizen's Assembly. And their requirement that we seek permission for a binding referendum, and that that is the request that we made. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. And just in terms of our commitments as a councillor, as a government, we notionally or nominally agreed to put a referendum question on the ballot in 2026. For me personally, I made that commitment based upon the assumption that it would be binding. Was there any sense when we made that decision, whenever it was a couple of years ago, that we were committing to a binding referendum, or did we also leave that ambiguous. Crazy? Uh, 3MER Council's specific instructions to us didn't include the word binding. It just directed us to pursue a question for the ballot. As I mentioned before, it was council's instruction

was also to work closely with our colleagues in the District of Sanich and in discussions with the province. It was in the discussions with our colleagues in the District of Sanich. They felt strongly that they wish this to be a binding question that we should approach the province to do so. We saw that as, um, congruent with the direction we had from Council. And so we agreed and worked together in that way. But specifically as to Council's resolution, we didn't see anything that specifically specified that it must be a binding question. It just, we didn't see anything that says it wasn't to be, but we didn't see anything that said it had to be. I'll have lots more to say on all these ambiguities when we get to comments. But sticking with questions, what's the total amount that we and San Antich and the province have spent so far. On this amalgamation question of the last 10 years. Mr. Nichols? Yeah, through the mayor, the

citizens'assembly process had a budget of 750, 000. It came in a bit below that. Um, don't have to, the exact number. Um, in terms of other, other, you know, resources spent on this, uh, can't, can't speculate on that. I mean, is it safe to say that with staff time, we've spent over a million dollars on this. Mr. Kingsley, would it be that high. Um, again, we'd have to speculate if Council wanted that specificity. We'd have to look a little more historically at staff time that would have gone into the other incidents mentioned in the report in the past of preparing items and things, but those two are knowledge were just staff time and not specifically expenses that we paid to consultants, um, for their time.

That's fine. I note that the letter from the minister says that they've requested more research and more causing and more consultation. Is there an indication of who would take on that work and those costs is implication that the city of Victoria and the districts of San Etch is doing that work? Or is the implication that the province does that work, noting that the citizens assembly is permanently disbanded. Mr. Kingsley? Uh, three mayor, it's not exactly clear to me at this point what the province is trying to specify here. There's some language in the letter that seems to at least suggest that we would undertake some work. And then the other places where it seems that they would undertake work themselves. So at this point, it's not a hundred percent clear to us who exactly would do what in terms of what they've outlined as next steps. That seems to be a theme. Uh, do we currently have budget and capacity to undertake this level of

costing and researching consultation? Excuse me. Through you mayor, not at the moment, no. If Council wished us to pursue that direction as noted in the report, we would likely have to be looking to secure the resources necessary to do so. And this is maybe a, thank you for that. Maybe a bit of an unfair question. I'll put it to staff or maybe to the mayor, but what was the point of the citizens assembly. I think that's probably not a question that staff should be required to ask. But, um, certainly, um, my understanding of the purpose of the citizen's assembly was to put a fairly rigorous analysis research and discussion with the help of a variety of different experts and as well as the Citizen representatives to look at, if I believe the expression that brings was the pros and cons of amalgamation for both municipalities.

And so they were charged with looking at what would be possible and positive and what would be possible and perhaps more negative. Uh, and to conclude with a recommendation, if they could conclude with a recommendation to both municipalities as to what the next steps would be and that would be the outcome of placing something on the ballot that seeks further direction on whether or not the interest in merging the two municipalities, uh, there are certainly, I would say, um, a high degree of expectation that whatever they resolved, uh, would have been very thorough in its research and analysis and that it would result in some recommendation that should be, uh, taken very seriously and respectfully and that the two municipalities within determine next steps. It is my understanding that the citizens'assembly was assured and counted on the fact that should they have made a recommendation that both municipalities would place that recommendation on a ballot should that be the next logical step? Okay. Thanks Mayor.

I'll have a referral motion later when it comes to it. Okay. Very good. Uh, Councillor Hammond with questions. Thanks Mayor. Um, I've got some pretty simple questions. Um, what happens if we vote this down. Well, that's an interesting question for both staff and council. I would suggest that, um. If either or both rather, I think it would have to be both. The second one is contingent on the first, obviously. But if the first one is rejected, then I suspect my interpretation of that would be nothing would happen. And there would be nothing on the fall ballot with regard to a merge or question. Mr. Kingsley, would you agree with that. Through your mayor essentially, yes, we would, uh, part of the intention of having the support in front of Council is we are in a place where we feel we need further direction from Council on how it wishes to proceed, particularly with, um, in regards to the upcoming election and the ballot. Right. Councillor

Hammond. Thanks. And so if let's say this is voted down, presumably Council can then say we want to work with the province to come up with a binding question. Would that be correct? Ms. Kingsley. Three, Mayor. That's certainly a plausible alternative that Council could direct us to do. The province at least did lay out in the letter what broadly speaking the steps that they were looking for in order to be comfortable authorizing a question at some time in the future. So in a nutshell, yes. Councillor Henman, if number one is not supported. Number two becomes redundant. And then we would need to provide some other direction to staff. Okay. And this might be my last question, Mayor, but, um, are we able to, between now and a reasonable time to put this, or to pray this for the ballot, are we able to tell the province that we will only accept a binding question. I think there's two parts of that question if I understood

them. One is the technical aspect of how much time is needed by staff to actually prepare any question for this false ballots. Walter and that part to Mr. Kingsley? Through Ymir just focusing on that question posed. We noted in the report that we believe it's unlikely given what we, given the conditions that they've laid out and just given how late we are in the timeline. We think it's extremely unlikely that we would be able to fulfill those conditions in time for the 2026. General local election. It is possible that it could be fulfilled for sometime between this election and the next or possibly in the future. Yeah. Just to add to that, Councillor, I think it's fairly clear the minister's letter that the expectations that have been set out around the work that would be required in order to enable the minister to endorse a quote binding question. It would be impossible to complete that in time for 2026. The question remains live, whether it

was even possible for 2030, but it's certainly not for 2026. Thanks very much, Mayor. The other questions, Gardner. Also, if the delay doesn't have to be 2020, 30, it could be earlier. That's not a question, Councillor Grodner. Is it required? No, is that not possible? Sorry. Uh, you mean, could it be later than 2030? Absolutely. Well, we did a pool referendum. Yes. It could be at any point. The question is tied, I suppose mechanically to an election. And so if there were, for example, a by - election for some reason, I suppose it could be tied to that, uh, other than that, it would have to be with a regular election. So you're looking at cycles of four years, unless there's a by - election for some reason. Any other questions. Councillor Dell. Uh, thank you. Through the mayor, um. The province outlined a couple of pieces of information that they would want to have.

I would just like to pull them up quickly. They want more detailed analysis of financial implications. Transition, considerations and service impacts. Is that all that we know from the province on what else they're looking for? Do we have any other specific information from other channels. Mr. Kingsley. Uh, three mirrored that generally speaking is all we really know right now are those. They are broad areas of information that the province feels more information is needed. I would just point out Councillor Delvean, in addition, they have identified a duty to consult with the First Nations. In addition to what you described. Okay. Thank you. Um, thank you.

Through the mayor, the minister also was not super supportive of the question on the, on the page here. Did the minister provide any other recommended questions or do we just know from the letter that this is not really the question that they support. You mayor, the ministry did not provide any suggestions on questions to staff. Can't speak for whether there were any suggestions that came that happened at the mayor's level or not. The answer that would be no. There were no other suggestions made. Okay. Thank you. Um, one of the, I have a number of questions. What was we talked about whether the province would pay for this work or whether they would lead this work? Was there any thoughts on who would mediate this work when disagreements occur? Or is that something that either the citizens assembly commented on or the minister has commented on on like just actual disagreements between Victoria and Santa John on things like finances or whatnot? How would that

work. Through you, Mayor, the terms of reference did include a conflict. Conflicts or resolutions thereof in terms of the assembly and its operations in the event that either party had serious concerns. Nothing arose where either party reached to those clauses. So during the operations of the assembly. And then I would also add if at no point the province was made aware of the assembly's operations and was invited by the assembly chair all throughout the process. And at no time did the province ever express to any of the parties to my knowledge that they saw any serious deficiencies or issues or they had any serious disagreements with the proceeding or the mandate or anything thereof. Okay.

Thank you. I didn't get to chance to reread the report this week's and preparation, unfortunately. I just have a bit of a theoretical question. I'm not sure who's best to answer it through the mayor. What do the citizen assembly recommend about. Possibly renaming a joint municipality. Through the mayor? They did actually not make a recommendation. They were specifically asked not to to just focus on the just, you know, shared interests, shared values and everything along those lines. And that that would be something that would happen. Pending the result of a binding referendum if approved. Okay. Great. That, that, that shows my point. Thank you. Um, I. Think that's it for questions. I'll definitely have comments and would be ready to move this. But. Your questions.

Are Thompson. Thanks. Uh, just wanted to ask about the legislation under which, uh, I guess the whole thing is, um, supposed to take place. Um, and, uh, my understanding from looking at the local government act and the Community Charter is that it's Section 279 of the Community Charter and Section 4, the local government act. Have I got those right. To the Mary, yes, that's correct. Okay. Thanks. Um, and is the word binding referendum or binding vote or any word binding something used in any of that. Legislation. Mr. Kingsley. Through your non - specifically no, we noted in the staff report the process through which, um, my understanding of the use of binding in this context.

Is undertaken. And that, that is a process that the province undertakes and they, they issue and order us to do a referendum. Looking at the Community charter and the local government act, those tools are there specifically for looking at the Community Charter. That is there for Council. It outlines council's discretion to see community opinion at any time in any way inform that Council deems relevant or most appropriate, including an Ascend vote. And that's, that's the specificity in the local government act. So if Council directed us at any time to see Community Opinion through an Ascent vote, we would follow the process for Ascent Voting outlined in the local government act to seek that. But as for as outlined in the Community Charter Council requesting staff to seek Community opinion on any issue in no way obligates counsel to undertake any action to implement whatever the result of that vote would be. Okay. Thanks for that.

And could actually Council implement amalgamation or is it entirely a decision of either the minister or the provincial government? Through the merits entirely a decision of the provincial government because it requires a cabinet order. Okay. And I think it refers to the issuance of letters patent. Uh, for a new, um, a new municipality. Is that come through the ordering Council. To the mayor that is correct? Letters patent is a, Oh, I see. Thanks no further questions. Any other questions Councillor Gardona. Sorry. A few more questions. Is there any process by which this is since assembly could be recalled to do additional work. Mr. Kingsley. Not any process through you, Mayor, not any way that we are currently aware of in the terms of reference that we had, uh, that of course doesn't preclude the possibility that Council could give us direction to try and reactivate that process. But there's nothing that we could rely on to legally obligated to continue to my knowledge. So if

there were to be additional research and consultation, what would be, how would we possibly ensure continuity of that work? Because a different government or entity would then be picking up the baton that was left by the assembly. When you have a mic, that's okay. Yes. Make some technical issues this morning. Apologies, marriage. There's some problems with the mic again. Um, if I understood the question as for continuity, I think it would depend on why that those activities would be continuing. But again. I think it really depends on the goal why council would want us to, in any way, try and seek those activities to continue.

As the report outlines, the province has complete discretion over whether or not to restructure local governments. It could at any time without any process directs an order municipalities to undertake a referendum to do so. Or I'm not aware of anything necessarily precluding them from changing legislation if they wish. And just doing it themselves without municipal involvement at all. Okay. Is there precedents for non - binding amalgamation referendum in this province. Yes. Many. In recent times at least through the mayor, I believe there is examples of it. Um, I think the last amalgamation that occurred of Abbotsford in the 90s actually had some community opinion questions that led to an official one later on. Worst more recently actually, uh, and quite recently, there's the, been the emailgamation of Okanagan Falls with its surrounding neighbourhoods, uh, which is slightly different, but, uh, certainly there have been a number of, I guess what you would call Community Opinion questions posed over the last number of years throughout the

province? So then I guess the question is, why are some of these referenda binding and others not. Mr. Kingsley. Through you mayor the distinction would really be the provincial government. Yes. Okay. And just one last question for me. What is the difference someone asking you? What's the difference between this potential referendum and the crystal pool borrowing referendum? How do they differ. Mr. Kingsley. Uh, they differ quite largely in the sense that the crystal pool referendum was a process laid out in legislation under which if council wished to borrow and gain authorization to adopt a bylaw, it had to be done in that manner as specified in the, in the legislation. This, the difference this, is that the municipality, I guess, sorry, if I back up a bit in the previous example with crystal pool, the municipality can actually initiate that. And it does not need any provincial authority. To initiate it to begin it. In this example, the province is completely the authority that has

discretion over whether this takes place or not, including the process that it wishes any other parties other than a self - or, including itself to follow to grant that. I mean, and sorry, there is one follow - up. And given that we're not the decision maker here, is there any reason that this referendum couldn't be hosted as part of a provincial election. Since there, the decision maker. Why couldn't this be on a provincial ballot. King? Uh, three, Mayor, I'm not aware of the province ever doing it in that way before, and perhaps Mr. Nichols has, can fill in any information, if you recall, ever knowing the province doing it that way before, we, we only have the information before us, which is the past examples we have, particularly the most recent past examples where the province did authorize a referendum. Through the mayor, it's never been done before. I don't want to say if it's possible or not because it hasn't been done before and

have not had any discussions with the province around something like that. I do know that the local government act is very specific that, um, that there must be a vote in each municipality. So, you know, maybe it's possible, but there would have to be, it'd be a bit complicated when you look at provincial writings versus municipal boundaries and things like that. That's just my first thought in my head. Right. The writings, the bountings boundaries, the writings probably don't line up. Okay. I'll leave my questions there. Thanks, Mayor. Any other questions. Just checking online. Nope. All right. I am going to move the two recommendations on the screen and see if there is a seconder. Thank you, Councillor Coleman for seconding that. I'm also keenly aware that it is eight minutes until our lunch break. And I suspect that this is going to take a significantly longer period of time than eight minutes. So I'm going to suggest that I'm going to make some preliminary comments

on why I think that these are the appropriate recommendations to MUPAS forward. But I may or may not be finished by that time or I may reserve the right to make some concluding comments after everyone else speaks. So from my perspective, this is a fairly straightforward issue. Uh, with regard to these particular recommendations. It is not about the outcome of a referendum or a community question or whatever you want to call it, uh, on the amalgamation of Senich and Victoria. This for me is entirely about Victoria City Council's commitment to the public and to the Citizens Assembly that should they arrive at a recommendation that required endorsement by the public that we would place a question on the next available Civic election ballot. These citizens'assembly did, in my view, a remarkable amount of work. There are hundreds. In fact, that was ins of pages of materials available in the public domain. They had an independent technical advisory committee that worked with them. Uh, they had

a very eclectic group of 48 people who comprised the assembly itself, uh, who were selected from both Senich and Victoria looking at demographics, geography, backgrounds, representation, a whole host of thresholds in order to make it a truly eclectic group of people that as much as any group can possibly be. I was representative of the two communities. Slightly more of whom came from Sanich than Victoria representing the split in our existing populations. As a result of all of that work, the assembly remarkably, and I will say I was stunned that they came up with a recommendation that suggested that the advantages to both municipalities would be enhanced if they were in fact one. I've often told that humorous tale that when, uh, asked to attend their announcement at the end of their process, uh, I did so having no idea what they were going to recommend because a mayor Murdoch and I were very clear and having absolutely no influence over the process whatsoever. Uh, we

went to their opening meeting, wished them well and then disappeared. And at the end, when I was asked to attend and the announcement was made, my first comment to the media was, hmm, it never occurred to me that when I ran for mayor of Victoria that I would be the answer to a trivia question, who was the last mayor of the City of Victoria. Everyone who was outside the assembly was done. That being said, the depth of the analysis research conversation debate. And it was in fact a significant debate, as I understand it, that led to the recommendation is remarkable. And I think it needs to be respected. Council made a commitment to the public if there is a recommendation that recommendation will be placed on the next available civic ballot. The citizens'assembly made a recommendation. The next available civic ballot is October 17th. In my view, we have no choice but to honour that commitment. And to respect the work and the citizens. Who

now have an opportunity to express their views on what happens next. The fact that the province has changed the terms during the process does not, in my view, undermine our commitment to the public or to the assembly. Should the province wish to have additional research consultation engagement analysis, whatever. That is indeed up to them as they are the final decision makers. Meanwhile, we have an obligation to the public. If the province wishes to extend this process, they can do so. I would urge them to do so. Understanding that it is their decision, their work. And their costs. Nothing in the position of the province to date, in my view, undermines councils, commitment to the public.

Our staff have asked for direction on two things. A question. And whether or not there is attendant information that we wish to provide the public. These two recommendations answer those questions. In my view, Council must say yes. Coleman, do you wish to begin or show you we wait until after lunch? Seven lunch. Okay. When we return after lunch, Councillor Coleman will speak as a seconder. And then we will open the floor. We'll be back at one o'clock.

Good afternoon and welcome back to the June 25th meeting of Victoria City Council's Committee of the Whole. Before we took our lunch break, we had begun our deliberations on item G3. This is the Victoria Senich Amalgamation staff report and attendant motions. All three of which you can see on the screen will deal first with the motions that have come as a result of the questions of staff, report at the end. I had moved the two motions, Councillor Coleman had second to them. I made some remarks to begin. I still have some time left should I wish to add anything at the end, but I will now turn it over to Councillor Coleman as the seconder.

Thank you, your worship. I speak a lot. About the need as we build communities for both passion to make change and patience to play the long game. On this topic, I am still passionate about us. Finding some form of amalgamation that makes the system work perfectly. I will admit, though, after many years, my patience is running a bit thin. I was first elected in 1996 and almost immediately Councillor Helen Hughes and I got struck off certain Christmas card lists because we thought there were too many municipalities. In those days. It tended to be a discussion between the Bobby report versus the UDI report. And that was, the broader than those discussions to carry the date.

That did change over time, and I know the mayor actually formed the question that was put in front of the publics, many municipalities here in 2014. And that was about the desire for people to find a way to concentrate municipal ordinance or municipal governance. And it was broadly accepted in most of the communities, I think old, but one, actually, that asked the question. We then asked the second question in 2018, which was about funding the process going forward. And that was a tripartite funding model between Sanitch, Victoria, and the province. We now have that report back. It's taken eight years. Thank you to the Citizens Assembly for doing great work in it. And I think the expectation from everybody was that we would move to a question, a declarative question, whether it was binding or not, that would be set us on a new trajectory.

Or choose not to go in that path. The citizen's assembly did choose to make a, not a unanimous statement, but of fairly strong majority. And I sat in on a number of their meetings as an observer only. People ask me questions and I would say, I can't answer. I'm here to observe only. It was fascinating to see the number on the final day, the number of citizens, particularly from Sanich, who said we started off came to me at that point and said, we started off being leery or opposed to this. And in the discussions we've gone through and the eight full day workshops and the research we had to do. We've come to a position that we actually think moving forward for future generations. Coming together is a better option. Will there be rough patches in it? Yes. But I recognise that wasn't everybody's position on it, but I think the mayor was quite right when she said we haven't duty to the citizen's assembly

to carry on with what they expect. We think that this is a modern discussion. I will point out that the old board of trade, before we had a chamber of commerce, petitioned for then government to have fewer municipalities. Over the years, a series of provincial governments have shied away from the question. Um, this is not new. It is frustrating. As I said. The patient's level in me is diminishing. But I realised that it is an important question, and it does need to be dealt with carefully. We have been approached by a number of people who are in favor of amalgamation saying. We are so frustrated we don't think you should put the question to the publics. I think, and this is a false game. I think that's the wrong direction. Partly because it will send a different message to another group. If we choose to now back away from asking a question, there will be people who will say, you see Victoria's not really interested.

It becomes its own narrative. And the proof of that is the discussion we now have about the amalgamation process, the superamelgamation process in Quebec. 1995 was the new liberal government was forced into following up on a campaign promise. And they did a super amalgamation of 75 municipalities, not all into one entity, but into a number of them. And gave an 18 - month opt - out clause. Seventeen of those municipalities chose after 18 months to pull back out. And that became the discussion point. Nobody talked about the 58 communities that chose to stay together. Because they saw some worth in this. We have gone through a fair deliberation. As I say, I've been, um, passionate on this topic for many years and my patients may be running out. But I also recognise that patients is a virtue. And so I have to remind myself that this is about playing the long game. I'm disappointed that it's not a binding question. But I do think we

need to move the process forward. So I support number one in this motion. Number two is I also support, because I think the city shouldn't be as a body providing any information beyond what the citizens'assembly provided. But I think that that doesn't constrain us as individual members of council whether we choose to run or not. If you are passionate about it, and I am, I will go out and talk to people if they wish and say, this is why I think it's positive. I would expect people who are hesitant to also share their opinions individually. And if anybody is opposed to it, they should also speak up. But I think that this is absolutely the right process to move forward in honour of what the citizens assembly went through, because I don't think it was easy for them. And they made. A very thoughtful decision, not considering themselves, but almost to a person, as I talked to them, talking about their children, grandchildren and great

- grandchildren. What this means to the future of the area. So I fully support this. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Gardner and Councillor Cardona. Thank you. Staff, could you get the slides ready. Amalgamation. I've been studying the Regions amalgamation issue for 15 years. I'm familiar with the process and how across the country amalgamation has sometimes been voluntary and sometimes forced by provincial governments. What is before us today is not the question of amalgamation. But the question of process. Decades ago, the Provincial government defined a process to be followed for municipal and local government amalgamation. This process is defined within the Community Charter and the local government act. The region's fragmented governments was on the people's minds for decades, as we just heard. The Citizenry wanted an independent review and assessment. Eight municipalities responded. And in 2014. Voters from eight municipalities put some type of amalgamation question to ballot. Citizens and seven of these municipalities said that they wanted a review. Only Oak baited not. In

2017, there were two significant reports which examined financial and governance issues, namely the ventral government's capital integrated services and governance initiative and the Senate governance review. The data was there. Slide, please. In 2018, the municipalities of Sounded Victoria respected the voices of their citizens and put a question on the ballot seeking permission to create a citizen disassembly to assess the matter. Then there was a delay, a long delay of six years. In 2024, the assembly was struck and spent many months assessing reports and debating issues. The MNP report done for the study found financial controls and other administrative functions to be compatible and found no barriers. The review demanded by the public years earlier was completed. These volunteers did a great service and thank you to them. Slide please. The committee of randomly selected residents recommended that amalgamation creating a unified city would be the best form of government for the two municipalities. The role of the Citizens Assembly was not transition or recommendations of

the type of governance to lead a unified city. The work had been done. The minister's request is just a distraction. More months then passed. Minister Boyle's letter became only public a few days ago. As a public prepares for their suburb. Not much time left for people to really speak out on this issue. We are told that 10 plus years of conversation is not enough. For her. The public expectation and my expectation is a binding question. The process leads to that, a binding question. The delays worked. Gone was the commitment expressed by the NDP leaders over 10 years to respect the public process, the public voice.

In minister Boyle's letter and prohibition for bonding question or a side step is a tactic to kill. Well, I appreciate Mayor, your views on this matter as you stated before lunch. I differ. Something that must be recognised as a close ties of this council with the current provincial government. What is before us today is a farce. It is hard to know what is real and what has been a long - term strategy to deny the public view. The government of BC does not respect its own policy. Did we residents realise that this would happen in Canada. Governments silencing the public. Where his our democracy gone.

The motion before us today is a game, a bad game, created in response to action of a sad government that is out of touch with the citizenry and shows no respect for our established democratic processes. Ones that they created. Let us pause, defeat the motion and bring back a binding vote by 2030. I can't play this minister's game, perhaps by 2030. We all have another minister. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much Councillor Carino. Yes, Mayor, I'm going to move a referral motion. Can we bring the motion back up onto the screen. Which I've sent to staff. There you go. Let's just take a sector read it.

And I'll ask for a seconder. Okay, that seems clear. Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Thompson is seconding that. Go ahead, Councillor Caridon. On the motion to refer only. Thank you very much, Mayor. Much to say on this one. How much time do I have, actually? Six and a half minutes. Having watched all this unfold over the last several months, I think that we are dealing with the proper mess. It's become a proper mess. And when I think about how it's become so messy, and going back to my line of questioning earlier with staff, I think it's because there's been far too much ambiguity throughout this entire process. It was too unclear what the role of the Citizens Assembly was.

And what their mandate was. It was too unclear what our commitment was earlier in this term when we committed notionally to holding a referendum. I think that the problem is that all of the main players in this process assumed we were dealing with a binding decision. I feel very certain, and I'll read an email in a moment that the citizens'assembly assumed that they were engaged in a process to produce a binding outcome along the lines of what happened in North Cowgin. Even though that one failed. It was a binding outcome. Likewise, when we discussed this back in 2023, my assumption is that we were producing a commitment. To hold a binding decision. I did not sign up for committing to a temperature check. Because it's my understanding that if the temperature check succeeds, first of all, the lot of ambiguity about what happens after that.

Uh, but it also probably requires a second referendum. A binding one. So I'm thinking, what is the point of holding two referenda, especially if the citizens'assembly has committed or recommended that we hold a binding one? I think it's become quite a mess here. That said, I think that we are really between a rock and hard place. On the one hand we've made a kind of commitment to the public to say, we're going to put a ballot question on the ballot in 2026. But that commitment, when I think was predicated on the notion that it was a binding decision. And then the province has clarified its position. I don't agree with the position, but I do acquiesce to it. And what the province is saying is we're not ready to hold a binding referendum. We're not ready to do this. There needs to be more research and more consultation. Which in fact, I think is not an unreasonable position. But what I believe should occur is

that the province should take that work on. And they should undertake the consultation with the nations and other stakeholder groups and rights holding groups. They should produce a costing analysis. They should do more research. And take on the cost of doing that. We certainly don't have the cost, sorry, the budget or the capacity to do that work. That work would have to be done by the province. Put the ball into their court and let them undertake that work and let us know when they feel comfortable having the binding referendum that the citizens'assembly recommended. I would like to read a bit of an email that I got from a member of the Citizens Assembly who gave me explicit permission to read this out. I won't read his name. He's, he's welcome to reveal his identity in his own way. But I will read this email very quickly. I'm writing to express my disappointment and hearing that the problems of BCU does not support a binding referendum

on the question of whether the City of Victoria and the District of Santal Malgamate. As a member of the Victoria San Citizens Assembly, whose 48 members carefully deliberated the question of amalgamation. As you know, we arrived at a majority consensus to recommend that the City Councils of Senate and Victoria proceed with the referendum on amalgamation. The assembly members heard from multiple speakers and information sources that included representatives and municipal regional provincial government. We also heard from experts on all forms of governance, experts in the field of amalgamation, municipal staff, various individuals who are either pro or anti - amalgamation. We asked a lot of questions.

I feel that we receive truthful and candidancers. The assembly process sought to take a truly representative cross - section of citizens of San Dietro and provide them with the information they needed to make an informed recommendation. We 48 took in all this information over a period of eight full days and we spent hours discussing and occasionally strongly debating the merits of all the information before us. And all this time, the atmosphere was amazingly respectful and positive in the end, and we were able to arrive at a majority decision. Part of what made the work so meaningful is that we believe we are working on something important and we took it seriously. The gravity of the fact that we were working on a recommendation that would affect over 200, 000 people was not lost on us.

My biggest disappointment in hearing of the minister's position was at this fantastic tool of Representative Democracy, the Citizens Assembly has effectively been rendered meaningless. The tragedy is not the lost time and the money spent, it's the failure to support a process that strengthens our democracy. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that a non - binding referendum will create the interest required for the voters to become invested in the process. It is my sincere hope that the province can be convinced to properly and in good faith support the process and allow the citizens of both municipalities to vote on the question in a serious matter through a binding referendum. So I don't know if this person speaks for all of the citizens assembly. I don't think that they can claim to do so, but what I gather from speaking with the person on the phone and reading the email is that they themselves, the Citizen Assembly assumed that they were part of a process to produce an outcome

that was meant to be binding. They are not, their recommendation wasn't hold a non - binding referendum and let's see what happens after that. The question was meant to be binding. So to my mind, I either we must ask a more accurate question. Something along the lines of, do you support the province doing additional research? Or we have to defer this work to the province to do that work themselves. Because as it stands now, I think it's going to confuse. The public. I think it's going to mislead voters. And I think it undermines the process to undertake what a lot of people will not understand is a non - binding vote. I think that distinction will be lost on a lot of voters. I think a lot of people will go to the polls if they see that question. Do you support the standards and Victoria becoming one municipality? They're going to assume that their voice mean something. But in effect, it won it. If

the yes outcome, it would just mean that some government is required to do additional research, but it would be entirely ambiguous. Who would be actually responsible for doing that research and consultation. I think that the CBC had it right in their article yesterday when they said that the province has put this matter quote on hold. In effect, this process has already been put on hold. If this is not a binding referendum, then the process is already on hold. And if that is the case, I don't see the value in a temperature check. That undermines the process and gives a false sense of authority to the voter, to voters. And misleads people. So I don't know where the rest of council is on this, but for me, I can't put my name behind something that I feel like is misleading voters. I think that when we need as a binding referendum, noting that I am very neutral and ambivalent on the question of amalgamation, but I

think it's crucially important that we get the process right. And in this matter, we're not getting the process right. So eyes wide open. If this referral motion passes, the question would not be on the ballot in Victoria. And it would be in the hands of the province to decide what comes next, to undertake the work that they want to undertake, which is more research and consultation. If they're able to do that prior to 2026, great. If not, then the reality is we would probably be hosting or holding a binding referendum in 2030. Which might end up happening anyway. I don't know, because we would probably, we're probably looking at two more referenda if my referral motion fails and this goes ahead. So I'd rather cut out the fat and go right to the binding question as soon as possible. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Thompson is the second hero. Thanks, Mayor. And those are a lot of good points, and I won't, uh, I won't

repeat them. I would like to offer an amendment, though. And that would be. To add after additional work needed. Can I just have my own time to speak here? Thanks. Where do you? Can I request that people not interrupt my speaking. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Let's see. Where would you like to additional research and consultation be undertaken by the province? And I would like to add in there the specific wording that was in the minister's letter, just so that it's really clear where that's coming from. So maybe to say, to add specifically as noted by the minister. A more detailed analysis, and then that can just be pasted in. If you don't have it handy, I'll just read it out. Yeah, it's just, if you could just read it out, that'll help. Let's see. More detailed analysis of financial implications. Transition. Considerations.

And service impacts. So service impacts. Service impacts. And also consultation with the First Nations. You've been a comma after that then? That's why some of those are my day on. Your. Rocket. Yes, detailed past tense. Right? All right, that seems clear. And that is appropriate as an amendment to the motion to refer. Is there a seconder for that amendment. Scot - Siger, donna. Go ahead, Councillor Thompson. On the amendment. I just want to make it clear, if any of the public are following along, um, where this is coming from, uh, and I also want it to be really clear in our letter to the, if this goes ahead in our letter to the minister that, you know, you've identified these needs. Um, we're not necessarily clear on which pieces of financial transition and service impacts are needed, but presumably that's known within the ministry. And so over to you. And also I point out that we don't do the consultation with First Nations. That's a responsibility of the crown. That's

it. Okay. Councillor Court on as the secondary of the amendment. Yeah, I think it's, it's a good amendment that makes it crystal clear that we are in a sense agreeing with and deferring to the province in their desire to have very specific kinds of additional consultation and information and that they are welcome to undertake that work. On the amendment, which is only the bolded language within the motion to refer any further comments, Council Gardner. In the process created by the government, the transition phase, the calculations for that or the whole assessment is done. After the binding question. And that's the whole interim, shall we say, transition years when that is done. So our own objective being here, but it's kind of, you know, defeats the purpose of the legislation that exists and the purpose that has already been defined by the government. So this is essentially, let's think about this, another far, 10 or 15 years. That just stretches out all this extra work. The

citizen's assembly at this session. I know you, you mayor, and I think Councillor Coleman and I attended and perhaps a couple others when the City Assembly rendered its decision. They addressed to their responsibility to First Nations. At that session. Thank you. So the amendment isn't needed just adds more reason for the rationale for the minister to delay it even further. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Hemmin. Do you wish to speak on the amendment or on the referral motion. Neither? Okay. I had your hand up, but I wasn't sure if I had missed you in something else. So just on the amendment Councillor Coleman. Thank you.

Um, I don't support the motion to refer, but I think that if it does go through the amendment makes it better. So I'll support the amendment. Thank you very much. On the amendment of bolden language. Council Thompson. Just thanks Mayor just on the notion that the amendment would make this stretch out 10 or 15 years. I mean, the words in 2026 are still in the motion. Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else on the amendment. Not seeing anyone else on the amendment and noting that Councillor Kim is still not with us. So there are eight votes here. All those in favor of the amendment. Councillor Coronado Councillor Lotin Councillor Coleman Councillor Thompson in opposition. Foster Dell myself Councillor Gardner and Councillor Hammond. So the amendment fails on a tie. That will take us back then to Councillor Thompson on the motion to refer and staff you can delete that bolded language. Still on the motion to refer Council Thompson. Yes. I think it's unfortunate that we haven't

provided the clarity to the, uh, province in the letter that may be forthcoming. But I do want to just point out more generally on the motion to refer that I think that a temperature check without the needed information. These are pretty serious pieces of information that are needed. Uh, the criticism that, Oh, why couldn't this have been said earlier? Well, you know, the, the report of the, um, of the assembly came out at a certain date, uh, and then there was a letter. And then there were a couple of conversations between the mayors and the minister which ended up in April. I, you know, I think that if the ministry has done a bit of looking at this and decided that, uh, that additional analysis is required. And certainly the first nation's consultation, um, I think that it would be, uh, unwise, perhaps, uh, to proceed without that. Um, I'll just point out that the group amalgamation, yes, has spoken against just having a temperature

check. And I finally, I think that, you know, that simple question at the top, do you support Senich and Victoria becoming one municipality? A lot of people are going to show up at the polling booth, uh, and be misled into thinking that, Oh, this is a decision that we're making. It is not a decision. It wouldn't be a decision. Um, we'd be pretty far away from a decision actually. And I think that misleading the public would be the worst possible thing that we could do. Uh, so I do think we do need to refer this to the province to do the work that it wants done. Thank you very much. Councillor Hem and you have your hand up. Is it on referral. Yes, please go ahead. Yes. Thanks Mayor. I will be making my arguments on the referral by saying that we need to be actually voting on this. So I'm not opposed to residents voting on amalgamation. In fact, I want residents to have

the final say. But after years of discussion reports, public money and process. The next question should be the real question. It should be a binding legally, meaningful, uh, vote where residents can say, yes or no. And they know their vote actually matters. I'm in Winnipeg right now helping my dad, uh, Winnipeg went through an amalgamation more than 50 years ago. In that case, the province made a decision enacted in Victoria. The province is leaving this up to local residents, but not really. We are being asked to consider another non binding question that may produce more discussion, more uncertainty and no final decision. That's not good enough. We also know the core issue residents want answered.

Should Victorian sandwich amalgamate or not. If we are going to ask that question, then let's ask it properly. A non - binding question risks lower turnout and a huge result, because many people will reasonably conclude the question does not actually decide anything. So I will be not supporting this referral. Which also is not supporting the non - binding ballot question. When the province gives Victorian Sanich a clear path to binding to abunding vote, I will support asking residents directly. Until then, I do not support asking people another question that does not settle the issue. Hence on this issue of referral, I want us to be really clear and just be voting no and not extending this process. And so I'm voting against residents. Um, having, I'm not voting against residents having a say I'm voting against pretending this question gives them one. My obligation to Victorians is to be honest with them and the impact that their votes and their time. So I'm against the

referral. I say we should just put an end to this. We can let the province decide how they want to go forward. But let's just make it very clear. Not send it back to an answer that we know what we will get. They won't come up with something for 2026. Let's just put an end to this. Thank you. Thank you. On the motion to refer anyone else. Tell us they're loading. Oh, sorry. Councillor Dell you're up next and then Councillor Loton. Sure. Um, I'm opposed to this motion to refer what this will do is probably, uh, take the question off the ballot and likely, uh, allow a group of nine people to kill amalgamation possibly forever, which I don't think is a decision that should rest with us. This motion is, is, is predicated on the assumption that the province is going to go, Oh, great. We can finally do all the research. That nine councillors told us to do. We'll step down and do

millions of dollar people. Our other work down to do that research. The province is going to get this and go, well, you guys don't want to do it. Shred and amalgamation will be dead. There's no chance whatsoever that the province without a vote is going to be doing additional research and consultation because we told them to. So if, if we feel comfortable killing amalgamation at this console table right now, then I would say support the motion to refer. Um, we are upholding our end of the bargain, which is that we are going to ask the public a question. Do you support a question? And that's what I want to see out of this outcome today.

I don't really care what the question is, but I want to uphold our end of the bargain. Um, but the motion to refer, I think, would be a disaster for, for the all the work that has gone into it today. It doesn't uphold our end of the bargain. And I think it was completely anti - democratic because, uh, we would be removing a question from the ballot, which was our commitment and telling another order of government what to do when they're not going to do it. So, um, I hope we can defeat this today. Thank you, Coach Verlowin on the motion to refer. You, Mayor.

I concur with the words that were just said, I think actually what this will do is give the province an out that they're really looking for right now. We'll just hand it to them on a silver platter. Um, they clearly want to put this on hold, even though our residents and the citizens'assembly, we've done everything we can to try to push this forward. And it's really disappointing. I'm going to say that, um, I wish this wasn't happening in this way. But to take the question off the ballot, it'll just disappear into the ethers. We need to keep it alive, even though it's non binding and let our residents know that we did everything we possibly could. And we are products of the provincial government. We can say to them, you should do this. You should do that. You should bring back a binding question in 2030, but we have zero power over that. And we need to remember that. Um, so in alignment with the

last speaker, I think we had essentially kill amalgamation if we don't put this question on the ballot. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the motion to refer Councillor Gardner. I really appreciate the motion. In that it's an attempt to try to keep it alive, but it doesn't keep it alive because the minister has killed this initiative that's been going forward right now. And so I really think we need to, uh, kill the motion and I realised this motion to refer, I'm sorry, is attached to the number one of the main motion. But the fact is the minister has declared that she doesn't want this to happen. And I cannot support the game that she has just created for all of us. It is an insult. The Democratic process is an insult to the citizen's assembly. It's an insult to those who have worked for this for the last 15 years. Thank you. Anyone else on the motion to refer. Looks like we've canvased

that one adequately. In favor of the motion to refer. Please indicate. Councillor Cardona and Councillor Thompson. In opposition Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim Councillor Loughton, Councillor Hammond, myself, Council Coleman and Councillor Gardner. So that motion to refer is defeated. That takes us back to the main motion and, uh, Councillor Caradona, you still have the floor. Sure. That you have less than a minute left. Okay. I guess if I'm going to say anything else is that if, if this is in fact going to proceed, which it looks like it will, I don't think I can support number two because I think we, we do need to be actually transparent. About the fact that this is non binding.

So if we're not providing any additional information, that would appear to bind our hands even on that. Could I put that through to staff to see if that is in fact the case. Mr. Kingsley, if the second part of this motion is adopted and I take the point that we can certainly separate them when we come to the vote. What do you interpret from that direction. Uh, three, Mayor. The second part of the motion I interpreted just to be simply that we would provide the question that there is going to be a question on the ballot. And we would provide access readily and easily access to the information that's already publicly available provided by the Citizens Assembly in support of that. Okay. The problem is that the information from the Citizens Assembly doesn't indicate that it's non - binding. So I'm running out of time, but I'd like to just very briefly try to amend.

Number two. Go ahead. Public beyond what has already been provided comma. With the exception of. Information related to the non - binding nature of the, of the referendum. Can you be a bit more specific about what you intend. Well, my intention is to be crystal clear and transparent with the public that they're voting in a non - binding referendum. And if we are committing to not producing a shred of additional information beyond what's already been produced, that very key piece of information would not land with voters. We're not paying attention like we are. So may I suggest a slightly different wording that I think will meet what I believe you're saying, but will confine it more specifically. It might say with the exception of a statement that the referendum is non - binding. Sure, yeah.

Yeah. As long as that goes out on the website and publicly of a statement that the referendum is non - binding. The referendum is non - binding. And just the only reason I suggest that is because when you have a description of information about it can be lots of different things. Right. So just if I'm correcting my understanding of your intent, you simply want a statement that says FYI while you're voting. This is non - binding. Yes, that's correct. Yes, okay. So I think that's just a little bit more confining and clear. Is there a seconder for that. Amendment. Councillor Gardner. Uh, you have 32 seconds. Would you wish to - Okay, I think it's probably unrealistic to assume that we could produce new costing data or other kind of research. That's not fair. But I do think it's very fair to say, look, if voters are going to vote in what is essentially a non - binding referendum, they should understand eyes wide open

that that's what they're doing. It's basic form of transparency and good governance. Vergard, thank you. Councillor Gardner is the secondary. Of four minutes. May I make amendment to the amendment? Yes, of course. Okay. Uh, except the reference non binding, comma, as per direction of minister boy. So I'm just going to suggest that again, speaking to the point of accuracy. I would suggest to you that the appropriate language would be. As indicated by Minister Boyle in her letter of whatever that date is. In the absence of that specificity, we're allowing our interpretation of her language. Yeah. No, I gotcha. So it was indicative municipal in the letter of, I think it's, uh, you have it there in the packaging. It's April. April 4th? I can't remember the exact date, but I'm looking to staff.

29. Mr. Kingsley, do you have that readily available. Uh, the date of the letter we received from the minister was April 29th, 2026. So it should be in her letter. Let's post to the letter and her letter of April 29, 2026. So there you go. That's just to be very specific so that we're not interpreting something but referring specifically to her language. Uh, so without that, I would, uh, I would declare that an appropriate amendment to the amendment. Is there a second there for that amendment to the amendment? Councillor Lonton is seconding that. Go ahead, Councillor on your amendment today. Thank you. And I assume that would be on the website under the election information and a link to the letter. That doesn't have to be an emotion, but I would assume that that direction would be on our website on the voting day. And there would be a link directly to her letter. Yeah.

Does that make sense without having to change the motion? Yep. Thank you. Councillor Loten is secondary. Yes. Through you, Mayor. I was actually thinking of a similar amendment. So I'm happy that the mover brought this forward. I think it's really important that residents understand that it's the reason it's non - binding is because of a provincial decision and not something that has happened from us. Okay. Thank you for that. On the amendment to the amendment, the underlying language. Anybody else. What's your doll? Um, yeah, I'm actually going to oppose this. And the reason I'm going to oppose is that I do find it odd for one level of government to be confirming the viewpoint of another level of government. He has to minister has written us a letter that it's non - binding. Um, but I don't know if that's a position of the premier of cabinet or if that position will change. Like let's say if both municipalities come back with a hundred percent

vote is the vote, a yes vote, will it still be, will the minister still have to hold another binding referendum or can they go, you know what we saw things were pretty good there. We're going to, we'll do this for you. So it tricks me as a bit uncomfortable to confirm a provincial viewpoint when all we really have is one letter from the minister. I think that could be a little risky. So I don't think this was probably best intergovernmental relationship. So I'll oppose. Thank you Councillor Cardone. You have 16 seconds. 16 just speaking following those comments, a non binding outcome, let's just say it were 95 or 100 percent yes such. So the non binding nature of the boat actually doesn't bind their hands either way. But they could take it as direction to do whatever they want. Thank you, Councillor. I happy little thing is telling me you're done. Anyone else on the amendment to the amendment, the underlined bolded language. I'm also

not going to support that amendment to the amendment as I do think that it closes a door that remains open pending the outcome of the referendum should it go ahead. All those in favor of the underlined bold language Council Cardona Council Lotin Councillor Gardner Councillor Hammond. In opposition Councillor Dell Councillor Kim myself Councillor Coleman at Councillor Thompson. So the underlying language as an amendment to the amendment fails. We're now back on the amendment and Councillor Gardner. You still have the floor. On the amendment. Councillor Gardner. On the amendment. Nothing? No? Okay. On anyone else on the amendment, the bolded language that remains. Not seeing anyone else on the amendment. All those in favor. Oh, I'm sorry. Are you something else to say. Just wanted to clarify the meaning of that. Does that mean that we will be providing a statement that the referendum is non - binding? I think it, from what I'm reading there, it says that, uh, we could. I believe the interpretation

of that staff have indicated is that the way this is phrased is that other than providing a ballot question, that will not, city will not do other stuff with the exception of a statement that the referendum is on binding. That means that we're going to provide, if this passes, we're going to provide a valid question and a statement that the referendum is non binding. If the bolded language is adopted. Okay. On the bolded amendment, all those in favor. Councillor Kim, Council Crude, I don't act, Councillor Lotencer Coleman, Councillor Gardner, Councillor Thompson and Councillor Hemmand and opposition Councillor Dell and myself. And noting to, in opposition that amendment is carried and Councillor Gardner, you still have the floor. No, waiting on just a second. Yes, you do. Go ahead. Uh, but you're out of time. So Councillor Gardiner, you were up next on the main motion as amended you. Yep. Back to the main motion. Yep.

I spoke clearly before and I was very impressed by that letter that Councillor Carrie Donna wrote, or read from a member of the assembly that said essentially that they had not only done their job, but the people won't understand what's going forward. They really won't. And that people aren't going to be engaged because they know it's not important. They know that this provincial government, this minister thinks it's not important to our region. I cannot support this main motion. I sincerely cannot because it's a farce. And it makes a farce of our democratic process and the process created decades ago by the provincial government. And I don't even know what party was in power when they did it. Thank you. Can you anyone else on the main motion as amended Councillor Lowe. Through you, Mayor, I find this whole situation really disappointing. The province has had since at least 2014 and before that to think about the global reality of this situation and to come now

with these restrictions is disrespectful to our electorate by shifting the goalposts from a binding referendum to a non - binding opinion poll. The province has effectively kicked the bucket down the road. We do not need another temperature check to know what the public wants. We need the structural framework to execute it if that is what residents choose. However, we have done everything we can to deliver this. And we have been respectful to our electorate. We are doing all we can to push this process forward. And I want our residents to know this. And that's why I support including the question on the ballot so that the issue of amalgamation stays alive. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the main motion? Councillor Coleman Councillor Thompson. Thank you. Um, I have more faith in the public. Perhaps. I think that they see, um, the gamesmanship perhaps that's going on. I, in the process, in my earlier reflections, I talked about passion and patience. I

wish this was a binding referendum. But I recognise that it's a step in the process. And I think if we can, uh, engage our publics. And I think they are watching, um, and we get the similar result that we got in 2014, which is in the 80 percent level. I support this. Thank you very much. Councillor Thompson, then Councillor Hammond. Thanks Mayor. I want to try for an amendment to number one. Within the quotes. Do you support and then. The province. Making. Then Sanition Victoria and then delete becoming. In order to clarify what's really going on or not. Thank you. Delete becoming? Yes, I just know what you're saying. Uh, that would be an order. Uh, is there a seconder for that amendment. Yes. Councillor Codonna, you can certainly second.

You simply can't speak to it. Um, Councillor Thompson, to your amendment. Try to speak for both of us here. Um, the reality is as we've discussed, the cities do not and cannot make amalgamation happen. Putting that question, the original question on the ballot, will mislead members of the public into thinking that, Oh, the municipality is going to decide when the reality is that the province needs to decide. It's the only body that can decide. Um, so I think again, in order to try to not mislead the public, I don't think that this adds a lot of verbiage to the, uh, I think it adds two net words. Uh, so I still think it's a very clear short question, but it's much more accurate. Thanks. Thank you very much. Any other comments on the amendment, which is just the bolded language, one word of which is also struck through. Have you done as an ex - speaker, but do you wish to speak to the amendment.

Sure. Why not? Go ahead. Um, actually the difficulty, cause I'll be voting no, but the difficulty of putting this in is that we are presupposing, well, we know that only the province can do it, but we, you know, what if someone says, well, do you know what the province is going to do? And someone would say no. And the difficulty is, is I just don't, I just think it adds more complexity to it. I appreciate where the movers, the amender is coming from on this. Um, but I just, I just think it would add complexity. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the amendments. Councillor Kim? Uh, thank you through the chair question to staff.

Um. Why was the original question, where did the way it was. And not this? That would be a question, I think, for me more than staff. Um, the original question, uh, do you support sanition Victoria becoming one municipality. Was a question that arose from multiple conversations between a mayor Murdoch and myself, uh, our senior staff and legislative services seeking something that was simple, short and unable to be interpreted. In your estimation, is this still simple, short? No. Okay. I would, I was going to make a comment, but I'll wait till my turn. Okay. Thanks. And then, uh, a question to whoever is, um, this is not the question that sadness is putting forward, right? Correct.

And so what are advantages or drawbacks to not matching sanitish? If you can think of any off the top of that as well and my comments. And so maybe I'll just do them now. Um, in response to your questions. I don't think that this is helpful partially because of the fact that there is now a statement in number two that speaks to the fact of the referendum not being binding. I do think in fact it's quite misleading to suggest that the public is looking for the province to take this up as a galvanized priority, which I doubt that it would be in the foreseeable future, uh, without there being clear indication from the public. As to the question of a differential between the two questions, uh, I do think, uh, and happy to have, um, Mr. Kingsley comment as well. I do think that having the questions differ hands the province a reason to just say no. And ignore us for the next foreseeable period

of time because they will argue, I would suggest that it wouldn't municipality says yes or no to one question. And the other municipality says yes or no to a different question. They no longer have any force or effect on the indicators of whether or not the two wish to join together. Uh, previously when we had questions, multiple questions on ballots in 1418 and arguably many years beforehand, we never did have identical questions in every municipality. And it undermined the utility efficacy and strength of any type of outreach to the province to take any action. Mr. Kingsley, do you have any other comments. Uh, thank you Mayor. Don't really have any additional, um, comments as far as implications from the staff perspective. Council is free to put whichever question and word it in any way council sees fit. I would, uh, defer to Council's judgment on whether or not it wishes to match the wording in our neighbouring municipality or not. Very good. So on the

amendment, which is the bolded and bolded and struck through language. Any other comments. Let's see any other comments in favor of the amendment. Please indicate. Councillor Caradona Councillor Thompson and opposition. Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim Councillor Lothan Councillor Hammond, myself Councillor Coleman and Councillor Gardner. So the amendment is defeated. Councillor Thompson. You still have the floor. Thanks Mayor. How much time do I have left? Uh, you have five minutes. Oh, okay. Thanks. I've been very brisk. So a few points that I wanted to make just because I have seen some misinformation circulating about this whole discussion. Uh, so the first one I've already made, which is, um, is that it's a decision of the province. Um, the notion of a binding referendum. We've already discussed that.

The cities can't actually bind the province. The province can't bind itself for that matter. It's just not legally possible. Um. I also wanted to mention there have not been too previous referendums supporting amalgamation, those referendums asked very different questions. Uh, whether there was interest in exploring it, um, among a bunch of different municipalities, uh, and whether there was interest in funding citizens assembly to look at it, um, let's see what else. Uh, the assembly report as one of my colleagues noted earlier was not unanimous. Uh, there were five dissents or minority reports. I urge the public to read those as well. Uh, because there has been, um, statements in publicly to the effect that it was consensus. And sometimes that's misunderstood to be unanimity. Let's see. We've already discussed the fact that the province feels that there is a need for more information before they are willing to consider an amalgamation. Again, I think that the question as asked is, is misleading, uh, because it's

going to make people think that, oh, if we, uh, if the majority of residents support this, then it's going to go ahead. And it's, that's very far from being accurate. Let's see what else. I think that's all the comments that I, uh, need to make on this. I'm honestly still on the fence on whether I support this motion just because it is so misleading. Uh, I'll have to listen to what my colleagues have to say. Thanks. Thank you very much. Councillor Hammond. On the main motion. Yep. Thank you, Mayor. Let me see some thoughts on this. Where did I write down some things. It's a problem with only having one computer. Okay. Thanks very much.

So since the referral was defeated, here are my thoughts on the main question. I want to be clear about what my vote means. I'm not voting against amalgamation. I'm not voting against residents having a say. I believe residents should have the final say on this issue. But this is exactly why I cannot support this motion. I already mentioned how a lot has gone into this and that as a matter of fact, what the public has to say really matters. A non - binding question may sound democratic, but it does not settle the issue. It risks giving us another round of process, another round of interpretation and another result that everyone can argue about afterwards. Some will say this gives us useful information. I understand that argument. But we already know the real issue residents want answered. Should Victoria and Santa Chamalgamate or not? If we are going to put this question to voters, let's push to them properly. I also worry that a non -

binding question could have produced a skewed result, as I'd mentioned. Some residents may not bother voting because they conclude reasonably that the question does not actually decide anything. So I will continue to be voting no one's question, not because I oppose residents having a say. But because I believe that the say should count. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Councillor. As I said during my longer discussion on this issue was. For the many years when I was looking at it, the members of the NDP opposition then. Committed to the process that the provincial government has for examining an alchemations. This is a game, and I think it's a very sad game. And I can't play it. I hope that the minister gets this message, not just for me, but from other people. And at the ballot box, I think many people won't be voting for it because they know it's just a game. And that this will affect even the turnout at the ballot, which

is unfortunate. Thank you. Anybody else. Councillor. Thank you. Um, I actually think this is somewhat of a fairly logical next step in this whole process. And so I'm going to support this motion. In 2022, I believe it was where we asked, do you want to spend the money on a citizens'assembly? People said yes. The citizens'assembly came back and said, we recommend amalgamation. Um, but they're, their report was very thorough, but it also did not get into the technical details and the costs and expenses of this work. And I think that is what we're asking now. Do you want to go forward and do the really detailed and difficult work, um, before getting to a binding vote. Um, I think the questions. I have a lot of questions. I'm going to use one. What's the name of Santa China Victoria going to be if we combine.

Nobody wants to talk about that. It's the unspoken thing. No, no, don't ask that question. Well, I think that's something that we need to know because that's going to have an impact on it. We'll sanitch residents pay for the new crystal pool. I don't know. There's a lot of questions that I have and a lot of work that has not been done on this. This type of administrative work of combining this is a absolutely massive task. Although I think the citizens assembly recommended it's worth doing that task. The actual work of it as a whole separate story of combining bank accounts combining OCPs, uh, what do we do with our 300 million reserve funds, which Senich has not matched. What do we name ourselves and how's that going to be? I know that's very touchy.

And we've been avoiding some of the touchy questions. I think that's what we're asking folks is do you want to start doing that over the next four years. Ideally led by the province. So, so this question is asking people that. I think it's a logical next step. It's not the one that I was hoping for. Yeah. I think a binding question is what was promised. And I do regret that the citizens assembly, um, folks. Were working under that assumption, as was I. Um, I also think there's a lot of work on amalgamation that can be done before this happens. We can push for regional policing right now with the stroke of a pen we can have regional policing. We can have regional, um, services throughout the region without amalgamation. Why is it that Victoria has all the support of and shelter housing and we're doing so much for the rest of the region when frankly Sadness has not stepped up nearly enough. These are things

that can be addressed a transit authority with bike lanes that actually connect to other municipalities and better transit planning. So I think this is a good next step. I actually support this. Although I realise it's a bit disappointing, but I think a better reflects the reality. And I think it's time some of us, um, we're around this table and the citizens assembly or in the public or the minister start trying to answer some of those hard questions about, about finances and administration and see if public wants to do that. So, um, I'm going to reluctantly support this as a next step. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else. Council Coleman. I see I have two minutes and 41 seconds. I will try and be brief and then finish with a minute of interpretive dance. No, I won't do that. Um, I think we can get hung up on all those. What would it be called, um, well, if we learn from Halifax, it became HRM. We could be CRM, the capital regional municipality and have two broader neighbourhoods within that. That doesn't matter. The question is, how are we moving forward for future generations? Do I wish this was a binding question? Yes. It isn't. Therefore, if you're worried about voter, turnout and whether people understand the question properly or not, go out as individuals and make sure that the public understand what's at stake here.

Um, that's up to us to carry that on with all our groups. And as I say, if we get back to the same results we saw in 2014, which was more than 80 percent in both municipalities, that is a clear signal to the province. Get on with the job, please. Thank you. Councillor Kim. Thanks to the chair. Uh, I'm hearing some concerns about voter turnout. And, um, I mean, everything can impact voter turnout. I was just re - watching the West Wing the other night. And there was this whole piece in the episode about how rain impacted the voter turnout, which preferenced one candidate over the other, right? At a certain point, you just have to ask yourself, like, what is actually the goal here?

What is the principle? We're trying to meet and not worry about details like voter. If anything, I'm actually, um, of the opinion that voter turn out may increase because it's such an existential question for, um, our region. And, uh, I mean, we hear often people need to turn out and vote and, you know, have their say. And that's the way they have their voice expressed electorally. And even if this were non binding or binding, I feel as though people will still be, uh, motivated to come out and have their position known. Um, another part here is I, there's concern of how, um, provincial, I guess we'll call it meddling has impacted the process. And things aren't as perfect as we'd like. And also just earlier today with the foul bay property, one of my colleagues said no application is perfect. We do what we can with what we have. And that is this. So to me, what is the actual underlying principle? We're trying to

address with this referendum question through the process that we're dealing with right now is democracy. We're just trying to ask the residents what they're feeling. And it is our job as governors to steward the process forward. And I refuse to get in the way of that. We'll see how the chips fall. But at the very least, we need to give the electorate a chance to, you know, throw the chips down. Okay. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anybody else. I should ask anyone else with anyone out of time. That's right. Um, I think everyone has had an adequate time. I will just take a brief moment to Ms. McCreef comments. Uh, I do think that this issue is less about the outcome that it is about process. We made a commitment some time ago, uh, the commitment should not be allowed to be solid by provincial commentary. We're positioning our commitment as a council was to respect the citizen's assembly. Should they make a recommendation to

place that before the people at the earliest opportunity. And that's why I believe this has to happen this year with this very simple question. And secondarily on the, um, the issue of the additional requirements placed upon this by the province. If that is what the Province wishes to do, so be it. Uh, that is certainly within their right and obligation to do so to facilitate that. And to pay for it. Uh, but secondarily, it is an enormous amount of information and work that has been suggested. And I would argue that unless we have an indication from the public, uh, soon, uh, and early, uh, whether or not they wish that work to continue, it would be foolhardy for any order of government to expend the CUBID and financial resources to undertake that work prior to getting a current indication of whether or not that work is warranted or desired. If the outcome of the referendum should be endorsed this today is no, then this issue

will go away for a generation. And whatever resources may or may not have been attended to for that work. We'll no longer need to be expended. If the answer is yes. Then there will be a much clearer indication. Granted, it does not bind the province into taking action. But it indicates to them that their electors, not just ours, but that their electors in Victoria and Sanish wish to have the province move forward. I would suggest that no government would be inclined to ignore such a direction. And so for that reason, obviously, I do think that this motion should be supported. So I think everyone has had an opportunity. So here is the motion in two parts. I don't think they need to be separated because of the amendment that was made to part two. So I'm going to ask that you vote on them, uh, together. All those in favor of the motion as amended.

Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim, Councillor Lotin, myself Councillor Coleman in opposition. Councillor Caradona, Councillor Hammond, Councillor Gardner and Councillor Thompson. And so by my calculation, please correct me if I'm wrong. Mr. Kingsley. That is a five to four vote in favor. And so the motion as amended is adopted and let us now for the sake of the record, consider the motion that Council received the Victoria Senich, Amalgamation report from staff for information. I'm Thompson's moving Coleman seconding. Andy for the discussion on receipt. Seeing none, no was in favor. And he went opposed. That indeed is unanimous. Councillor Thompson, you pulled the Council Member Motion from the consent agenda. May I ask if you have lengthy discussion about the matter. It is an amendment. Okay. I think we can do that briefly. I'm conscious of the fact that we do need to take a break shortly. So let's see whether we can do this in a couple of minutes. And if not, we'll take a break and

come back to it. This is H1 that Council Member Motion around Advocacy to the province to restore better terms for property tax to ferral programs. Councillor Hemmond, you crafted this. I presume you'd like to move it. Thank you. Is there a seconder. Thanks, Councillor Caradona. Councillor Hemmond, do you wish to speak to it. Yes. Go ahead. Okay. Uh, I should start by saying usually I'm not a, uh, a fan of aggressive motion. I think that the province probably has a, um, shredding department in which they love to put most of these things too. The other thing I want to say is I want to give a disclaimer, um, a couple people actually directed me to the document, um, that was put together by 11 certified financial planners and chartered professional accountants for a BC. It's one of the ones that's in the actual motion, the attachment. Um, it was only when I got to the bottom of the document that I discovered that Jane Burns

is one of the signatories Jane used to be my personal and business accountant. And she has been my campaign financial agent for the 2022 and soon to be 2026 election. However, it was not Jane who sent this document to me and I had no idea that she was a signatory, but I found the content as well as other documents by compelling. So, um, the property tax deferral program is often misunderstood. It is not a grant or subsidy. It is secured loan program under which the province pays the property tax to the municipality on the homeowner's behalf. The amount becomes a secured loan registered against the property title and is repaid with interest, uh, when the property is sold or transferred. The program is available to seniors H55 and older surviving spouses, persons with disabilities and some families with children. The program exists because property taxes must be paid from income rather than home equity. Many homeowners, particularly seniors, live in homes that have appreciate over

decades, but they, but they rely primarily on CPP old age security and modest pensions to cover ongoing expenses. This year, the province increased the interest rate for the program. Whereas previously the rate for the regular program was prime minus two percent. going forward, the rate will be prime plus two percent compounded monthly. And current rates, that works out to an effective annual borrowing cost of approximately 6. 64 percent. The purpose of the property tax deferral program was to help seniors age in place in their homes charging prime plus two percent takes it from a cost public policy, low cost public policy and turns it into a market rate loan. Allowing seniors to age in place is something I have witnessed with my father and his recent deceased wife, Eleanor. While they sold their home to eventually move into a senior's facility in the last couple of years, the Winnipeg Health Authority has paid for staff to help dad in the mornings. And at night, including

any medications, he also gets escorts to and from common dining room, the common dining room. Most people in that senior's facility receive similar care paid for by the health authority. Just like those in rental seniors facilities, seniors who still live in their homes, um, the homes that they own, they get similar care because the province knows that it's cheaper to keep seniors in their homes as opposed to much more expensive long - term care. And most provincial governments don't have enough long - term care buildings and staff to support them. In making these changes, um, our government cites rich seniors making money from these cheap loans. Citing seniors living in properties were 10 million, 20 million or 40 million dollars who can take advantage of this. Well, that may be the case. The number show a different story. Last month, the BC seniors advocate released data provided by the Ministry of Finance showing that the median annual property tax deferral is approximately 3, 800 dollars

That means half of the participants differ less and then that amount will have to fur more. Using 2026 municipal tax rate, a 3, 800 dollar property tax bill corresponds to a home assessed at approximately 821, 000 dollars in Victoria and in approximately 635, 000 dollars market. Those are not luxury homes. The ministry also showed that the average outstanding deferment balance is approximately 29, 950 dollars per participating household. But approximately 80 percent of these participants repaying the deferment balance within 10 years. For most seniors, whether in Manitoba, just like my dad and his wife, Ellen, her in BC, like many seniors I know. The sale of their home allows them to pay for the very expensive accommodations and care. They'll need to look after themselves. And here's the ironic impact. And it's really the reason that I decided I wanted to bring this forward for us to say something. Under this new plan, seniors and others with money and good financial advisors will tell them that

if they were in the program, they shouldn't continue. So those with enough finances will get out while the most vulnerable, the most financially disadvantaged seniors with no financial alternatives will be the ones paying these much higher rates compounded monthly. I find that ironic and bad public policy. This motion asked the province to talk to the senior's organisations to come up with a program that's not punitive to those who needed while disallowing those who have been able to use this program as a cheap lending tool. My first thoughts on this was to create a means test, but reading the attached document, I shouldn't pretend that I have all the answers. Hence, I'm, uh, that's why I'm asking Council to encourage the province to talk to the senior's advocate and others who can help them come up with a system that helps seniors and others with low and moderate incomes while at the same time, just allowing well off seniors who don't need this program. When a

small number of people may be using a program in a way that concerns our government, the answer should be a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. We as councillors hear from Seniors every day about their difficulty to pay their ever increasing rising costs on fix and modest incomes. The Victoria is not a particularly high income city. The city has many renters, seniors, students, and single family households and median household income is well below what many people assume. And one of the thing to consider, since the program only requires people to have 25 percent equity in their homes, many people may be making monthly mortgage payments, hence deferring their property taxes, helps them to get by. Thanks Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor. I'm actually going to suggest that we take a brief break at this point because we have been sitting for quite a significant amount of time when we return at 2. 30, we will go through Councillor Caradona as a secondary Councillor Thompson and Council Gardner.

Good afternoon everyone and welcome back to Committee of the Whole for Victoria City Council for June 25th. We are on the last substantive item of our Committee agenda. That is item H1, an item of new business. This is the Council Member Motion with regard to advocacy to the province to restore better terms for property tax deferral programs for Seniors and others in need. This was moved by Councillor Hammond, seconded by Councillor Caradona, Councillor Hammond has made his opening statement. Councillor Cardone is the seconder. Yes, thank you. And thanks for the actually quite agree with the motion and what was said. And I've met a number of people in recent weeks, mostly seniors, but not entirely who are using this program. I think before the changes that were made to it, it was maybe perceived as a little bit of a giveaway because it was prime minus two, and now it's prime plus two, I think maybe it swung a little bit too far the other

direction. I have a question actually, I don't know if Staff can answer this, but maybe to our director of finance, if you happen to know. I've always been very curious to know if the information about who tends to use this program. I've always assumed people use it until they pass away, if they're seniors. I could be mistaken in that. Does it occur that some people do this for five years, and they settle their debts, and they go back to paying their property taxes? Or is it typically people were close to end of life? And they just kind of run out the clock on their mortgage.

Seafo Thompson, do you have that information? Through Mary, so it is a provincially administered program, but what I can say is that we do what people coming on and off. Also one of the programs, of course, is for children with families, and they can only be on that part of the program while they still have the young children. So there are some different rules for different people. So you can't speak specifically to it, but we do have people coming on and off each. That's fair, that's fair. I mean, I'm more sympathetic to the folks who go on and off the program, because when you go off the program, you now have a much bigger debt that has to be settled. Whereas if you are sitting on a 2 million dollar home and you just want to defer your property taxes, and then when you pass away, you know, you have a 50, 60, 70, 80, 000 dollar tax bill that comes due and your kid's

inherit a home that's just has a little bit less equity. I feel a little bit less bad about that, but I am really sympathetic to the people who for whatever reason needed to go on and off this program. I guess my point of view on it is that I think probably the fairest policy intervention would be for the province to figure out a way for the program to be cost recovery or cost neutral. I think, obviously, the staff time to administer this program. So, you know, the province has to assume the debt of these secured loans, but also presumably it costs them some money. I would like whatever the Prime Plus whatever ends up as to essentially because recovery so that the province is neither shelling out money for this program nor profiting off of it. I don't know if that analysis is possible, but I think the little bit of a middle ground here where the program's a little bit fair. So I think

it's a totally reasonable ad because emotion. Thank you very much. Councillor Thompson. Thanks, Mayor. I appreciate that this motion before us is explicitly for low and moderate income eligible homeowners. However, we do have a majority of Victoria residents who are renters. And I think that we should probably, the province should probably be doing something of equivalent value for renters. So. I'd like to move an amendment. On the first paragraph. After I've sent it to staff.

I wonder, Councillor, if you are wedded to the last phrase, who are the majority of Victoria residents? And the only reason I ask that is because the rest of it is perpetual in mandate and looks at a program that is applicable to the whole province. Yeah, let's... So maybe that you can speak to the fact that this would have an impact on the majority of Victoria's residents. But in an advocacy motion, particularly as someone who's going to sign this, I think it's probably, I think it's more applicable to the rest of the motion if you just have a program of equivalent financial value for renters.

Yep, that sounds good. So we can delete everything after renters. If you want to just delete everything after the comma and just leave it as a period. And we'll take that as an amendment and see if there is a seconder. Do you want to sit here seconded? Never. Okay. Anyone else want to second this? What? Yes. Do you want it seconded or do you want to just go with that? I didn't move it. No, Councillor Thompson moved it. I don't think so. He doesn't put his hand up. Yeah, that's right. Councillor Thompson, with you amendment. Speak to your amendment, please. Yeah, I think that if the province, as I've said, if the province is going to be giving out a favorable financial terms for homeowners, then I would expect equivalent favorable financial program for renters.

I think it's just fair. Thank you. Councillor Caradona on the amendment. Thanks, Mayor. I would have been happy to leave it as is, but I don't see that this amendment harms anything. It's in the advocacy motion, everything that was in it stands, but it makes an additional ask in a sense to ensure that there's equity so that there's financial considerations for renters as well. So I think I can support it. Thank you. Anyone else on the Amendment Only Councillor Gardner? Thank you. I, first of all, think this should be out of order, this amendment, because it's about the tax deferral program on property tax. And to try and put it for renters when the landlord is paying the taxes. I mean, yes, it comes through in rents, but it is not the same kind of program. And it'll be almost impossible for the government track.

And of course, we do have the rent bank. Which has a particular purpose. And so I just find this just financially, I think it would be impossible to do. And I think it would just, I mean, break us all. Thank you. All right, Councillor Hemmon, on the amendment. Yes. Thanks Mayor. Someone was sending me some information was indicating that the renter subsidy is to the tune of they thought it was at first 200 million dollars and they said, in fact, they were wrong. It was 300 million dollars. And then when I just quickly go online, I see for renters that the rental assistant program, which is monthly rental help for low - income families with at least one dependent child, current income limit is 60, 000 dollars or less. Aid for elderly renters. So the monthly rent help for eligible renters age 60 plus with low to moderate incomes, current income limit listed by BC housing is 40, 000 dollars annually. There's also the BC

renters tax credit. That's refundable tax credit of up to 400 dollars. I believe that's the one that was in particularly someone was told me is the problem spends a lot of money on, uh, for 2026, it starts reducing, um, above 66, 189 dollars and reaches the maximum of 86, 000 and change. Um, there's also the rental bank. And so it's for that reason that the province already does a lot of this. And the difficulty is, is I don't want it to lude this. If we think after some research of our own that the province does not do enough when you consider all of the programs that I just mentioned, um, then I'd be happy to, um, come forward with an additional motion. The difficulty is this is specifically, I must use the term harm that's being done to low income seniors. And I don't want these two things to be mixed up because the province is already doing a lot for, for wrenchers, which I'm

pleased with. Thank you very much. Anybody else in the amendment, Councillor Kim Councillor Gardner Councillor Lothan on the amendment. Oh my. Okay. Well, um, through the chair, I, uh, am of mixed opinions on this, um, as a renter, uh, and also I, as somebody who needs to govern, um, I, I agree with the comments that this actually muddies the waters. Um, and, and through no fault of, of the folks who are wanting to do see this, it's actually, um, again, a symptom of a system that relies on equity, um, accrual, uh, which renter simply don't have access to. And so fundamentally we're trying to shoehorn something into a program that relies on, um, axioms around equity and value that, um, yeah, the, the, the, uh, categorios just don't blend. So, um, I will, uh, likely, um, vote against this, which feels weird to say, but we'll flag that if this, um, does not pass, I will bring forward a motion arising, um, for renters and

an advocacy piece around financial value. Um, simply because again, I just worry that it muddies the waters and may actually hinder the province's ability to try to stitch together, um, sets a programs that simply are incongruent. Yeah. That's it for now. Thank you on the amendment. I'm going to go to Loton and Coleman and then I have two people who wish to speak for a second time. Thank you, Mayor, through you. Um, I appreciate the place that this is coming from, but I do agree that this muddies the water for the intention of the original motion. I would, I don't, and I'm not prepared to vote on this because I don't know enough about it.

I, I'd like to do some research and I would actually, if this is necessary and important, which it very well might be, I think that someone or the mover or whoever could bring a Council member motion to that effect and something that we can, you know, do some research, have some time to read and prepare for. I'd even have a hard time supporting emotiona today on this for that same reason. I just don't have enough information. So I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think we're ready to add this. And I do also think that when we're doing advocacy motions is just good to stick to one ask. And, um, cross our fingers that we get something from it. So thanks for everyone who's bringing.

This is all really important. But, um, unfortunately I can't support the amendment. Thanks. Thank you Councillor Coleman on the amendment. Thank you. It's an interesting issue to bring forward. I don't think it works with property tax deferment program, partly because we have rent control in one sense in this province. And the property tax deferment program particularly is its articulated for seniors recognise as a reality that property values in this region have doubled about every nine to 10 years for 140 years. An assessments have done the same thing. So tax is naturally go up. Um, that doesn't apply in the same way to the rental program because of rent control. So I think there is an opportunity to bring something not equivalent financial value. But an equivalency for renters is different than tax deferment. So I think that this doesn't work there. But I look forward to a discussion at some point when either motion or rising, but I think it's probably a future Council member

motion. Thank you. Thank you for that. Uh, anyone who hasn't yet spoken wished to do so. I don't think so. Councillor Gardner, Councillor Thompson. Thank you. It's a quick summary. And thank you very much for the comments from everyone else, especially on the different kinds of programs. And of course the, uh, rent control makes a big difference. But also when we looked at the data that was provided to us, and I think Councillor Hahn has spoke to. And if you didn't, it was provided to us anyway by the, uh, finance director. And that is, there's about 2, 000 people who use this program. And if we start to talk about renters, we're talking many more thousands. I just can't even imagine how one would do it. And so the, even the 2000, it's not a means test. Because of course the asset value with a senior, uh, something else. And I'll say more after we deal with the amendment because I have more comments in

general. Thank you. Councillor Thompson on the amendment. Sure. Just to respond to a few of the concerns raised that was mentioned of various, uh, programs that provide support for renters. I guess we should probably mention then the homeowner's grant, which provides about a billion dollars a year of subsidy to homeowners, as well as the lifetime capital gains exemption, which is many more billions per year. Uh, in respect of. The, whether this is somehow muddying the waters around the property tax deferment, it's pretty clear that the property tax determine is one thing, uh, and a program of equivalent financial value is something different. I can't see the province getting confused about that. It seems pretty simple.

And it's, you know, whether it's something the province can figure out is up to the province. Maybe they say no. Maybe they say, Oh, there is a thing that we could do actually. I don't, I don't see why we would need to prejudge that before we can discuss it. Uh, so I'm happy to stand up for renters on this one. And thanks, Amir. Thank you very much. Anybody else on the amendment. So you can be also the amendment in favor of the amendment. Okay. In opposition to the amendment. Sorry. I said in favor of the amendment, I saw no hands go up. Okay. Councillor Dell, Councillor Caradona. Councillor Thompson. In opposition to the amendment, Councillor Kim, Council Loughton, myself, Councillor Coleman and Councillor Gardner and Councillor Hamilt. So the amendment fails, but I do remind folks of this several suggestions about ways to bring it forward. And I would suggest that it would be a Council member motion at a future meeting. Meanwhile, Councillor Thompson,

you still have the floor on the main motion. That's it. Okay. Councillor Gardner on the main motion. Thank you. I was happy for this to be on consent. Anyway, as I consider the revised provincial tax deferral program and I have heard from residents, uh, have used the program. The compounding interest monthly, one word came to mind for me. Useree. And from Google, you three is the act of lending money in an unreasonable or illegally high interest rate. It serves as a form of financial exploitation taking advantage of vulnerable borrowers. And many of our seniors are vulnerable. No matter what type of housing they live in, it truly are. And so was the former program generous?

Yes. And I think a bit too much. I always thought that. But the changes that took the have taken this program to a different place. Monthly combo interest is just simply a financial grab. And one must ask, is this government targeting seniors who want to stay in their homes? Homes they have lived in for decades. Recent reports indicate that home ownership monthly costs with insurance and utilities and everything else is over 40 percent of income for seniors who are in homes. And again, what I've mentioned many times is our grey tsunami of the baby boomer elderly is no longer grey. They are white. And the government is not prepared. We do not have public care homes that will satisfy people, not satisfied, but that people can go to. We already have people who can wait many years to try and find a care home. And the private care homes cost what. 10 to 25 to 30, 000 dollars a month. So even selling a house

might, you know, the person might outlive even the money from their house as they try to get care because we don't have publicly funded care. And this is a very serious matter that is counsel. Island health and the province have not come to terms with. Especially our city and parts of it. Well, it doesn't matter where you are in the city. Have a very much an aging population. And I very much support the original motion here because it won't do much for many people, but it will for some. And of course we as a city do not lose money because the province advances the property tax to us. And they do the full administration of putting the lien on the property. So it does not cost us anything in the way of our own taxpayers paying for it directly. It does cost indirectly that the province does it. So I think we've been very, very good motion that we have before us now. So we

look at it and take it back not to where it was, but to take it back to being something reasonable. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else on this motion. Not seeing anyone else. All those in favor. Oops. Sorry. Councillor Kim. Yep. Sorry to do that too, Mayor. Um, through you. I have been following this program for years. And, uh, actually, um, make an argument going both ways for and against this motion. Um, the, the piece that ultimately puts me in favor of this motion, however, is that this council has also advocated for UBI, universal basic income. Um, what we are ultimately doing here is trying to, um, push the, uh, tweak the dials, um, on a program within a system, a tax system.

That is just very poorly done. Um, I often joke that the two hills I will die on, our libraries and tax reform. And this is an example of why, uh, fundamentally homeowners, um, who are now low income seniors and modern income seniors have been failed by various levels of government who oversee income and income tax, i. e. the province and the feds. And so, uh, on, on that note, I wonder the effectiveness of this one really my, my spirit and ethos is about the redistribution of social wealth. And Prime Plus 2 is functionally that. However, given that there are, uh, folks out there who are struggling like my own father on limited fixed income. I do feel like, well, what else has counsel done to fill the gap in this broader system? And again, going back to the fact that we've advocated on things like UBI. And also some of us spoken often about things like increasing PWG payments, um, increasing CPPOAS and so on

and so forth. Um, I feel comfortable taking this position in favor of this Council Member motion. With the history of Council's earlier advocacy. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Not seeing anyone else. So this moved seconded and discussed at some length. All those in favor. Is anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much for that. Uh, I would suggest, as I mentioned earlier, not a motion rising on the rental aspect of this, but in fact, some thought put into, um, a bit of a background for a specific program. So I would look forward to that at a future meeting as a Council Member Motion. Not concludes the business that we have for today.

We'd have nothing for closed at committee. So I would look for a motion to adjourn. Thanks Councillor Coleman, second of my Councillor Kim. All those in favor, anybody opposed. Let us just take as long as it takes for Council for a staff rather to move us into daytime council. So we'll just take five minutes.