Transcript: Council (to follow COTW) - 2026/10/01

Councillor Coleman is a way today and he's unable to join us and we wish him well where he is. Today we have for our consideration five bylaws for preliminary readings or adoption and a short - term rental business license appeal. But of course before we begin we always want to take a moment to ground ourselves and our work and a recognition and acknowledgement of the stewardship of these lands and the waters that surround them by the two nations on whose territories are City sits in its entirely. And in Tirity rather in the COSAP subnation and the Songs Nation. And as I'm sure as everyone is well aware there was a really remarkable event yesterday, hosted by the Songhees Nation, but on behalf of the South Island Nations. Not sure what the right verb there is there. Noting the National Day Recognition of Truth and Reconciliation.

And an opportunity for thousands of people to join together at Real Athletic Park to reflect and learn and observe and participate and have a conversations with many folks from a variety of different indigenous nations about their history and their resilience, their future. And a remarkable day it was indeed with so many different chances to see. And remember, I guess is the right way to put it. I don't know how many thousands of people were there yesterday. I haven't seen the numbers, but I certainly know that in the time that I had the honour to be present, there were thousands without a doubt and it did seem that everyone was there with a good heart and an open mind and wanting to experience something unique. And so we thank the Songhees Nation in particular as the host, but all the nation who participated, some from very far away and some from quite nearby in making the day indeed memorable. It is just one example of the

remarkable relationship that the City of Victoria has with the two nations in particular in talking about how we work together on a variety of different programs policies and endeavours. One hopes and an informed and open - hearted way to ensure that we make the decisions the best we can for the people who have the privilege of living here in these lands. We always like to thank them, of course, in their language and the simplest of terms to say Hector Caseyama or Archkassium d'Aquilia, which is to say thank you and to express our gratitude and our respect for all of those people who have an opportunity to be here in these territories and who we hope will take a moment each day and do something that will bring a little joy to someone else in their lives. I should casse him, Nick Willia. I have no specific remarks to add today other than, as I noted earlier, that today as October 1st is the beginning of

small business month, we have of course noted that in our proclamations as well as a request with a downtown Victoria Business Association and the Chamber of Commerce. And on behalf of the city, of course, looking to offer our thanks and gratitude and encouragement and support to the many, many, many small businesses that make up the hardware downtown in particular, but the heart of our community in general. They are indeed unique and are one of the many things that draw visitors to the City of Victoria and also to reward our local residents for unique opportunities and unique experiences. And I always urge people to take the time to visit one of our small businesses and to support them and patronize them and make sure that we use them as they offer all the many different diverse opportunities for services and products and in relationships. Because without them, we will have a less exciting city. So happy to begin small business month for October and hopefully everyone

will get out there and make sure that if they don't do it anyway, that they will make a special effort this month to support our small businesses. I'm not aware of any late items in our public agenda today, so I would look for someone to move a motion to approve the published agenda. Thanks, Councillor Kim, seconded by Councillor Dell. Any discussion of the public agenda. Not seeing any of all those in favor. Does anyone opposed? That is unanimous. There were three items proposed for the consent agenda. I'll just read them out before the record was G1. The Amendment Bilelaw for 1276, 1278 Gladstone Avenue. That was their housing agreement. Item G2, the Amendment Bylaw for the tenant protection during redevelopment process. And item G3 bylaw for advisory panels. I am aware that a Council member wishes to remove both item G1 and item G3, which would leave for consent only the item G2, the amendment Byle - off for Tena Protection Dream Redevelment. Does anyone

wish to remove that one. Not seeing anyone wishing to do that, but someone liked to move the consent agenda being that one item. Thanks, Councillor Thompson, second of my Council Kim. All those in favor, anyone opposed. That is unanimous. That does take us on to reports from committee. And usually if there was an item that was time - sensitive from this morning's committee with a whole meeting, we would consider it here, but there were no items being requiring same - day consideration this morning. So we will move on to bylaws. The first up is G1. This is the Amendment bylaw for 1276 - 1278 Gladstone Avenue. It's housing agreement. We have a report recommending first, second, and third readings of that housing agreement. Some would like to move that please. Thanks, Councillor Kim. Second of my Council Caradona. First, Councillor Kim, any comments. Called Security on any comments? Anybody else with any comments or questions?

Go ahead, Councillor Gardner. Thank you. I have a couple questions. Um, I recall when this one came through, uh, so the amendment to the housing agreement, uh, 2 out of 18 units for 20 years. So what would be approximate dollar value of the 5 percent lower rental rate? And what is the daughter value of the tax exemption program that would be, uh, follow with this amendment. Who would like to take that question. Mr. Sauerd. Through the mayor, so the CMHC yourself, please. Oh, sorry. Through the manager of housing Ross Howard through the mayor, in terms of the rent rate that would be secured its 95 percent of CMHC's median market rent. And so that would correspond to, um, approximately for like a one bedroom unit would be approximately just over 1, 500 dollars a month for a one bedroom unit. So the reduction would have been. Uh, well, the reduction would be in relation to whatever the market rent could be charged for that unit.

Bit five percent, okay. Through the mayor, no. So without the units being secured, uh, developer could charge market rent for that unit. We don't know exactly what that would be, but, uh, we're securing the CMHC median market rent and 95 percent of that. So it's probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30 percent below market. That's great news. Well, it doesn't quote on to the question. And so what would be the dollar value of the tax exemption. Mr. Source does something you would know or is that something I would look through? Uh, through the mayor, we would not have the amount until the building is completed and the full assessment value of the new building is on the record would be, I think, my understanding at this point in time. Stompson, did you want to add anything to that? Um, through you, Mayor and my colleagues here can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it, the exemption would be the incremental value only. The

current value would stay, meaning that the proportion of the building that is currently taxed would continue to be taxed. Thank you. Councillor. Thank you. Perhaps we can do a calculation some other time. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Councillor Cardona. Yeah, my apologies. I forgot that. I do have a question on this one that's similar to the one that was just posed. But when I first read this too, I did a double take because I thought that the RTE said that it's supposed to be. Now, is it 90 percent or 10 percent below 10 to 15 percent below market or something like that? But I feel like we're in a sense mixing up two metrics. There's one metric is X percentage below market. 10 to 15 percent. Which are two different metrics.

And I think that's maybe what we're getting confused about. And so our, does our RTE bylaw specify which metric we're using. Mr. QSEC. To the mayor of units that are required to be secured as below market. In the RTE Bylawlaw for the Affordable units, uh, we chose that amount because it reflects the affordability rates underlined in the housing strategy. But is able to be updated every year with the Semeat Seamarket rental report. Okay. Thanks, Sir clarifying that. And that's maybe a detail I missed. It's just that for the average person and even for the average people around the table who are working on this stuff every month, it's a hard one to wrap your brain around. I mean, can we break that? I mean, what's the simple one or two sentence explanation for the public who is interested in actually untangling what that means. Mr. Seward through the mayor, um, so the CMHC every year does a rental market report. And as part of that rental marker report that gets published annually, they

identify sort of the median market rate. So of all the buildings that get surveyed, they identify what's the sort of median rental rate for one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom. And so we've identified that that is a threshold that generally aligns fairly well with, uh, what something's affordable for someone who has a median income. And so we've pegged it to that. And then that number updates annually. And then we've said 95 percent of that just to try to better calibrate to meeting incomes. Generally, I would say it equates to somewhere in the neighbourhood of around 30 percent below market. Okay. For, yeah. And so that's the part that's sort of confusing because on the surface, it looks like it's five percent below market. But actually it's not five percent below market. But why is it 30 percent below? Is it because the median, is it because we're making assumptions that landlords are charging at the upper end of CMHC average rents or something. Like help

us understand that. Through the mayor, it includes the rental market report includes both units that have been occupied for a long time that would have been protected from rent increases from the provincial legislation through the RTA. And then it would also include units that are brand new that are in charging the whatever the highest rate that the market can afford. So, uh, we've used that threshold and we've identified that in the affordable housing standards bylaw. And so, uh, it's sort of a, it seems to be something that seems to be working for, um, kind of understanding from the market side, but it still aligns with our goals of supporting meeting income households. Okay. And so thank you for the clarifying that. So through the chair, is it broadly correct if the public assets to say that the RTE, in exchange for, um, attacks break or freezing the taxes. And so that they're not raising with whatever they would be after the rezoning. The proponents are

offering 10 percent of the units at approximately 30 percent below market based upon the CMHC technical stuff, the 95 percent of see MHC median, but approximately we're looking at about 30 percent below market rent. Mr. Sards through the matter. That's fair to say. Okay. Thank you. Very good. Councillor Loughton. Sr. You Mayor. I just wanted to try mine here and just ask a question. The way that I typically describe this to people is it's, does that align? So if median income is safe, 55, 000 a year approximately, it would be 30 percent of that, sorry, pardon me. which also aligns with the CMHC average rental rate. Through the baron, based on your clarification, that's correct.

So the CMHC is used numbers are used so that it can move with the market. Okay. And then if I can just quickly add another question here, um, what is the average rental rate about a new one bedroom? So just so that we have a comparator. Mr. Sauer, do you know that off the top of your head? Uh, through the mirrors somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1900 to 2000. Okay. All right. So then just as an easy way to describe, we can say one bedroom, uh, the RTE rate is around 1500 brand new apartment versus about 2000 for a brand new one bedroom. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else on this one?

Uh, Councillor Gardner, you've already spoken and we aren't council, unfortunately. Anyone who hasn't yet spoken wished to ask a question or wreck a comment. Okay. Uh, is on the floor all those in favor. Does anyone oppose that is unanimous? Thank you very much for that. That was G1. Looking on to G2, that was the amendment bylaw for the tenant protection during redevelopment. That did receive placement on the consent agenda. So those three readings will return to us for final adoption at a future meeting. That takes us to, and thank you very much, Steph. That takes us on to item G3. This is the Bylaw for Advisory Panels. Also a recommendation for first, second, and third readings. Do we have questions before we start. G2. G3, brother. This is the Bylaw for Advisory Panels. Oh, yes, go ahead. Ask a question before we put it on the floor. Thank you. I have several questions given the submissions that we receive from others in the last couple

of days. On our meeting procedures. This is the Council meeting procedures, item 20. It has stated that parts, or sorry, under in here, uh, under meeting procedures, item 20 in a state of the part six of the Council procedures bylaw applies to meetings of the advisory Heritage Panel. Is there a meeting quorum set within this Section that applies to these panels. Just before you go on, Councillor Gardner, can you, um, are you looking at our procedures by law? Yeah. Well, perhaps, I know we didn't have a presentation on the changes here. Correct. I don't believe the presentation planned. This was just here for preliminary reading.

Yes. So I'm not looking for a full presentation. So I'm trying to shorten it where the letters or letter we got suggest that indeed that the new bylaw takes the work takes away quorum. Whereas the old one had quorum sets for these meetings. So I put my question to you actually as you reference the procedures. Yes. Because it's reference an item under meeting procedures under item 20 of this document. It stated that part six of the Council procedures bottle applies to meetings of the advisory panel. And so I'm wondering if there's a medium quorum set within that section that applies to these panels such that it can be deleted from this process. And I guess my puzzlement is that I'm looking at the procedures bylaw and I don't see that referenced in Section 6. No.

Okay. So in Section 6, nothing about quorum. Okay. So therefore it is not, so it has been removed from quorum and therefore in these bylaws, correct? So there is no quorum now. So Mr. Kingsley, can you help us sort this out? Through you mayor. It's referencing part six of the procedures bylaw. And part six is Section 38 following. And Section 38 has the, uh, citation for quorum. So it says a quorum for a standing selector advisory committee is a majority of its members. And so that applies now to the committee. So therefore it doesn't have to be in this bylaws. Is that correct? If council adopts this bylaw, it will, that will be the new standard to apply to those two committees. Great. Thank you.

So that answers my question. I'm pleased with the answer. That's great. Great. Okay. Um. Correspondence, we also received also spoke of the need for access to the advisory panel meetings and transparency. And there was quite a bit in description given in the correspondence that was provided to us. Uh, on Tuesday, I guess it was. And here's a statement's made. Previous boylaw had committee reports coming to council whereas this bylaw has reports going to the city. Does this change reflect, um, the delegation bylaw where council is cut off from many decisions? Or is there another reason the reports may not be made public. Mr. Kingsley, is this over to you as well? Uh, through you mayor.

I'm happy to let planning staff advise on how they anticipate this to work operationally. The bylaw itself, um, set standards that meetings must be open to the public and as well as a schedule posted. So the Byla certainly contemplates that the meetings are supposed to be governed by the same rules that governed council meetings as far as openness transparency and council schedules published ahead of time. But as for any specificity as to how this is envisioned to operate, I would have to defer to planning staff as to how they normally operate with the committees. Then I will turn it to planning staff for some clarity.

Hi. Through you, Mayor, my name is Laura Sretzki. I'm Heritage Planner in Citywide Planning. Uh, the intent with the bylaws is to maintain current practice where all the meetings are open to the public. The schedule is posted on the City website beforehand. Uh, the materials are posted on the City website before the meeting as well. Um, and all relevant items include a report. Any report to council includes, uh, the minutes from the haplomate or AHP meeting, uh, that was discussed at and their motion as well. And of course council is welcome to refer any item at wishes to either panel, um, as well, uh, and this is just really continuing practice as it has been.

So still open to the public material is still available to the public and communicating with council as we have been. Great. Thank you. Thanks for just before you go on Councillor Gardner. I think if I understood the question correctly, the concern was whether or not there is a change to the reporting relationship. Yes, everything that you've said remains in public. But is there any change to the current practice or policy about how advice from any of the committees then move forward. Because I believe there was a concern about a change in terminology between Council to the City. Which is less clear. Is there any change and process? Thank you. No change in process. The city has understood to include council as well. Thank you, that clarity. Thank you. And, uh, so the question was, what was the date of the old policy. What year. When was the policy last updated? Uh, the prior, um, advisory heritage panel bylaw is from 1997. The advisory design panel

had no prior bylaw. Thank you. Cause here's a quote from the email we got. Heritage panel and advisory design panel meetings are public meetings. And prior to 2020, members of the public could easily attend by going to the meeting. And with a switch to only online teams meetings and online invitation must be requested and received for each meeting. Thus reducing public attendance to only those with internet access. And, uh, the person who wrote the email goes on to say that, well, meetings are recorded. They aren't posted. I mean, the videos aren't posted. Just a minute. Is that correct? It is correct that the recordings are not at this time posted. Uh, we have moved to a hybrid system, uh, which is enshrined in these bylaws, uh, since 2020. So we do occasionally have meetings in person, but there's always the option for online meetings as well to increase successibility for both the public and panel members. Okay. So people can attend to the in -

person one all the time. Up till now our practice has been that the members of the public attend online regardless, just taking into account the size of the room, uh, and things like that. But if, for example, we heard from a member of the public that they couldn't attend online for some reason, we would work with them to maintain access. Okay. Cause the, um, I only attended a couple online, uh, they were very interesting. And I can see that there was no presence, shall we say, of a meeting when it was online. I mean, when I was attending, it was very interesting. They didn't know I was there. And so some comments from me that I found quite disturbing. And that's why I didn't know if, uh, comments, if the video, when this letter came through yesterday, I thought, okay, so it's not the recordings are not going online. Just minutes online posted. Okay. So if someone wants to, if people want to know and

want to attend in person, they can inquire ahead of time for just where they're going to be, the agenda is there, not the agenda. The schedule's there. And so they can attend and they can just tell you we want to attend each one. Uh, that is correct. Uh, contact information is provided on the webpage for each panel. And they can email the secretary or get in touch phone to receive information about how to attend every meeting. Yeah. No, my, my point being is, can they get a list of it and turn up at a room each time without having to go through this administration, this transactional steps of getting special permission and links and everything else. Uh, at this time, our process has been to request, um, access every meeting just from an online management perspective, uh, but we are absolutely open to changing that process. If the members of the public need it or if council chooses to direct us to manage it differently,

uh, as it stands right now, we do have it on a case by case basis. Of course, the not meetings every month. Sometimes they're cancelled as well. So yes, thank you. Cause that was what the complaint was about is that by going online and having to transact each time, you can't do that if you're not really online all the time. So would it be possible to actually have set times and places for these meetings without people having to each child? I don't think you usually get 20 people or 50 people at these meetings. So, um, would it be possible in order to post online the room number and that's what people can just turn up rather than have to do a registration process for a public meeting? Uh, thank you through the mayor. As it stands right now, our meetings are not defaulted to in - person meetings, at least for the advisory heritage panel.

I would have to turn to another member of my team about the advisory design panel. They are often just online even for panel members. They're not an important in - person portion. But absolutely. We can change how we run things for sure. So they aren't hybrid then. They are often hybrid or just online. But no one knows beforehand which is going to be. It depends on member availability, um, currently our policy is that we can only have an in - person meeting if there is quorum in person in case technology fails us. And then the meeting can continue on. Uh, so our standard practice is to request COURM from our panel members about three weeks in advance, uh, to see if we can host an online in - person meeting. And if there isn't sufficient in - person quorum, then it defaults to online. That's quite complicated. I mean, I understand why you're doing it.

I understand that. But it's quite complicated. In other words, the public can't keep up with that. The public meeting is not, therefore, public and they won't know about it. Do you have an email or any list of people that are interested in those meetings so that maybe they can be told. Uh, I do not believe our men team keeps a running list, though I would have to defer to them for that. I don't know if any of my colleagues know that. Oh, it looks like Mr. Johnson wants to weigh in. Mr. Johnson. Thank you through the mayor. I think our, you know, procedures are still evolving as we move back to more of a model that can accommodate both in - person and online meetings.

Um, all of the meetings, uh, the schedule is posted in advance. The agendas are posted in advance. Um, you know, I think we provide updates on whether it's going to be a, uh, an online meeting based on quorum or if it will be an in - person meeting, um, so that members of the public know what format the meeting will, uh, will follow. Um, and if they are unable to purchase in a fully online meeting, they can make requests to City staff for accommodation. And we're happy to accommodate them. Um, I don't think to date, we are aware of like significant concerns with this model.

Um, but if there was, uh, an interest, do you have us move to a different approach? I'm sure that's something we can, we can work with and come up with a new way of doing it. Okay. Thank you. I have a question, Mr. Kingsley. For the, and I know the mayor probably knows the answer to. I just can't remember it for our council meetings. What is the quorum as far as online versus in person? Mr. Casely. Uh, through you mayor procedure bylaw allows up to. Just going to double check the actual number, but there is a spell number who's allowed to be away. And then after that, the mayor has to authorize additional members. So if you just give me one moment, I fell correctly.

We are allowed to have up to three people online at any given time. There are, um, extenuating circumstances that can make that larger. I understand it. Are those three online included in the quorum? Yes. So therefore we don't have, we don't need therefore a quorum to be present in body. Correct. And so this one operates differently such that very different was, so it's not following the same process that we're using for Council public meetings. Ms. Redskins. I would have to defer to Mr. Kingsley on the specifics of the Council procedures bylaw, but I believe that portion of the Council procedures bylaw is not part of Part 6 or not referenced in part six. So it may not apply here. Um, but I'd have to defer.

You know, I'm not suggesting it applies. I'm suggesting it's a guideline and absence of anything else. And so I don't know Mayor, how can we have this looked at. I suggest actually, um, it's not yet on the floor, uh, because I wanted to provide an opportunity for questions before it becomes an actual motion. Uh, I think there are some clarifications that would be helpful. And I don't know that we're able to provide those answers on the spot. And so I might suggest that it would be prudent to. Either postpone consideration of this to next week. Or to, we're going to run out of time today as well because of the fact that we're, we have a shorter agenda. So we're not going to have a lot of time for folks to do this. Uh, what I could suggest is that we. Say without knowing the specifics of the questions, I'm not sure how much time it'll need to get the specific of the answer is,

Ms. Khl, you have your hand up. What are you using on through you mayor? I think if I'm understanding, um, the questions that are revolving around the procedures, um, the bylaws that are in front of Council today allow for the flexibility to fine tune our internal procedures. So the meetings can be held to hybrid or, or fully in - person, pray the bylaws. So the bylaws could be advanced if council so chooses. And we can continue to, uh, work with Council to fine tune procedures, um, behind the meetings, um, if that's a preferred approach. Let me ask you this question. If this, these two bylaws receive first, second, and third readings today, two questions. Uh, first of all, I presume that, uh, adjustments could be made before they return for final adoption. Yes. But more importantly is there anything in these bylaws. That prohibit either of these panels meeting in person. Through you may or no. So the option is still there. Yeah. But if

I heard your answers correctly, by default, it doesn't begin with the assumption that there is an in - person meeting unless there is confirmation that a quorum of the panel members are available. Is that correct? Thank you through you, Mayor. Yes. That is the current practice. Okay. So with that, I think I understand the questions, but I think that. I will only speak for myself. I think that there is still flexibility here to allow this to be considered today, but that, of course, will rely on each individual council member's comfort level with that. So Councillor Gardner, you have the floor and certainly you could move a motion to postpone or defer or refer. Or you could simply ask for their questions or rely on the answers that have been given and determined for yourself whether or not you wish to support for second or third reading. And I'm going to choose another option, which is asking you another question. And that is, is there a

way I don't want to hold up the bylaw, but I want to make sure it comes back to us for process. So how would you suggest that? Let me ask Mr. Kingsley then. What would be the usual course of the process if these third reading is given today? When would adoption be likely to return just as a matter of routine. We would return three mayor. We returned the bylaw for adoption at the next, uh, regular council meeting. We should be in a week. Which would be a week, yes. So I think that would be the routine way to deal with this. I think that the interest, if I recall correctly, uh, from STOS Perspective to have these ratified, uh, before the end of the term so that in fact, both of these finals can continue their work. That's my assumption. And so I suspect that what might be useful would be for us to consider these today as preliminary readings. And if they are approved

as perliterary readings, then for any specific questions from any Council member to be communicated to staff quickly so that when this returns for final adoption next week, those answers can be presented and that way can inform that decision, which might just, to be clear, might end up with that adoption being deferred. So it may not be adopted next week. I'm looking at stuff going, does that make sense to you? Yes. So Councillor, I would suggest that we consider these today. You will make your own decision about whether you're comfortable with going through for a second, third reading. But then I would suggest that any member of council who has specific questions, such as the ones that you've raised here should be communicated, I suspect to Mr. Johnston to start with. Uh, and that those answers will come back, will come back next week before we consider final adoption. Thank you, Mayor. I'm not looking for questions and answers. I'm looking for, um, consideration of what

has already been expressed so that we can open up the process, which is not in a bylaw. I gathered, I got the flexibility part. I'm not debating that. But I am looking for staff to rethink perhaps the current process to make sure to make it more public. And that does not have to hold up the bylaw. So what that can be a parallel route. It does not have to be dependent on next week. Do you know what I would suggest is that could be, um, that could be emotionalizing directing staff. So after this approved, as soon as we do it, okay. I would think thank you. If that's, if I understood you correctly, I think that would be the appropriate motion. Thank you. Uh, with that then, are there other questions on preliminary readings of this? If not, I'll look for someone to move the motion. Thanks, Councillor Kim. It's a good white councillor. Dell.

Now it's on the floor. There is also room for comments. Does anyone wish to make any comments on these preliminary readings? Nope. All those in favor of the preliminary readings for a second and third. Is anyone opposed? That is unanimous. Councillor Gardner, do you want to formulate a motion arising that I suspect will direct staff to do something? Yes, please. So motion arising. That staff. I don't know the word explore. Whatever. I think explorer is probably the. Explore. The procedure followed four. Public meetings. To ensure that. The public have. Impersonate access to meetings. May I offer some assistance? Yes. Uh, how about this? That staff, uh, explore procedures. Yes. Four. The HAP, oh no, so the AHP, they've got different names now. And ADP. That ensure public access. To all proceedings. They already have in line if they go through their big process. So I mean, public in person. Okay.

Sure. So the circular public access and in, uh, public in - person access. How about that? Yes. Public in, person access to all proceedings. So about to all panel proceedings. It's just so we're clear that we're talking about those two panels. Yes. Thank you. And then change HP to HAP? No, no, it's the advisory heritage panel. Oh, change the name? Yes. To make it consistent. Oh, okay. So no longer hat. So yes, thank you Councillor Cardona. So yes, Councillor Gardner, I think we understand the purpose of this. Is there anything you need to add? That's good. No Council Cardona anything to add. Nope. All right.

Anyone else on the motion rising. Nope. All those in favor. And it would oppose that is unanimous. Thank you for that. I believe that does, uh, deal with item G3. And so let us move on to item G4. This is the amendment bylaw for economic and employment land solutions. This is also beginning with first, second, and third readings. Before we put that on the floor, are there any questions? Emissions Councillor Gardner. I've got too many questions today. Included with the information package for today's Council meeting is a communication dated August 8th. From Arthur McInnes regarding the process followed at the July 23rd and July 30th meetings regarding this matter. On Tuesday of this week, I, excuse me, alerted staff of the need to address the points within the McGinnis Communications because I didn't want to surprise everybody with their questions today. Are you okay? Yeah.

Am I going to be okay? Okay. At this point, I didn't know, could staff please address the points perhaps made in that communication. Yes, please over to staff. And again, if you will remind the public who you are, that would be helpful. Good morning, Mayor. Yeah. Through you, I'm Senior Planner Malcolm McLean and able to lean into the mic to make sure I'm accurate adequately amplified. Um, I can address these three questions in the correspondence. Um, so I understand the first question related to why more specific Section references from the OCP didn't feature in the reports section on OCP consistency. Um, staffing and council consider the OCP as a whole, um, when evaluating consistency of any proposal with the OCP. Um, but we don't reattach the entire plan that is considered, uh, to each report.

Um, the recommendations of that report, uh, were consistent with the OCP as a whole. Uh, this includes the OCPs built form guidance and land use policies as well as the economic development objectives. Um, the City action related to strategic, um, sorry, strategies for a comic vitality and cultural vibrancy was specifically called out, uh, in the OCP consistency section of the report because it was the core driver of bringing forward the, uh, economic and employment land solutions report. Um, the recommendation for the zoning amendment before Council today was also consistent with the OCP. That finding informed the recommendation to waive the requirement for the public hearing.

Um, for clarity, I will add the zoning amendment only relates to old town with respect to proposing to add light industrial laboratory and veterinary uses to the old town district zone. Um, I understand the second question related to the feasibility of a certain scale of hotel, uh, fitting within the parameters of the old town district zone. Um, first I'll just reiterate that the zoning amendment, uh, before counsel does not involve changes to the height or density permitted in the old town district one zone, um, there are wide variety of hotel types and sizes that can make sense to add in Victoria. Um, so these are noted in the greater Victoria Hotel Development Report. Um, one of these is a full service hotel with approximately 50, 000 square feet of floor area and about 150 rooms.

And this was highlighted, um, as a hotel form that's most likely to be viable given current conditions today. Um, this scale of hotel informed the enabling zoning changes recommended for the central business district zone. It is theoretically possible that a 50, 000 square foot hotel could be compliant with the longstanding height and density parameters of the old town district zone. If it was on a site of sufficient size, uh, and with the right conditions and context. Um, I should note, uh, context in any and all development proposals would be subject to the applicable heritage conservation area and development permit area guidelines. Um, and also boutique and limited service hotels can be suitable for smaller scales and smaller sites. And these also serve important roles within Victoria. Um, I understand the third question related to whether previously proposed policy changes to the downtown core area plan would direct additional density to properties where no heritage merit is identified. Um, those proposed policy updates were not advanced

by Council. Um, if the policy changes had been advanced, they would not direct, uh, additional density to any given site. Um, the policies would give the city updated guidance for considering rezoning applications. If a hotel were to be proposed on any given site. This would include guidance for considering applications for more than three to one floor space ratio, uh, for either existing heritage buildings or for properties without heritage merit. And the proposed policies emphasized the rehabilitation of existing heritage and making a positive contribution to the existing heritage assets, uh, consistent with the heritage conservation area. Uh, again, to be clear, the proposed policy updates were not advanced. And I'll pause if my colleagues want to add anything more. That's recorded. No, that's fine. Just one more question because there was great emphasis in that submission about, uh, the. The point number two, which was the, um, foregoing of the public hearing as to whether or not the vote process was the, uh, the way it

should have been handled. Okay, that was in that document as to whether or not it should have been severed or not severed from the final motion, et cetera. Do you have a chance to look at that. Part of the submission we got. I believe. Oh, that you got in August 9th. We got a couple of days ago. Live the motion was presented as package and no council member asked for that Section to be severed. So without that request from council, staff would have presented the entire motion as one piece. Council always has the option to suggest to request. And we almost, I don't know. We do put it to a vote. But certainly they have the option of asking for a particular section to be severed. I don't believe if I recall correctly that that was asked for at that time. So that would be on council, not on style. Thank you, Mayor. That was part of it. But I believe it was also that,

um, maybe you need to bylaw before you decide whether or not you're going to do a public hearing. Was that not part of the submission we got? I don't believe so, but I'd look again. I only got two days ago, but it's been around for a couple months. I don't believe so. Mr. Johnston, do you have a thought on that? Uh, just that the wording of the recommendation, um, followed our standard process, uh, where in staff's assessment, the proposed zoning amendments are consistent with the official community plan. And so in this case, um, because it's, uh, it's for, it's not specifically for residential uses. Uh, there is the potential that council could have a public hearing. Um, but it's been our practice, uh, consistent with our land use procedures bylaw to recommend that Council waive the public hearing requirement because the proposed bylaw amendments are consistent with the OCP. But that doesn't, uh, there's always the option that council could have chosen to have a

public hearing for this type of bylaw amendment. It's not prohibited under the local government act, but, uh, yeah, we just proposed a recommendation that was consistent with past practice. So all right. Any other questions. If not, I'll ask for someone to put the motion on the floor. Thanks very much Council Caradona. Seconded by Councillor Kim. Any other comments or questions this will just be for first, second or third reading to start. And then we'll do Byla, uh, we'll do, um, adoption secretary. Right. All those in favor for a second and third reading. And it would oppose. Councillor Gardner, Councillor Hamador opposed. Can we have someone also move adoption then Councillor Dona and Councillor Kim any further comments. Not seeing any. All those in favor. Does anyone oppose Councillor Hammond and Councillor Gardner are opposed to adoption? Noting to, in opposition, and again, that we are only eight people today, these particular biologs are moved for second, third, and adoption. All right. That takes us on

to G5. This is adoption. And this is why it wasn't on consent because we don't put adoptions on consent. Amenment Bylaw for amenity cost charges. So this is the amenity cost charged bylaw 2025 amendment bylaw number one for 26 - 066. Someone move adoption, please. Thanks, Concert Kim Counsel Cardona. Any commentary from either Kim or Carorana. Cardano, go ahead. Yeah. Uh, thanks through the chair to staff at just had a couple of questions on this one before we finalise it. Will the new ACC bylaw impact our local amenities reserves? Both the restricted and unrestricted ones that are at the neighbourhood and citywide levels. We'd like to take that question. It's money. I'm going to go to Ms. Thompson. Or this Thompson, go for it. Uh, through you, Mary. I guess I'll start. So it is completely separate. So any funding, uh, collected through the amenity cost charges have to go into a separate reserve. So it's totally separate from NECACs that may have been collected

in the past. My understanding too is that we will no longer be able to collect CACs in the traditional sense. Um, and, uh, so what will come in through the ACCs will be, um, again, put into a separate reserve for the projects that are outlined in the ACC program. And through the chair, if I recall correctly, those have to be essentially parks or infrastructure. Mr. Seward. The mayor, the ACC bylaw identifies the sort of eligible uses of the funds. And so if your community space, uh, linear parks at this time. So your Community space. So I guess my question then is we're essentially turning off the tap of the funds that have flowed from developer contributions via CACs into various things, including our local amenities reserve. And there's an unrestricted one for the entire city.

And then there's restricted ones at the neighbourhood level. And so I'm just trying to understand what's going to happen with those reserves. Are they just going to sort of atrophy over time. Ms. Thompson. Through the mayor, so as long as they have funding in them, they will remain. Um, at one point, uh, presumably that funding will be used to support various projects. And I guess at the end of that, Council could consider, uh, collapsing that reserve. And to the chairs, I mean, I recall in our conversations in months past that there's still some voluntary contributions that could come in from, from, um, developers. And the bonus density. And there's, I think hypothetically some scenarios in which some CAC like, um, costs are still flowing to the city. Is that not correct? Uh, through the mayor, you know, the, the City does still continue to have some ability to work with applicants through the rezoning process to explore opportunities for voluntary contributions. And so in theory,

there could still be a trickle of revenue that comes into the local amenity reserves, even though we're switching from CACs to ACCs. So through the mayor, uh, yes, that's correct. Okay. Uh, maybe I'll give some comments then. This is one that I've been fighting for a while. If you're called last year, we had a UBCM resolution. That asked the province to reconsider how structured this program is. Because. It is, I mean, and correct me if I'm wrong, Steph, because I always want to be factually correct, but the, the previous regime, which was a bit the wild west. I acknowledge. Whereas CACs were flying all over the place. It did, the silver lining there was that it gave local governments a lot of leeway in where those developer contributions went. And one of the pathways of those funds went into our housing reserve fund. Millions of dollars went into the HRF, which we then repurposed into non - market affordable projects. And also a lot went

into various kinds of infrastructure projects and other kinds of unrestricted projects. And I lament the loss of that. And I, I, I've tried to push back on that through all the available channels over the last two years because I saw the writing on the wall. And here we are. And I do appreciate that ACCs are rationalizing something that had been a Bit chaotic. But the problem is that they're so structured in a way that the only thing that developer contributions can go towards now are parks or community spaces. And those are great things to invest in. But there's other things to invest in, like non - market affordable housing. And the other problem with the ACC is that if I've understood it correctly of the last couple of years, these projects have to be defined ahead of time. It's not only they can just sit around and you can use them later for some undefined thing. They have to be X amount of dollars goes

to Y project. Or I don't know what happens. So, um, I'm, I'm a bit fussed by this because I do think it's going to impede our ability as local government to invest or co - invest in non - market affordable housing. By my tally, we've given 8. 5 million dollars projects this term. GVHS, CRHC, et cetera. That money's now going to have to come from somewhere else probably through tax or acquisition. Or something. But I did think the sort of social democrat in me believe that this was a really good redistribution of wealth. You're going to build a condo. Okay. Some of those funds go to the city. The city then uses them to support people who are not as advantaged to live in a luxury condo and need to live in non - market housing. And so we've severed that tie now through procedural changes that are essentially being thrust upon us by the province. And again, I'm trying to be gracious to the

province and acknowledge that they're trying to rationalize something that was a bit chaotic. But I think that there could have been space left open for, first of all, affordable housing. And second of all, a little bit more leeway in giving some trust. To local governments that they're going to invest in local amenities that are the best thing for their community. So I am, I am fussed by this. I don't see a reason to vote against it because it's, it's provincial law and I don't want to just be an obstructionist, but I do want to note down that I do have serious misgivings about the structures of ACCs. And I lament the loss of the CACs and what they have been able to deliver for this community. Thanks very much. Anybody else. Councillor Kim, you move this, did you want to reserve any comments? No. Okay.

Councillor Gardner Councillor Thompson. Just a very short question because I had the same question about impact. So I don't have to answer that one. This talks about, uh, projects that are in transition. How many are the. Do you know that? Through the mirror, I think, you know, at this point in time, I think we're tracking somewhere less than 10, I believe. Okay. Thank you very much. Catch you Thompson. Thanks, Mayor. I just wanted to speak to one of the points that a colleague made earlier about income or redistribution. I'm all in favor of redistribution. It's the cornerstone of how we've managed to. Keep some people from falling into poverty. But, um, the, uh, CAC mechanism, I think was deeply flawed in that it basically required people who are trying to buy into the housing market for the first time to be the ones who are providing the subsidy, uh, when there are people who are much more well healed, uh, that could afford to take

that on. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Councillor Love. Through you, mayor, just a quick question to follow up on the comments here. What are the ways now that contributions can be made to the housing reserve fund? Mr. Sauer. Through the mayor, um, thanks to the question. So, uh, currently through allocations to the sort of housing reserve fund can happen. Uh, the primary tool that the province has identified is really probably bonus density. So, uh, based on, uh, there's opportunities for local governments to establish bonus density schemes where cash contributions can be made. And those cash contributions can then be made to an affordable housing reserve that can then, you know, fund, uh, allow for contributions to, um, nonprofit housing projects like we have that in the past. So we do have, uh, that ability in our, um, you know, our general residential areas to make cash contributions to the density bonus. Um, but certainly the landscape within the provincial with the new provincial

legislation has changed the way that the process will work moving forward. Um, and is moving it more, um, into a much more sort of structure density bonus approach. And this new ACC bylaw approach. Okay. So just so I understand this clearly then the bonus density, you can either build that housing or is it like a cash and lie. That's correct. Of creating those units that could go into the housing reserve and then flow into non - market projects. Okay. Thanks for that. Thank you. Anybody else. Okay. It's on the floor then. All those in favor. Anybody opposed? That is unanimous. I'm going to test whether we can get through this right here. Up next is H1. This is a short term rental business license appeal for 1496 Dallas Road. And as I've mentioned when we've done this previously since this does place counsel in a quasi judicial position, uh, unusually going to read a particular script, uh, which has, um, particular language that is necessary

to ensure that our procedure is undertaken appropriately. So today we have one report before council dealing with the appeal of the denial of a business license for short - term rentals at 1496 Dallas Road. In April of 2020, Council proved the short - term rental business license appeal process policy as part of the evolution of the ongoing compliance monitoring with the City short - term rental regulations bylaw. The Community Charter requires that anyone who has denied a business license has the right to appeal the license inspector's decision to counsel. The city's policy specific to short - term rental licences establishes a written submission process for both the appellant, who is the operator of the short - term rental property, as well as the city's license inspector. Council has one report today about one property for which a denial of the business license for the short - term rental has occurred. And again, that's at 1496 Dallas Road. I will now ask the City clerk to

give a brief overview of the process for the public and for council. Mr. King's Lee. Thank you, Mayor. The process begins when an application for a business license is denied by a licensed inspector in writing citing the reasons for the denial. The applicant indicates in writing that the City clerk that they wish to appeal, the licensed inspector's decision. The City cleric acknowledges the request and outlines the appeal process. The applicant submits an appeal. The license inspector provides a written submission. The applicant is offered the opportunity to respond to the licensed inspector's submission. The City cleric prepares a cover report attaching a submissions and process information for councils consideration. And council considers whether to uphold the license inspectors denial or overturn it. Thank you very much.

Council's rule in this statutory process is to consider the facts as submitted in writing by both your appellant and the license inspector. Council members may ask questions of the City cleric or the City Solicitor to clarify the process, but Council must reach its decision based only on the submission's attached to the cover report. So Council By Majority, you must vote either to uphold the denial of the business license or to grant the appeal, which would have the effect of directing the license specter to issue a license. And you can see those options on the screen in front of you. So council, before we go any further, are there any process questions that you need or would like to ask before we proceed? I'm not seeing any process questions. So now I will ask Mr. Kingsley to introduce the appeal. We're considering today. Ching's lead. Certainly mayor. In this instance, the operator of a short - term rental unit at 1496 Dallas Road was denied a

principal resident operator license and is exercised the Community Charter right to have council reconsider the matter. The submissions are necessary documentation has been submitted and appended as part of the report and staff await's deliberations and decision on the matter. Thank you very much for that. So does anyone have anything that they like to start with? Anyone like to start Councillor Caradona when you start us off and then I'll go to Councillor Hammond. Do you want us to move a motion? You may answer this time. I'm just going to move option two. That option two that council deny the reconsideration. That would be to uphold the dismissal. Okay. Okay. That's appropriately on the floor. Is there a second here for that. Option two. No one is seconding that. Okay. In the absence of a second or I will look to someone else. Councillor Hammond, you had your head up next and then Councillor Delphi taking a basement sweet off. I would like to propose option one.

For a second of her option one Self - contained basement sweet. Councillor Dell is seconding. All right. I will do this as the usual way. We'll present this as a motion since there does not seem to be unanimity. Councillor Hammond, why are you proposing option one? Thanks Mayor. I supported this appeal last year because I believe Council had to judge the property as it actually exists, not as we might imagine it could be used in the future. The current situation strengthens that conclusion, the separating door has been removed. The space is open to the rest of the home. Only one bedroom is proposed for guests.

And there is no cooking appliance under a bylaw definitions that matters because a dwelling unit must include a kitchen with a sink fridge and a stove hot plate microwave air fryer toaster oven or other heating cooking appliance. On this evidence submitted for 2026, the lower level has the sink and fridge, but no cooking heating appliance. I don't think it's fair to speculate what it could be put into. Thank you, Councillor Dell is the secondary. Yeah, I would like the clerk to pull up the photo I sent, please. That's allowed it. Or permissions. Um, I guess I'll speak as this. Like I look through the report, um, I've looked through the unit, um, this looks like part of a house where there's a tiny little, uh, I don't even know what to call this. A T making station. Essentially, uh, I understand there might be some folks that want to live full time with, uh, tiny little sink. And a kettle. Perhaps that can work for

some folks, but this is part of a house where, uh, it's a very closely connected to a family's house. There's clearly kids, young kids living upstairs as shown in the photos. Uh, this is not a long - term rental suite. If someone could easily move into, uh, I understand, it might be a kind of an in last week, a sweet for friends or a short - term rental spot. We're eventually a spot where this might be turned into a TV room den for the kids and another bedroom. But that kitchen does not meet the definition of our bylaws. There's no stove there. There's no cooking areas there. And I think therefore this is not the intent of capturing what should be a long - term rental. So this is what swayed me why I'm going to be supporting number one. Thank you, Councillor Caradona on number one. Yeah, I oppose and I think this is a huge mistake to grant this reconsideration. There are hundreds

and hundreds of units just like this all across. The entire city. Not units homes. Mainly basement suites that are self - contained dwelling units. And if we allow this one to be STR, it is going to stimulate many others. To either not rent to renters or asset renters to leave or whatever and shift into turning their homes into quasi hotels. I'll read a portion of the inspector's report. The appellant's appeal submission relies on the removal of the connecting door. And that the basement food prep area does not contain a cooking appliance. This is the same position taken by the appellant in their 2025 appeal. The only difference being that the door has now been removed as opposed to simply being unlocked as was indicated last year. The licensed inspector believes that despite the removal of the connecting door and the cooking appliance, the appellant remains able to offer the basement space as a self - contained dwelling unit, separate from the appellant's principal residence on

the main and upper floors by simply replacing the removed door in microwave. I'm sympathetic to homeowners who are trying to find additional forms of income. I am absolutely sympathetic to that, but I'm more compelled by the need to retain our limited, more affordable housing stock. Like I said, there's hundreds of units like this across the city. And I don't want to get into a slippery slope. Where we're nudging the door back open to essentially turning. Non - principled residences into STRs. And that's what this feels like to me. Some of these have been really grey areas. This one seems relatively black and white to me.

It's a basement suite. You can do various things to modify it to make it seem like it's part of the house. But really it's an ADU. This person should rent it out to someone. Not treated as a quasi - hotel. We're still in a housing crisis and the priority needs to be on tenants who need housing. Thank you very much. Uh, option one is on the table. Is anyone else wish to comment an option one? Council Cardner. We're already down that slippery slope. There's no question about it. This was clearly a secondary suite that has been converted into a short - term rental. The appellant has complied with the requirements. The city is losing long - term more stable housing. There's no question about that in my mind. The short - term rental has provided two advantages to the policy provided two advantage to homeowners beyond the financial benefits. First, the flexibility to use the area for family or guests. Second, lower risk. While most

tenants are absolutely great tenants, I once had to rent out and grate tenants, but you get the one tenant who might cause your life to be really upside down. And these are the two issues that really drive why so many people are switching over, uh, their secondary suites into short term. I don't like either. But what we have before us is someone who has now complied with the rules that were created. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else on option one, Costa Thompson. Thanks Mayor. Yeah. I have to say I'm feeling uneasy about this decision. I'm very close to going either way. What I will say is that the approach that this motion takes is that we're hoping Counsel is hoping for inspections and enforcement. Because what we've got here is a situation where, yes, appliances could be moved in quickly. The kitchen, while small, could easily be built out. Um, the door can just be placed back on its hinges. They're just sitting

there. So, uh, really what the appellant was saying was that they would welcome enforcement. Um, I hope that we are going to be doing that and inspecting. And if we're not, then I am hoping that a staff are going to tell us we don't have the resources to actually inspect and enforce. Because if that's the case and we're relying on inspection and enforcement for compliance, then we are going to need to take a much stricter approach in the future. So I will leave that comment with staff, um, please. And please tell us if you're not going to be able to inspect and enforce and we'll have to be a lot more cautious in the future.

Thank you. Anyone else on option one. Council grant, the reconsideration, essentially provides them with a short or rental business license. I'm not singing wheels. All those in favor of option one. Councillor Thompson, Councillor Gardner, Councillor Hammond, myself, Councillor Kim, Councillor Dell. In opposition. Councillor Louton and Councillor Caradona, noting of course that there were eight of us. So option one is carryed with two in opposition. Thank you very much for that. That would conclude our public agenda and would take us on to closed meeting matters. I'm going to suggest that given the time that we break for lunch at this time and resume at one o'clock to conclude the balance of our council meeting, just note for the public that we do not have a council meeting this evening. And so the next time that you will see us, we'll be at 9 a. m. next Thursday, October the 8th. With that, let's adjourn for lunch and we will resume enclosed at 1 p. m. Thank

you. Sorry. Hang on. Oh yes, I'm sorry. Yes. Uh, before we, just hang on one second. Just before we go, I do have to ask Mr. Kingsley to remind us of the reasons why we are going into closed and to cite the Sections of the Community Charter that either enable or require us to consider a matter enclosed. Thank you, Mr. Kingsley. Certainly Mayor, the reasons proposed to close the meeting today, under Section 91F of the Community Charter to consider a law enforcement matter. Section 91i regarding the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege. Section 91K regarding negotiations and related discussions respecting the post provision of a municipal service at preliminary stages. And Section 92B regarding the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the municipality and another level of government. Thank you very much for that. For those reasons, may I have a motion to move into close. Thanks, Councillor Kim. Say goodbye Councillor Hammond, all those

in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much, Mr. Kingsley for reminding me of that. With that, then we will adjourn for lunch and return at 1 p. m. to conclude the closed portion of our agenda. Thank you.