Transcript: Committee of the Whole - 2026/05/28

Good morning everyone and welcome to the May 28th meeting of the Toyota City Council's Committee of the Whole. We are a full compliment today in person which is lovely. Today we have for our consideration a presentation from one of our partners to land use matters and to Council Member Motions. But before we begin we always want to take a moment to ground ourselves in the work that we do and the opportunities that we have to make important and really quite impacting decisions. By the fact that we are sitting here on the territories of the La Quangan people, the Songies and the Cosapsum Nations who have for so many generations taken it upon themselves to be stewards of these lands and the waters that surround them.

On a day like today in particular, it is easy to understand why those decisions were made by those members for so many years to ensure that we have the opportunity to enjoy the circumstances that we see today around the Environment in which we live certainly the climate in which we live and the opportunities that both of those things bring to us. The nations themselves have managed to really remarkably extol their own resilience and being able to endure the many challenges that we have placed in front of them over the years and have managed to arise above much of that, although certainly that evolution and resilience continues to expand. As we have the opportunity when we do whatever we gather to reflect just for a moment on the relationship, the remarkable and rich relationship that we have with both nations and to reflect a little bit on how much benefit that brings to us in our ability to learn from one another. And to work with

one another on a variety of programs and projects and policies and just ways that we live together that will benefit all of the people who live in these lands here in the City of Victoria and in the region as well. And so when we gather each time we like to sort of take a moment to reflect a little bit and I always urge people in each of their days to take a personal moment or two to see what to has had an impact on their lives given the opportunities they have to be here and hope that some experience that you have in each day reflects that in a very personal way. Of course we like to say Hydrogassium NickWulia, which is just to say thank you and to offer just a tiny glimmer of the language that is full of so much impact and so respectful of somebody different phrases. And that is to offer our thanks to all of you who are here and

our respect to all of you who are choosing to do work for the Betterment of Community, not just here in City Hall, but throughout all of our communities in our homes and parks and spaces and anywhere that you choose to make a difference. Hi, chicus, I'm Nickelia. I have no remarks to add today, and so we will go immediately to the rest of the agenda. We're going to late items to add today, of which I'm aware. And so we would go to looking for a motion to approve the agenda as published. Thank you Councillor Coleman, seconded by Councillor Thompson. Any discussion of the agenda? Yes, Councillor Gardner on the main agenda. Thank you. The recently approved Council Procedure Policy directs councillors to give two weeks notice on motions while Councillor receives only days notice for major files. Well I identify this as a problem during the procedures by - law discussions. It came to light again last week when another councillor commented that there'll be

an insufficient time to properly assess a major file. As confirmed a few weeks ago mayor, we understand this is your agenda and sometimes some councillors get to share the agenda meeting with you. I have never experienced that, so I'm not sure what happens at such a meeting. Today that short motives period is significant because we have BC Transit Update followed by two large development proposals. And sadly I think some information may be missing from these that we will need to make decisions. And this may not hold up matters today, but I think it may reflect an example of discounting of public and council consideration. And so I do have one specific request of you mayor.

And that is when we get to the cathedral, which is G2, that we be permitted time beyond the time that you have limited within the Council Procedures bylaw to speak to any issues with that application. Thank you for that. When we get to that point, that certainly a matter you can raise. And as you're aware, two things I think I heard you discuss. One was the notification period around large items. You'll know for sure that our protocols in that matter refer to Council Member Motions. So that's not applicable to a staff matter or a land use matter. However, the second part, you're certainly welcome, as is the case within our rules and procedures, uh, to propose a motion to suspend the rules of procedure temporarily for a particular item for a specific purpose. And at that time you're welcome to do so. I'm asking to do that right now, because this is talking about the agenda and the procedures we will be following so that

I don't consume the bit of time I have on this motion. I would rather have it considered now. I would actually not accept that as a proposal at this point because to suspend the rules at this point could have an impact on the entire agenda. Uh, I will allow you the opportunity to present that proposal without it affecting your time at that item. Thank you. You're welcome. With that then, uh, is there any other comment on the public agenda. Seeing none, all those in favor of the agenda. Anybody opposed. That is unanimous. We do have a couple of items suggested for the consent agenda. That would be both of the Council Member Motions, item H1, a Council Member Motion with regard to Advocacy to extend local government climate action program funding. And item H2, the Council Member Motion with regard to increasing protections for Victoria Renters. Does anyone wish to add or remove any items from consent? Yes, Councillor Caridona. Uh, I'm okay with leaving

H1, but I want to take off each two because I do have questions. Okay. That's H2, we'll take that off. Anything else? You'd like to add or remove. Oh, okay. So that removes item H2 from consent and relieves then only item H1. So the consent agenda is composed of just the one item. That would be item H1 that Council Member Motion with regard to advocacy to extend local government climate action program funding. With that then, uh, with someone like to move the consent agenda, thanks Councillor Coleman, second of my Council Kim, all those in favor. Anybody opposed. That is unanimous. That moves us on today to our one presentation and that is a presentation from our colleagues at BC Transit. And so folks, if you'd like to come up to the centre table, make yourself comfortable. And when you're ready, you can introduce yourselves and set off. Thank. You, Gravity.

Turn your mic on, please. Very good. Yes, I know. It seems a bit counterinther. Red means it's on it. There you go. Thank you very much, Mayor and Council for the invitation for BC Transit staff to come present today on the update for our Victoria Regional Transit Plant. Uh, with me today is our manager of service planning for Victoria Levi Meganburg, as well as Simon Button, who's in the audience. He's part of our infrastructure team. So as we have City Victoria staff that we've been working very closely in collaboration with over the past year with regards to this project. So we certainly invite and encourage any questions after this presentation is complete. Um, before we begin though, I just wanted to acknowledge that, uh, you know, we're presenting to all the councils and the regional district as part of this presentation. But this one, uh, for the City Victoria is extra symbolic, largely in the sense of the role that transit is played with regards

to shaping this region and how Victoria really is the heartbeat of the transit system overall. So I think it's just recognising the symbolism of the history of the role that Trans is played in the region and where Transit is going in the future for the region. It has to start from the City Victoria, the City Victoria is the heartbeat of Transit. And just to put things in perspective, we had a conversation with Councillor Coleman earlier, uh, before this Council presentation. And he just sort of alluded to the important relationship with regards to our citizens and how they interact with Transit. And just to note that there's 36, 000 people that board Transit each day in the City of Victoria. And if you consider the role that that experience has with Transit for the rest of their day, that interaction with the bus and the interaction with the driver, whether it's a resident or a tourist or a student, it just begins to show the importance

the transit plays with regards to shaping the overall, um, you know, the economy and the sense of community that, uh, city has. Um, so what we're going to do today is Levi Meganburg is going to provide an overview of the Victorial Transit Plan in just a little bit of a spoiler on it is that this is our update for our 25 year vision. So the last time we did this was in 2011. And that's not to say that we haven't done any work since then. Since 2011, we've really focused on area transit plans. So focusing on particular regions, as an example, James Bay or the Jubilee, uh, but we thought that it was timely now that we're post - pandemic to go through that full vision update with regards to where we want the region to be with Transit for the next 25 years. And just to note, there's really two parts to this plan that we're focusing on. The first is we have a

transit network that works really well today. But how do we make it even better with the existing envelope of resources we have? As an example for that is how do we make our buses go faster, which is the key thing that a lot of our customers have asked. And on the other side of that, we really need to set the direction of where do we want to go. In the future. So 25 years from now, what is our transit network look like? And that's part of the big moves, uh, package of the presentation that Levi will go into detail in regards with regards to those lighthouses that we're targeting our transit system to go into the future. So with that, again, we'll invite and encourage questions afterwards, but I'll hand it to my colleague Levi to give an overview of where we are with this process. Thank you, Matt. Um, so today really just providing an update for the 25 year vision for the transit network as Matt

alluded to, um, and then the big moves. I'm going to skip this actually. I'm not already touched on it. Um, so beyond the, before we dive into the 25 year vision for the Transit Network, I think the value in just spending a bit of time on some of the key accomplishments we have achieved within the transit system over the last five years. So some of those key initiatives include the implementation of our, um, uh, electronic FAIR collection technology, YUMO. And last week we just introduced tap to pay with debit and credit, which was a major step forward for the Transit system. Very exciting. Um, we continue to roll up battery bus. We have 25 out of electric buses out on the street now. And more are coming. Uh, in the coming years, uh, we recently, last year completed the handy dart facility in view royal allowing us to expand handy dart for the first time in over 10 years, which is a huge step forward

for the region. Um, but bus lanes on Douglas and are continuing to move forward for construction. We'll continue to improve speed and reliability for transit across the region. Uh, we launched our first rapid bus alignment, uh, in 2023. The blink Victoria Langfort route that we're continuing to invest in and looking to improve moving forward. And then finally the province implemented the kids 12 and under ride free program in 2021. And we've seen a significant increase in ridership from youth within our region, which has been fantastic to see. Our current system, we operate almost 60 routes. We have over 300 conventional transit buses, almost 60 handy dart buses. This year we're budgeted to deliver over 900, 000 annual service hours. Um, so our system is continued to grow. Um, similarly 26 million trips within the, within the transit system. And that's continuing to grow. With respect to the public engagement to support this process, um, it was the second largest response we've seen for any engagement

process BC transit has ever conducted only surpassed by the YYJ engagement we did shortly thereafter. So it was great to see the number of people come out to speak with us, both were our online survey and through our open house. Events. We consulted 23 different stakeholder groups that included all of the neighbourhood and community associations across the region major employers and key institutions. Um, what did we hear? We heard a lot of feedback, but if we boil it down to a few simple sound bites, uh, people really want more frequency, uh, they want more reliable service. There was a huge amount of support for rapid transit. It was probably about 80 percent of the open comments we heard was wanting to see more rapid transit faster. Um, and then a desire for simplified roots and direct connections within the transit network. One of the core components of this plan is the development of comprehensive network and root design guidelines. We've seen a huge amount of

change within the region, um, over the last five plus years. And we expect that's going to continue into the future. So these guidelines, uh, will establish a demand - based framework for supporting the evolution of the transit network as the region continues to grow, change and adapt. So we don't need to come back and update this every five years. Um, so it's really providing that roadmap. What's the value of this? It's really to provide clarity to the public, our local government partners and to us at BC Transit Transit around, Hey, if a community builds a certain type of node or has certain density on a certain corridor, this is the kind of service that you can expect. So just really improve clarity and transparency. Uh, and then finally, as MAD alluded to in the short term, uh, there's opportunities to modernize the existing service, uh, to squeeze more value out of our existing system and to build upon a new foundation moving forward into the

future. So that really brings us to the big reveal, uh, which is the 10 big moves that the, uh, Transit system is, is looking to move forward on over the next 25 years. Um, I will note these are draft and we're still looking for feedback and input, um, but what are the key components here? So you'll note that about 50 percent of these big moves are rapid directly rapid transit oriented. And that really aligns with what we heard through public engagement and what we know we need to do to move the needle for transit mode share into the, into the future within the region. Um, two more of them, the six mile mobility hub and the uptown mobility hub are really just support. The cornerstone initiative, um, which is the higher order transit between downtown Victoria and the West shore. Um, so really seven of 10 are really focused around supporting the evolution of our epid transit. Beyond that, we have the frequent Transit Network

development and network modernization. I'll provide a little more context on that because the bit to unpack. And then modernizing the handy dart service and better integrating our interregional connections, uh, between NaNIMO all the way down to Victoria. Within the rapid transit initiatives here, I mentioned the higher order. We don't have a specific slide on that. So I'm just going to try a little more detail here. We know the alignment currently between downtown Victoria and the six mile area. Um, that's, that's sort of going to be baked in within the plan. But the, um, the West Shore municipalities have changed significantly. So we need to really look at how revisit that alignment. So that's a key component. A new. Network modernization. I mentioned really building out that frequent transit grid. This really aligns with the city's new official community plan, uh, really aligning between where you're applying to put density and making sure it's supported with high quality transit. Um, the additional regional express service, uh,

within the new guidelines that we'll be looking to layer on top of this network on top of rapid transit. And then there's a new service layer that we've piloted in Kelowna and just recently extended to, um, squamish, uh, which is digital and demand. Uh, so there's potentially some lower density areas within the City of Victoria jurisdiction that could be a candidate for this type of service in the future. Mataluted to what can we do in the short term, um, recognising we need a huge amount of investment in the current provincial funding environment. Um, so we have a lot of service duplication on key corridors. I would point to Douglas Street as one of those. We have 20 routes that serve certain sections of Douglas. So is there a way we can squeeze more value and provide more coverage for frequent transit throughout the transit system.

Uh, we can look at stop spacing. There's certain quarters where they're very close together currently. And we actually got quite a bit of feedback through engagement that people are willing to walk a little farther to transit if it means they can have more frequent service. And then bus speed and reliability is really critical. We've been seen about one and a half percent decrease in travel speed in our transit network year over year over the last 10 to 15 years. And so finding ways to speed up and improve the reliability of our transit system and supporting our local governments in improving that. I think is a really key step moving forward in the future. Other rapid transit initiatives, um, so beyond the higher order alignment to the West shore. There may be a need for a supplemental, uh, rapid bus corridor within the West shore as it continues to grow and develop. The key thing for City of Victoria, I think. And these are new within

this plan is the consideration for extension of rapid transit to Jubilee and James Bay, which is something that, uh, emerged to the process based off the growing density of those nodes. And also, um, the projected future growth and density along the corridors, uh, leading to those nodes as well. And next steps for that really involves a study with city Victoria to confirm which alignment those would operate on and how we would move forward, including public engagement. So when it comes to implementation, I think we need to acknowledge this plan is extremely ambitious. Uh, it's still looking to achieve a 15 percent transit mode share over the next 25 years, which is over doubling our current transit mode chair within the region. Um, so what does this require? Of course, over doubling the number of buses in our transit system and implementation of higher order transit, whether that be light rail or trackless trams, um, this is something that we need to move towards within the

life cycle of this, this plan. Um, achieving the plan, because it's so ambitious, it really is a shared responsibility. We all have a role to play within the region, uh, BC Transit in terms of how the network is designed. And it evolved the province in terms of coming to the table in a different way with respect to funding. The CRD in terms of how we can support the region from Transportation Demand Management and whatever other roles the CRD brings to the table through the regional transportation service. And each local government in terms of how can we make transit move more quickly and efficiently? Um, on key corridors within each municipalities jurisdiction. So specific to the City of Victoria. What are some of those key next steps in initiatives? So I think the first is really, uh, the extension of the bus lanes on Douglas through the downtown core. Five of the seven busiest bus stops within the region are within the downtown Douglas Street corridor.

As mat alluded to 36, 000 people traversed the section of Douglas Street between Hillside and Belleville, um, so the huge number of people utilising that service and small improvements in speed and reliability can make life better for a lot of people and save a lot of resources for the system to reinvest and improve service levels. Uh, to collaborate with BC Transit Transit on exploring rapid transit extension to Jubilee and James Bay. Implementing Transit Priority on frequent transit corridors. So we can expedite the rollout of the full frequent transit network and support the City Victoria's land use goals. Um, and then continue to provide accessibility and infrastructure improvements at bus stops. Um, which really does fall within the local government's jurisdiction and I understand the new shelters coming along Douglas, which is exciting. And we look forward to seeing that continue to roll out. And then I would say the city's already doing an amazing job on this, but continuing to support transit with transit supportive

land use. Um, and so we're moving in the right direction and look forward to continuing to collaborate with the city on that movie into the future. So in terms of the next steps, we're presenting this draft plan to all municipality across the region in the capital regional district. Um, we just presented to the CRD yesterday. And so the several more to go. Uh, we're also doing a final round of key stakeholder engagement. So that includes all our neighbourhood and community associations, major employers, um, and then once we've made any final tweaks to this draft plan, we plan to bring it back to the commission at the end of July, uh, and then bring it back finally early September for formal endorsement. Um, the final thing I'll say here, uh, the CRD is in the process of updating their regional transportation plan right now. And that will be complete a little bit after the VRTP sort of a year later. And so there is an opportunity

once that wraps up to just, um, make some minor tweaks and adjustments to this plan to ensure the regions moving forward and lockstep on regional transportation. So with that, I want to thank you so much for having us here today and look forward to answering any questions. Council may have. Thank you very much for both of you. Matt and Levi. Let's turn, the decision for us here today. This is information only. And so we'll turn to Council and see if they have any questions or comments. Council Hammond. Thanks and thanks for the presentation and through you mayor. When you say that your plan is ambitious to get to number you're at now. Uh, I believe as of the 2020, or sorry, the 2022 CRD origin destination household survey was between six, around 6. 5, I believe. Okay. The previous OD we repet about seven and a half. So the COVID impacts there. Um, so hovering probably seven, seven and a half percent would be my

guess. But that will be confirmed in the series. It just gives me a general idea. And when you said COVID, is there any rationale now that COVID is over, um, as to why people are taking it less? Or is it just not as, that people have been working from home and they continue to work from home? Or is there are there other reasons that you've got why the numbers are still, um, below pre - COVID levels. Uh, certainly. So through the chair, I'll take a stab at it, maybe map, may have some things to add. I will say, um, that writership has continued to, uh, grow since the 2022 survey. And we're actually, we've exceeded our pre - COVID ridership within the system now, which is great to see. Um, and we, we, we definitely see the work from home, uh, policies still in effect in certain ways, but it's been sort of less common.

Like I know the province has, has eased sort of those policies. And I think that's accounted for some of the ridership growth. And I'll turn it over to map. Yeah. Through the chair, uh, yes, ridership has exceeded pre - pandemic levels. And I just want to acknowledge too that during the pandemic while other transit agencies in North America were cutting their service as a result of lower ridership, which resulted in sort of that vicious, you know, cycle with regards to reliability is that the province contributed funding to keep the service on the road during that time. So that when society got back to normal, that the ridership could come back. And as a result of that investment, we've, again, we've, uh, exceeded Radship levels pre - pandemic. And again, a lot of credit too for the Fairy Under 12 program, which was launched a few years ago, which has had a major impact with regards to the amount of boardings they're taking place within the

region. And likewise, for the City Victoria, you have your own Fairfree policy with regards to youth as well. That is a huge contributor with regards to routership in the region. So through you, Mayor, when I read in the newspaper or here on the news that the writership isn't at its highest level. Does that mean that that's incorrect? Or I'm not, I'm not listening properly. Yeah. Through the chair. I think that in, uh, the past year or so, we have seen ridership more or less level off. And the cause of that is we're still trying to investigate that. And we've been working closely with our colleagues of Trancelink as well and other transit agencies in North America. But some of the contributing factors with regards to sort of a ceiling of ridership writewing is largely related to recent immigration policy from the federal perspective, which had an impact with regards to post - secondary enrollment from non - domestic students. Uh, so international students are usually

a huge driver of Transit ridership. So that change in policy at an impact with regards to our, uh, demand. Uh, and likewise, just economic conditions and population growth as well throughout the province, not only in the Victoria region has also had a natural impact with regards to transit ridership. With that being said, we are still seeing, you know, a steady, you know, not necessarily a huge amount of growth over year over year, but certainly in a positive direction. Okay. Thanks. And through you mayor, for someone like myself, when transit is available in big numbers, when I lived in Toronto and Vancouver, for example, those 22 years I went without a car. And I was the early users of Moto. It was called CAN back then.

And if you don't know what it was, then you can look it up as to why it's can. Anyway, the thing is that for me, it was a great deal of convenience. And it also, I love the fact that I didn't own a car and didn't have to take care of a car. Uh, here I hardly ever take transit. And the reason for it is I live close. You know, don't live far from government house. Um, I'm usually on my bike more than I am anywhere else. And then I use Transit occasionally for going to, let's say, um, the ferry, uh, haven't done it yet for the airport. But the thing is that whenever I hear, cause I'm always intrigued having been a person who uses it when it's, when it's there, is that it seems like our CATH22 is that more people, it appears would be willing to take it, but there does not appear to be the interest of the funders the government

funders to give you the more, like the chicken and the egg. Cause I, you know, when people say anything about it, I would think that if you gave more transit, so you put the money out there and you, and you had more, um, ability for people to be on transit, then you'd have the faster, um, the faster, um, use that, of course, you're talking about that people are wanting. And, and then people go, okay, I see it and I'll get on it. But at the moment, am I wrong in thinking that the biggest levels of funding that you get, which presumably is mostly from the province, um, that they're just not willing to allow you to do that investment of giving it up front with the hope that people will get on it. Or am I off on that? Like, like, is that a difficulty for you. I'll start and dive in. Yeah. Yeah. We're both passionate about this topic. I think is that through

the chair, I think that in order to make transit super effective, you have to make it effortless. Super easy. And effortless means frequency, right? In the sense that I don't even need to look at a schedule I can walk down to Shelburn Street, which is where I live and I can just catch the bus. I never look at the schedule because it's so frequent. Um, and in order to get to frequency as you alluded to, you need funding because extra service costs more money. And the current way that the, uh, the model for BC Transit is there's a lockstep cost share model where the local government partners contribute half. And then the province contributes half as well. So the local government supply for additional expansion funding, then the province also has to match that. Otherwise the expansion doesn't happen. And we'll say for the past few years, the province has been very supportive with regards to expansion funding. We've added, you know, dozens of buses

as well as tens of thousands of hours. For this year, we did not get the provincial approval for additional expansion funding. So we won't be at able to add an additional service this year. With that being said, and I think a Levi alluded to it, a big component of this plan is that how do we fund these big projects and these big moves? So we are working closely with the province as part of this process. And we're working closely with our executive team as well as our board of erectors and senior leadership team with regards to making sure that we not only have a plan in place with regards to where we want to go, but we at least have a blueprint with regards to how are we going to fund this service and really motivate the partners, whether it be federal, provincial, or local with regards to making sure that transit is a worthy investment of their time. And just really quickly to add

there, um, I just want to ree allude to the importance of us all working together on this one, both in terms of lobbying for increased funding. Like it's a significant increase in investment trajectory required to achieve the outcomes of this plan. And that's going to require some advocacy. I think at all levels, um, the other core component is we all have a role to play in making transit great within the region. And, um, as I mentioned, we've seen transit travel speed decreased by about 1. 5 percent per year If we could even drop that to half a percent or not decrease at all. Suddenly our investments will have significantly better value in terms of actually improving the quality of service out on our street. So, um, we're looking forward to continuing to work with our local governments in the coming years after the approval of this plan. And really identifying opportunities to speed transit up and improve the amount of service that we can put

out onto the road. Thanks, Mayor. Could I ask two more questions? Thanks. Um, on that issue of, um, of where you get the funding and you say, because the province is cut back for various reasons. And us advocating, I believe there is a Department of shredding within the provincial government, maybe the federal that any time we give a resolution, they immediately take it there and say, okay, this is the important work that you need to do in the shredding department. Because we advocate, but it's only so far. Um, so the question is, do you, more than a hope and a prayer, do you really see that the provincial government is expecting to make the suppriority in our region and give more money in the future?

I know you're, yeah, I just thought of either that. Go ahead. Your crystal ball there, Matt. Yeah. Yeah. Through the chair, I know that we work very closely and it just for what it's worth symbolically, the ministry of Transportation and Transit. So they've actually rebranded their provincial branch to include the reference to Transit, which I think is an important symbolic sort of reference. I know that, uh, we as a staff level working very closely with the province on regular basis. Likewise, our executive team, our commission as well as our board is working closely with the province. So that's a really, really important factor. Um, in the sense of making sure that they're prioritizing investments in transit, not only from an infrastructure perspective, but also from an operating dollar's perspective well. And I won't lie and say that it's easy. And the, you know, the money tree that makes this happen. But I think that there's a lot of different services that require attention across the

province and in cities. And I think that it's our role at BC Transit with the support of local governments to really advocate for transit and to tell the story with regards to why investing in transit is important, which is, I think, a big part of why we're putting this plan and ultimately a story together that if you invest in this, it's going to be to the benefit of, you know, your economics, your climate, your community with regards to, um, making things better. Great. And the last question, Mayor, is I'm just wondering if this is an example of a dilemma that you've got. And therefore, we have all got, and this is just me following in the news about the expansion to, or the change to have the buses go directly to the airport. That appears, unless something has changed to come at the cost of people spending what perhaps another 10 minutes or something being rerouted from their direct line to Sydney. And it caused

a lot of problem. Is that, is that an example of what you're dealing with when you want to improve one area that at the moment until you get more funding, you've got to take away from something else, or if you don't want to use the word take away, you have to shift something else, which means someone else is not going to have the same convenience or time they had before. You went? Yeah. Great question through the chair. Um, as Matt alluded to, we didn't get provincial expansion approval this year, but we, the commission had some very strong aspirations to make improvements to airport service. So I think in any year where we don't have expansion funding, but the desire to see the system function in a different way or prioritize in a different way. Staff have the ability to look at opportunities to reallocate resources, change how things function. And I think that's really what you're alluding to is in an environment where we didn't

have expansion. These were some options that could be considered that don't cost anything in dollars, but potentially has impacts to others within the system. Um, so I think once again, building towards this future over the next 25 years, we're really going to need to increase the amount of investment to achieve it. Um, but there's also things we can do in the short term, even if there isn't funding to improve how the network functions, um, and those are some of those components that we spoke to in the presentation. Great. Councillor. Thank you for the presentation. 25 year vision. And I like your phrases shaping the region, but centred in the city Victoria. So and I appreciate the need to have more to move more efficiently. Or you said faster. And, um, well, the heartbeat of the transit, the residents need for livability and transit is our concern. And we all have a world to play, as you said, all work together. But the impacts, the overload

of large vehicles on residential streets is of concern to me. And, uh, so I have some questions that are kind of related to that. Excuse me. Now, um, likes Councillor Hammond, I used to only use Transit for many, many years when living in larger cities and also when I visit other countries. But it's very different here. Now from your big moves, I don't think I saw, but I can't recall. If you can go to that, uh, thing, most important things I think for a lot of people in the city is the airport affairs. And I really don't see that much of an emphasis on that here because that's where I think that most people I know really need to go. So is that really, I mean, Bit has been mentioned about that, but until that occurs. I mean, that's key. I realise it's not key for the Western communities, but it's really key for the people that live here. So yeah, great question. So through

the chair, we didn't focus too much on that, but a couple of the other rapid transit initiatives, uh, really critical for the region includes the peninsula rapid transit alignment. Um, so within the draft plan, we've indicated that that will incorporate direct service to YYJ as a core component of that future rapid bus alignment. Um, and then as well as the ferries, maintaining the current sort of fairy connection that we have with the Route 70, um, and then the Mackenzie Rapid Transit line, which is really trying to serve the core, um, the Yuvik, which is a huge demand driver for the Transit system. Um, so those were two additional ones that I didn't spend much time on, but we have accounted for those, um, within the plan. Okay. Catholic, they are key for the people that live here. Cause this, the people that live in our city don't live in the Western communities. Yes. We need to bring those other people in. But I'm really more

concerned about other, these other aspects. Let me go to Vancouver, the Transit on the other side of that ferry is superb. Here it's the pits. And we really have to make that better. And I would never take Transit to the airport. I mean, no way I'm going to stand on the PAC day at strange hours of the night or day to catch a voss. I mean, this really, I think has to be a top priority. Now James Bay already has a high level of pedestrian cycle and transit use. And it seems to be a target of some of this. Do you have the percentage of ridership now for the Jamie's Bay Area. For the people that live there. Great questions through the chair. I don't have that statistic in my back pocket at this moment, but, uh, we could certainly look into it and get back. What time when we did a survey a long time ago, those three levels of walking pedestrian that were,

I mean, they were sky high, higher than anyone's targets. So which leads to my next question, really. With BC Transit and many, many, many crews related buses, James Bay is inundated with buses for over 200 days a year. Uh, and of special concerned is the, uh, BC Transit buses heading soft of Belleville. How many BC Transit Busy Vance using valuable are currently experienced and how many when the rapid transit services are introduced. Yeah. Certainly. So through the chair, we actually received, uh, letter from the James Bay neighbourhood association, uh, specifically asking us to incorporate, uh, the consideration for rapid transit extension to James Bay. Um, so, so beyond that as well as the level of density, meeting the thresholds to support that kind of service.

Um, is largely why we've put this in as a potential service extension. Once again, it's indicated. It's not saying that we will do it. It's we need to, uh, do further work and study in public engagement to explore the opportunity to do so. Um, but I think the fact that we received, uh, clear, uh, a clear desire from the neighbourhood association to include the idea in the plan is largely what has led us to put that in terms of the level of service. So we have the root two, um, and, and five that collectively provide very close to full frequent transit service levels within the James Bay neighbourhood. Um, and so we'll have the opportunity to revisit how transit functions in the James Bay area, uh, within the next couple of years after the completion of this plan. And we'd look to engage very closely.

Great. Thank you. Do you have the numbers I asked for. How much is currently now, what is the traffic looks? I've been trying to get this for quite a while from the city and we don't have it. What is the traffic load? How many buses are coming in onto the belville right now. Because we've had major issues and also with JBNA, people that live there because of the road. How many are currently, how many trips a day, how many buses are sitting there on Belville that come in through the Douglas? That's a good new, I believe, uh, do you have the numbers? I said that he does not have that information. Thank you. Okay. Get back to us with that information. Now the current buses, like you mentioned two and five, they go to, uh, willows and Ogbe. That's the name of them. Which is great because that's where people go because it takes people to the hospitals. And it takes them to the rec

centre that's closest to James Bay. So. Will the rapid, where is the wrap up transit take people this plan, take people from James Bay? Will it include taking them to places they need to go such as Okbe, the Jubilee area and Okbey? Because this shows two arrows going that way. Whereas James Bay, people go that way. Yeah. Great question through the chair. Um, in the two years after the completion of this plan, we would be undergoing a comprehensive network review process that would include significant additional planning. Um, significant public engagement. So we don't have specific rooting proposals in the plan. We're showing the big moves and identifying where sort of key frequency of service is, but we really do need to do a targeted review, um, including more planning work, much more engagement before we can propose any specifics with any level of confidence. Okay.

Thank you. So your rapid transit isn't going to anywhere. It's just going to be there. Like, I don't understand where it's going. From James Bay. Leave it? Yeah. So through the chair, we still as indicated in the presentation, next steps for this particular initiative. We need to work very closely with City of Victoria staff to figure out the exact proposed routing and alignment. Um, and so we'll have to come, come back with more information once we've undertaken that study and update city Victoria at that time. Okay. Um, the city is building a 200 million dollar pool. In North Park on quadra. How long will it take residence to get from the know from the West Vic West, shall we say the West part of the West or the south of James Bay or the Northeast of Oaklands to that. 200 million dollar project. Are we going to have any consideration of that routing. Certainly through the chair. Um, so quadrice street is currently operating at

this very close to the 15 minute all day service. And that connects into all of the transit routes that converge on Douglas Street, providing very high frequency of service. Um, and easy connections, um, and so currently the system is really designed to make, uh, to bring people in to the downtown core and easily transfer to get to the new facility that's, that's being planned and constructed. So we ordered the network order does accommodate, um, great levels of service and easy connections to make that travel movement. Throughout Victoria. So right now from Southern James Bader, quad repoole, what would that be looking like? Certainly. So through the chair, uh, essentially hop on the route number route two, the number two or the number five and hop off, uh, downtown, uh, hop on the route six. And that would take you directly to the Douglas in fourth.

Uh, I believe just up. Yes. Yes at Fort in Douglas is where the six would pick up. Okay. Thank you. And so that would take depending on the transfer there. Okay. Um, given the heavy volume of buses being driven through the residential neighbourhood of James Bay, will there be a high priority for electric buses to travel through James Bay. Leroy. Uh, so through the chair, um, we can't speak to the details of that. There's a lot of complexity associated with the planning and scheduling of the transit network. And at this point, we can't make specific promises that a particular neighbourhood would be prioritized for electric buses. There's a lot of factors, including how far, um, on any vehicle block, any specific bus can operate and obviously battery electric buses can't be out. For as long as a diesel bus, for example. So the factors, um, that we need to retain flexibility for now. What I can say is we are operating 25, uh, batterylectric buses

within the fleet currently, um, which is exciting. And we have many more planned to arrive in the coming years as well. Okay. I'm just going to tell you my fear. And that's because of that arrow. Cause the arrow looked like it's going to Ogden Point. Uh, and I realised that's not what it means. It means James Bay. So my request is really this. For every new bus rock going to James Bay that it's not especially ones that aren't being used by residents. Cause right now you're parking some buses in Ogden to go to the Western communities that aren't used by James Bay. But they parked there or they were. I don't know if they are this year. They have been. And so I would hope that every new bus would bring into Jane's Bay that you eliminate some so we don't have more because we have so many hundreds this morning. I even had problems turning two corners because there were some oversized buses turning

tight corners in James Bay when I drove here. They weren't BC Transit buses. But when a community is inundated with these other huge buses that no one seems to want to control, it really compounds the problems that you have to deal with. And so that's really my request is that we'd be very, very careful of that because we have now got, of course, Ogden Point is also the, uh, waste deposit area for the whole Alaska cruise run, which means we've got all those heavy vehicles coming in. And with seven or 10, 000 tons of a year of extra waste materials. So I'm just asking you to be very conscious of the needs of the residency change of eight, but also realising that the community itself is being inundated and overrun by huge vehicles. That aren't serving the community. Again, they're not BC Transit vehicles, but they're nevertheless. That's the reality of the resonance. So again, thank you very much for your presentation. And we hope

that you can help perhaps solve some of the problems that are in James Bay and elsewhere. And again, I think real priority from at least the South part of the city is to get to the university in Camosu, um, very much. That's very much of importance without having to go through. When my grandkids came and we had to use transit, I refused to take them to Douglas and Fort. I'm not using Fort Street. Not with what's what they're right now. It's just not in the cards for me to take children to that area. So, and that is a challenge. You did not create that problem, but it is a challenge that we have. So thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you Councillor Coronado.

Thanks very much. And through you, thanks for being here. I had a chance to see you yesterday at the CRD and appreciate all the time you guys are doing with the, with the road show to go to all the Logovernments. I wanted to talk about something that we talked about at the last Transit Commission meeting. Uh, in the context of the YYJ Direct Service bus, which I brought up on purpose because the misinformation around it, which is about how the funding model works. Because it has been reported on recently that BC Transit has a surplus. However, as we all know, there are restrictions based upon the transit act and how those monies can be used.

So I thought maybe this is an opportunity since more people watch Victoria City Council than Transit Commission meetings for you to have an opportunity to talk about why it is that when we have a surplus, we have the Transit Commission, it doesn't necessarily mean that we can have service expansion. Matt. Through the chair, yes, we had a robust discussion at that at the last commission meeting and just note that, uh, the Victorial Trans system ended the 25, 26 fiscal year with a 12. 6 million surplus driven by higher than expected passenger revenue and lower operating and lease costs. Under the BC Transit Act, all transit revenues must be pooled into a single fund with a fixed provincial local cost sharing formula. So that overage is sort of pool in that fund. Um, however, legislative constraints require any surplus to be held in reserves intended to manage future financial risks and ensure system stability, not to fund immediate service expansion. So that is the language that's

written legislatively with regards to how those monies can be used. So BC Transit in the commission do not have the authority to redirect surplus funds towards new service without this legislative change. And just noting too that that would require amending the BC Transit Act overall. Yeah. And thank you for that. And thanks for that clarification. I think at some point we do have to have a conversation about potentially advocating to amend the transit act. However, one of your colleagues was reminding me that not that long ago the situation was flipped. And local governments were in a situation where we were a bit cash for the province had more money for transit. Now that's, that's changed.

And we have a surplus and the province has financial challenges. So it kind of depends on the moment. And that's something we want to keep in mind if we do broach that topic. I did want to note in terms of, um, Council Hammond's comments around YYJ. I don't know if it was clearly conveyed in the media, but where we ended up landing is that instead of pillaging resources from the other service in Sydney, what we ended up doing is redeploying. Double decker buses. That have additional capacity to run direct service only in the early morning and the late evening. So the main part of the day from seven to nine p. m. 7 a. m.

to 9 p. m. There's not going to be direct service to YYJ because it would have required pillaging services from elsewhere. And the township of Sydney said, please don't do that. And other writers said we don't want to add 10 minutes. So we found this kind of compromised position where there will be some direct service for red eye flights. And also for the hundreds of workers who work at YYJ. But without doing that. But that is a good example of how we can't just unilaterally expand service without the province cost sharing it. And in this, in this moment, they are not willing to cause share anything additional because they have a budget crunch. So we are, it was a kind of Rob Peter for Paul's situation potentially there. I do think it's important for under people to understand that because we do have these really ambitious targets of 15 percent. And we're at 6. 5.

There's really no way to get there without additional. Well, let me put that as a question. Is there any way to get to 15 percent without additional investment from the province? Levi. Is there fine tuning and efficiencies that could get us there or through the chair? Certainly not. We need some ambitious changes to the trans system. Um, there is no other example of a city. The size of what Victoria will be in 25 years that has achieved anywhere close to 15 percent. This is extremely ambitious and requires a significant amount of investment. And really to change the way we look at transit at all levels of government within the region. Think of that. Two other comments for me. One is looking at this map right here. If there's this is just my own personal opinion and commentary as someone who's on the various boards and commissions is that I am finding it somewhat troubling that we have what seems to be kind of parallel processes

going on around rapid transit. Right. We have this long - term plan to put light rail or something like rail on Highway 1, which is indicated here in red. But the line there in green is ENN line. And the reconciliation corridor initiative is kind of come out of nowhere. The feasibility study is underway right now. It'll be ready in summer of next year. And we will have a much clearer sense of the cost and implications of potentially returning passenger rail from Vic West to Lanfort Station. If you look at the map, the two lines more or less start and end in the same place. I mean, they obviously don't both go through Sanich. For me, and again, I'm always happy to have my mind changed.

But for me, it seems wildly improbable that we would have the funding as a regional government and thinking about maybe investments in the province and the feds to invest in two rail lines that start and stop in the same place. So I, I would like to get a better sense of how transit is conceptualizing the reconciliation corridor initiative, what you're doing with that information. What happens if in 2027 next year, the feasibility report comes back and it looks viable. And it's, let's say one quarter of the cost of putting light rail on highway one, then what? How does that affect our big moves. Uh, through the chair, um, that's a great question. And I know the discussion on that. And just with regards to the reconciliation, quote, initiative, the BC Transit is active participant. And we requested to have a non - voting role with regards to this, you know, steering committee process and know they're in the process of just updating that governance. Um,

I will say that as BC Transit representatives were in the business of moving people as efficiently and effectively as possible throughout the region. That is our goal. So as far as, uh, you know, what is the best solution we are in many ways from a transportation or trans prospective solution agnostic in a way. So if there comes with regards to feedback and reports, you know, the best decision and best investment for the region to again, move people as efficiently as effectively as possible is a particular corridor. Then we would adapt our network as required. And just noting to, though, there are many other major infrastructure projects, whether it be the ENN or proposed higher order transit on Douglas to weather even the proposed new sandwich transit centre, which is our third facility to accommodate more buses. So I think those are a very, very important discussion topics. And I think that those are some of the discussions that we're having on an ongoing basis with

this CRD staff, as well as the provincial staff and local government staff with regards to prioritizing. But as Levi alluded to it, I think that while we're designing this plan, we do have to provide some level of nimbleness and flexibility with us. Because there are all these other ongoing discussions happening. So we are preparing this plan in the sense that it's not going to just be done and sit on a shelf. And that's it. The intention with this plan is to be done and to be revisiting in an ongoing basis. And if you need to pivot in a certain direction, then we'll certainly support all of the partners in the region to do so. Thanks.

And through the mayor. And on that point, I'm speaking in hypotheticals here, but I don't think it's an outrageous hypothetical that next year the feasibility report comes back. It looks feasible. There's some juice. There's some support for it. And all of a sudden the plan on highway one is looking questionable. Is that a moment in which transit contemplates pivoting towards a long - term light rail plan for PAT bay highway up to Swords Bay and YYJ? And we just forget about how it won. Through the chair, I think it's perhaps premature to make that sort of diagnosis at this stage. I will say that based on ridership performance, the highway want the Douglas Highway 1 corridor still our highest ridership corridor. And even with the introduction of a potential ENN service, you still have some fairly significant key activity centres that are along Douglas and Highway 1, be it Mayfair uptown or the hospital. And looking at density plans along that corridor as well, you're

going to see continued growth. So I think that that corridor will always be an important transit investment moving forward. Okay. Last question for me. After you guys came to the CRD Transportation Committee yesterday, and I think after you'd left, there was a council member motion from councillor slash director Thompson and myself to have the CRD as part of the Transportation Plan get more actively involved in signalization and coordination of our system so that buses can move more efficiently through our system. And the lot of advocacy work from the local transportation advocacy groups on this question. I just want to give you guys an opportunity to talk about what your role is as transit. What is your relationship like with all the various local governments in which we operate to ensure that there is maximum efficiency and that the increasing prioritization for our fleet. Yeah, it's a great question through the chair. I do want to acknowledge some of the additional work that BC Transit is

doing behind the scenes and some directions that PC Transit is currently pivoting towards in the coming next couple of years. So first of all, we're in the process of completing a bus speed and reliability project for the Victoria region. That's really looking to quantify where the biggest impacts are from delay and congestion, both for buses and for passengers. Um, across the region. Um, further, we'll be looking to update the rapid transit implementation strategy. So we did the original rapid bus implementation strategy in 2021. Um, so looking at opportunities to move things forward, consider other things like, um, boarding, um, off board Fair payment collection technology considering things like, uh, Transit Signal priority, um, and so I think that rapid bus implementation strategy will help BC Transit develop a bit of a roadmap for continuing to move forward on those. And I think we've, we've engaged very closely with municipal staff across the whole region. And I think everyone's becoming aware of the magnitude of the

challenge to transit in terms of like degrading service. And I think that a lot of this is coming from the discussions we've had as part of this planning process, which is fantastic. Um, so we're looking forward to continuing to work with, uh, our municipal staff, uh, the CRD to explore opportunities in the future to move buses more reliably and quickly throughout the system. Thanks. Thanks, Ireneer. Councillor Thompson. Thanks, Mayor. And through you, thanks very much for the presentation. It's good to see it a second time. Um, and, uh, also thanks to Councillor Hammond for asking most of my questions, uh, I might go a little further on some of them. Um, and, uh, can stands for cooperative auto network, by the way. And I do recommend people have a look at, uh, at those cars sharing opportunities we've got here. Uh, so we've talked a lot about the funding. I'll ask a little bit more.

We didn't get the expansion funding this year. Hopefully that will resume in future years. Um, you mentioned advocacy and the role for local governments in that. I'm very, I'm sure we're all very happy to help out with that. Um, and I should just mention in regard to that generally, um, I would hope that the provincial government would see this as something that's popular, that's a vote getter because I talked to members of the public at doors at events, uh, on the phone, on email, uh, coffee chats and a lot more. And everybody says we need more transit, better transit. On every other issue that we discuss as a council, there's a range of views from, I hate it to, I love it. And everything else in between. But on transit, it is unanimous. People want more transits. So hope the province is listening to that.

Um, when it comes to just one specific piece, uh, that needs funding, I want to talk about the Douglas Street corridor. Uh, so that's going to be a big, uh, change here. Uh, I moved and Council approved a motion to have 24 7 bus lanes, uh, north of Herald up to hillside. And that's been implemented. But the tougher, much tougher part is, uh, south of Harold, which is going to take a lot of, uh, engineering work and careful design and then some infrastructure changes. Um, can you tell us how, uh, the funding has worked in other communities, not Victoria, but other communities on projects that, that, you know, deliver, um, transit priority. Like has it been, has it been funded by the municipalities or has it been funded by BC Transit Transit. Matt or Levi, which one? Should I can start through the chair. I think it largely depends on the circumstances of the project and the funding levers that are currently available from a

provincial and federal perspective. So for this particular project with regards to Douglas Street, I don't know the exact details with regards to the funding agreement off the top of my head, but I do know that we're working very collaboratively with the City Victoria with regards to the current design of that project. And as far as the final funding question, we can certainly get back to you with those details through city staff. Okay. Um, and, and other, do we have some other pieces of that rapid transit corridor that we can look at and say, okay, this was funded in that way. Do we have a sense of how the different pieces are funded outside of Victoria.

Uh, through the chair. Yeah. The province usually makes a contribution with regards to investments for transit infrastructure. The example would be obviously Highway 1 that's currently under construction and set to launch in fall of 2027. So there certainly are funding share opportunities that are out there to leverage, um, provincial and federal funds that may be available with regards to investing in transit. Okay. And is that like in Sanich, those are you thinking of those ones? Or are they certainly and I think through the chair is that we have obviously trans systems across the province. And I think that we have transit exchanges or transit priority or transit facilities. And again, it's really, you know, case by case in what the funding opportunities are. But largely, um, with many of these projects, there's lots of cost share opportunities from the province, which is what PC Transit represents and the local municipality with regards to, um, investing in the communities with transit infrastructure. And on the west

shore, the improvements that are made there is there any municipal funding going into those. I mean, I'm talking about the rapid transit corridor. Through the chair, um, I don't know the intimate details of that project off my head. So I don't want to speak incorrectly to it, but certainly I'll take a note of that and we can follow up and provide that information to city staff with regards to the current cost share agreement with regards to the investments and transit priority in the West Shore. Okay. Um. Can we talk just a little bit more just for the benefit of the public about Transit Priority Measures?

Cause I know that, um, Councillor Caradona averted to it. And it was discussed a little bit more at TRD. But I think it would be useful for, uh, City of Victoria, uh, residents to know, uh, what those are. So these are, uh, if you could just describe them, they're things like giving an advanced signal for buses, uh, bus lanes. Are there any other details that people might want to know about. Yeah, certainly through the chair. Um, transit priority includes a diverse suite of potential treatments to help speed buses through congested areas. So that could be anything from a QUE jumper lane, which essentially gives space approaching an intersection for a bus to get ahead of traffic and in a lot of cases have signal priority to move ahead of the flow of traffic before the rest of the cars can go through. Um, to, uh, dedicated transit lane, either along a segment of a corridor or an entire corridor, um, to transit signal priority, which

we've been talking about, which essentially at any given intersection would communicate with an approaching bus and allow, uh, either to extend a green to allow the bus to clear the intersection or perhaps truncate a red early to allow the bus to move, move more quickly through the intersection. Um, so yeah, there's a number of different, uh, opportunities to look at transit priority throughout the region. And we really want to be looking at the best possible treatment. For a local context, depending on what the challenge is and what road space there is and all those other factors. Right. Okay. Let me see if I've got any more here. Okay. No, that's, that's on my questions and for comments for now. Thanks. Very good. Councillor Kim. Through the chair. Thank you. Good morning. Hi. Uh. You've discussed some of the challenges that you're facing. Um, particularly on funding. What else are you facing as challenges that are unique to the work you're doing here versus transit in

other municipalities across BCR Canada? What's unique here. I'll start. Through the chair, what makes the Victoria region particularly unique is I would say two things. The first thing is that there are many different municipal boundaries. 13. And as well as First Nations communities, lots of key stakeholders. So designing a transit network where we have municipalities that all have their own priorities. Is a challenge. But at the same time, it's also an opportunity, right? Depending on the lens that you want to view it from. And I think through this process and the importance of increased collaboration to get understanding of what are the key priorities for all the regional partners and how can we work together to make those achievable? I would say the next, you know, major challenge for this region is just the geography of it. Whereas you find most transit systems across Canada, the downtown Central Business District is largely related in the middle. And then the development are, you know, rural and suburban sort of fans out in a circular frame.

Whereas in the Capitol Regional District, you have the central business district on the southern point. You have the major university on the other point. You have major development taking place on another side of the region. And then you throw in some bridges and some water and some, um, you know, arterial roads that are, you know, not a huge amount of them. And it just creates a challenge with regards to how do we move people efficiently and effectively. So I think that those are the key particular challenges as part of this plan that again, require, you know, and they sort of dovetail on top of each other. Because if you want to get from, if you want to take the Route 95 from downtown Victoria to the West shore, you've got to go through six different municipal boundaries. Districts as far as roadway perspective. And from a customer, you have no idea what's taking place. But from a, you know, from an agent of trying to

make changes and make these things better, that's just part of the process with regards to how do we, how do we work with all those partners to collaborate and get together with a unified goal. And I'll hand over to Levi in case he's got further. Do you find that these two pieces you've raised that are unique to our context give you a different angle with which to approach federal and provincial funding. Through the chair, I think that my observation of federal funding and provincial funding, um, where it is most successfully yielded is when all partners within a region show a unified goal of what they want. And I think that that's where the message and the story becomes really, really important. And I think that as part of this work, you know, I've used that word story a few times now. Is it ultimately the audience for this plan is, you know, the customers, right?

Our riders and our local elected officials as well. But it's also the audience with regards to telling the story of potential funding opportunities, uh, beyond what we have control of today. So I think that, uh, and certainly the CRD's regional transportation plan plays a big role in that as well, uh, with regards to reconciling all of these challenges and turning them into a story that creates opportunities with regrets to how do we solve these challenges in our region? Okay. Um, there's a number of sources from which transit funding can come. Things like clean B C. A federal funds that are specifically for transit, all of which have experienced dramatic reductions. Um, can you name any other, like maybe not as publicly known sources that you have experienced that shrinkage, um, so that we can be more targeted in our advocacy for you. Oh, that's through the chair. That's an excellent question. And again, I may not, I'm cautious with regards to units too much detail

because I don't have the full details of that. But I constantly report back to our teams that focus on those things and get some information and share with you. Um, what I will say though is, you know, the two key funding streams. There's the operating. So, you know, the delivery of transit service. And that's where the province governments cost share that. And then the capital projects. When we're building these bus lanes or nutrients and facilities or whatever may be. And that's where over the past several years, we've really leveraged federal funding initiatives with regards to making those investments. So as far as the current federal, um, programs that are available, again, I apologise. I don't have those details in front of me right now, but certainly we can report back to City of Victoria staff and they can share with Council of what's available. And so that's a topic as well for the Victoria Regional Transit Commission. If it does come up that we can

share again, significant details with regards to opportunities there. Part of the reason I ask that question is because I'm trying to encourage you to use us more effectively. Um, uh, this is a bit of a personal question, but is there a plan to address two bike racks per bus given the insane bike ridership in Victoria. Uh, through the chair, um, that has been a very, very common question. Uh, Whistler in particular reaches out almost regularly because obviously they have a very strong biculture for mountain bike perspective. Um, based on my understanding of it right now is that it's challenging to do with three bikes largely because it starts to interfere with the headlights and the visibility of the Transit driver. So at this stage, we are not, um, pursuing it. But certainly again, we can follow up again with city staff. I can, um, contact our training and bus fleet procurement team with regards to if they have any updates. Cause I know that we

have been testing it over the past couple of years to see what's viable. Just to add to Matt's comments there. I think one way we often see Transit Systems carry more bikes is with a transition to higher order transit, whether that be light rail or, um, Traclis Trams. It just creates more space on board to more easily and safely accommodate biking facilities. So I think once again within the context of this plan, we have higher order transit as a priority within the next 25 years. And I think that'll help with the movement, uh, an integration of multimodal travel. Um, even if we can't find a solution in the interim on buses that is safe and effective in the meantime. So. Thank you. I realise I saved my hardest question for last. Um, and if you feel like you can't answer it, I completely understand, but there is, uh, talk in the news about a potential strike of the drivers. How will, um, the relationship with

the drivers and staff, uh, impact, be it good or bad what you've presented in front of us today. Through the chair, yeah, as you noted, uniform local three, three, three, which, um, represents 660 Transit operator, you just maintenance staff in the Victorial Trans system have reached an impasse with regards to their bargaining. And there is a strike vote scheduled for today, which would be a mandate to take a 72 hour strike. So just to recognise that they're not voting to labour action today, they're voting to have the ability to take a strike in the future. So just note that, uh, at this point at this moment in time, though the trans operations continues as normal.

And I think we have a strong relationship with the operators and just note as part of our engagement for this process. We spend a lot of time talking to Transit Drivers as well with regards to their feedback on how this plan goes. Um, and all I can say this is the point is we're going to continue to modern her the situation. We'll provide updates as the situation evolves. Thank you. I realise that that was actually my penultimate question. My last question actually is, and it's one I like to ask, um, what is something coming down the pipes in about a decade or two that you think local governments should be thinking of now. That's a fantastic question. I think with, with this plan in particular, there's a lot of like short - term opportunities. And I would say, for example, like extending bus lanes down Douglas, um, is a core next step. But we need to look forward to that 25 year vision. And if

we're thinking about higher order transit, for example, like we, we should be thinking ahead to that future while we're planning for the short term actions as well. Like what's the value proposition, not just tomorrow, but over 25 years, um, Matt, anything to add? Yeah. I'll just add, I was at a workshop last week at, uh, Deloitte is a Transportation Summit. And a key theme that I walked away with, was regarding CURB space. And the demand for curve space. And I say that in particular, for anyone who's travelled to San Francisco or Austin recently in the sense of Waymo, these autonomous sort of taxis or robotaxis as well seem to be on the precipice of spreading or being introduced in other cities in Canada. So that's just something as these new technologies are potentially introduced, again, based on policy direction from the province and local governments is that we only have so much curb space. And how do we use that curb space? So I think

that's something important for all of our local governments to just consider. Uh, and just recognising too that the end of the day, public transit, uh, if I'm, I work for piece of trans. So I'm going to advocate for it is that our bus stops are really, really important. And I think that we remain the most efficient way to move people in large volumes across the region. So if I were to offer advice for council for the next 10 years is just be mindful with regards to the demand for curb spaces. Cause it's probably going to continue to go up because there's so much, uh, different competing interests for it. Thank you so much for that.

Yep. That's it for me. Thanks. Ansell Coleman. Thank you. And through your worship, Matt, your opening comments. Thank you. Um, you said that Victoria is the heart and heartbeat of the region. Please repeat often with great passion and increasing volume. That would be helpful. Um, leave you referenced the frequency issue and how some of the roots have slowed down, which mitigates against. Increasing use. One of the trends that we are going through as we're seeing increasing density in the region, uh, we are going to carlite, car free applications. And if curb space is an issue, is that one of those black box issues going down the road. Because not on the arterial routes, but particularly in the neighbourhood roots, I think that there is a slowing down of transit because of increasing. We've turned parking into an externality that's showing up. Could you speak to that, please? Levi. So through the chair, you've identified a really critical challenge. I think for the transit system moving

forward. What I would say is, I think we need to be strategic about where we look to prioritize Transit. For example, uh, where we're operating eight or more buses per hour, for example. And we're carrying large numbers of people is where we're going to see the most value by investing in targeted interventions to speed, uh, transit and improve reliability. And so I think it's really focusing on those core frequent and rapid corridors and exploring opportunities to move it more quickly and more reliably. And, and as counsel, as you continue to make decisions on roadways and decisions around CUB space, even though you're not directly making decisions on transit, those decisions have such a big influence on, on what we're able to accomplish for the transit system. So I just encourage Council to just keep that in mind as we continue to move forward into the future. Thank you. And then a follow up on that would be, you said there's been a, uh, a loss

in the frequency. Vectors. At the same time, we have seen, what is it, a two percent increase in funding. So if we want to hit 2050, have we figured out it's not just a static investment to get more buses. It's actually an increasing investment over time. Have you done any of the, uh, extrapolation of what that would look like. Yeah. Great question. So through the chair, the plan will indicate an investment trajectory and what a specific capital projects are required to support the evolution of the transit system to that ultimate goal over 25 years. Um, it requires a significant increase in the pace of expansion over the historical two percent average. And I think that's really, once again, accounting for that one to one and a half percent. Trend of slowing transit that we've seen recently. So, um, although the plan is extremely ambitious and really, uh, will require a change in how we approach things. I will say if we're able to significantly decrease

the loss of speed in the transit system, we can actually invest less potentially than what we're going to include in the plan and still achieve the mode chair targets for the region. Um, so I think it's just really important that we continue to consider the speed and reliability of transit because it has a significant impact on how many resources we need to bring to bear to achieve the visions for the region. Thank you very much. Councillor Thompson, you had a second question. I do mayor. There's been a lot of discussion of the need and recognition of the need and of the funding required. It's kind of like the elephant in a room that everybody is actually looking at. And, uh, I am wondering, mayor, if it's suitable to bring a motion arising based on a presentation or is it normally, are they based on actual decision motions that we have? It would be unusual to have emotionalizing on a presentation, particularly from presentation from an

outside agency. It would be entirely appropriate for you to propose something as a council member motion to a future meeting. Okay. Thanks. I'll take that advice. Thank you. Not so Dell. Hi guys. Thank you so much for the presentation. That was awesome. Um, I'm a very frequent Transit user myself and also go to the Vancouver. I'd love the service to Vancouver and the airport and whatnot. Well, the airport when it comes. But I also have a 13 year old, um, and so I've seen Transit recently through the eyes of a 13 year old. That's a Victoria resident. So I wanted to chat quickly. One of the spaces I see for opportunity is getting that culture of transit with young people. And obviously Victoria has done a pretty good job with a youth Transit pass, but I also see a ton of room of improvement. So I'm going to admit something a bit controversial that I haven't got my son to pass yet. Part of it

because he goes to school in Monterey, which is an Oak Bay. And I actually didn't quite make the linkage between his school and Victoria and he walks. But for example, at Monterey, I haven't heard anything whatsoever from the school about the youth TransitPass. Um, I have not seen BC Transit promoting it also. My question is, are you promoting this at all or is this totally up to the City of Victoria? And what are you doing elsewhere to get that kind of next cohort 13 to 18 on board? Cause actually by sending right now often doesn't take the bus because he's worried he's going to get asked for a pass. So he's, he'll often be stranded somewhere. And I can imagine the lot of other youth like him. I will get the pass. You guys are reminding me of that. But what are you doing to incentivize that next group of youth and I'll leave it there. So through the chair, we do as part of

our marketing team have a youth outreach program. Um, I think the challenge with that team is just the, you know, there's thousands of schools across the province and really just trying to manage the expectations with regards to, you know, fulfilling that, uh, fulfilling that demand. I will say that I have a 12 year old daughter who rolled a bus for the first time on our own and she transferred at Yuvik and got home. And I, the smile on her face when she walked through the door. And I was terrified as a dad because as I'm sure you've experienced as well, uh, but she's never been more proud and confident. So I think it sort of was an intimate realization for myself as well because I'm only ever looking at the numbers. But the role that Transit can play for our communities to not only move young people around, but also to build confidence and autonomy.

For them is really, really important. So I think that we do, I think an okay job with regards to communicating. But I think it's a huge opportunity and just noting that the FairyUndred 12 is only a couple of years old now. And I think we're still collecting data and seeing all that ridership. But I think as far as our strategic plan moving forward, I think the investments with regards to communicating those programs is going to be a key priority moving forward. Cause not only does a grower transit ridership for students, but it also creates, uh, lifelong transit riders, um, into the future. Okay. Thank you.

And through the mayor, are you doing any advocacy to other municipalities about the possibility of them just buying into the program? One thing I find quite surprising is we fund transit for youth. I think it's about 600, 000 dollars a year So for us, it's a 0. 3 percent tax increase Now that funds that permanently and I just don't see that awareness that other municipalities that they could just fund that particularly around the CRD with a relatively small payment from everybody Do you guys do any advocacy for that or talk about the benefits of that? I know the group buy - in so that we don't just pay for it. I have it to pass is actually like a group discount, I believe I just don't see that being advertised to other municipalities or BC Transit talking about the benefits of that much at all.

Yeah through the chair You may not see it sort of in the public, but behind the scenes we have a very robust fair and revenues team who is connecting with local government partners as well as key institution like secondary schools with regards to potential and you know developers as well with regards to the eco - pass with regards to opportunities for those type of programs and their availability. Another question about my stunning stage a lot of who are using them are using electric scooters now and scooters It kind of brings up the question for my colleague about bikes What's the plan with other electric scooters allowed on the bus and what do those we do for kids who might scoot somewhere that at night they don't want it's too dark However, how are we kind of... I just see a major mode shift with this kind of younger generation A lot of them are actually on e - bikes now as well and kind of

relying on that multi - use of transit for part of it e - bike for next How are we accommodating the scooters. Great question and through the chair I think that our existing policy with regards to what you can bring on board a bus as long as you can carry it You're able to do so So I think that you know I'm not up to speed exactly because I know that electric scooter is coming varying shapes and sizes But as long as they a person is able to Carry that on board they are able to do so With that being said I again I don't know the intimate details of that policy Um, and I will certainly follow up with city staff with regards to the details because I think that's an interesting question that I'd like to know the answer myself But I will just as a final thought too is that that first slot first mile last mile opportunities are growing increasingly throughout

the region and we're starting to see You know more people with regards to electric bikes and electric scooters to be able to get to that bus stop So I think that the connectivity between these different modes is again going to be a key theme moving forward for public transit in the region. Okay, thank you last question Um, who's responsible for cleaning bus stops? Where does transit's responsibility begin and where does it end? Where does the city take over? And I know only asking that because I know you just had five of the busiest ones are downtown Uh, and they're perfectly safe and wonderful bus stops if they're but the people there You know with food and garbage and whatnot And I think Klenis is important Um, where does where does that responsibility life. Through the chair Uh, right now the responsibility of bus stops is ultimately the local government partner who is responsible for that CURP space So BC Transit is responsible for the delivery

of service But ultimately the bus stop is owned and maintained by the local government partner with some exceptions that exist perhaps on land that is owned by BC Transitrat or for ministry transportation infrastructure With that being said Uh, Levi and are actually working on a strategy right now with regards to bus stops And I think that sometimes bus stops are forgotten as this sort of insignificant thing in the trip But if you really break down the customer experience and the customer journey That bus stop experience is in many ways the most important part of the transit experience Particularly if it's the weather is inclement or if the safety considerations as well So I think that you know moving forward as part of this Victoria regional Transit plan We will make some reference to bus stops and how do we make those bus stops better I know too that we've been working closely with City of Victoria staff about Douglas Street in particular because we have

as we said thousands of riders every day have an experience with regards to riding trans and those bus stops And how can we make that better? Are we satisfied with what we have today And if we're not then what do we got to do together as a BC Transit and a City Victoria to make that experience better to encourage more transit ridership. Okay Thank you And I just want to end by saying I think you guys are doing a great job I've been riding Transit here for 25 years and it's definitely better than ever The Kinet Umo card is absolutely amazing The credit card piece that I heard the other day is Fantastic So I think things are definitely moving in the right direction So thank you. Councillor Kim you had a subsequent question Yes, thank you through the chair Um you mentioned the youth outreach engagement Um by any chance was their work done with the fellow out of Kingston, Ontario Who has a

really great youth bus engagement program. Through the chair I'm not aware of that connection But I we can certainly follow up and get more details And if you're able to share more details of what that entails that would be helpful for us as well Yeah And if you're looking for our program currently It's called the bus ready program You can find information about it online Okay Um and then the second question is Um Can you remind me what the policy is around PETS on buses and why that is. Uh, so through the chair Um, once again I think operational policy I don't have the exact verbiage Um, but my understanding is that PET needs to be in a contained Uh, uh, uh, cage of some kind once again just to ensure safety and sort of fit within a certain envelope to be carried safely or to be a certified guide animal Um, and so that is the current operational policy I know the thoughts and

discussions about the policy Uh, but that's the current policy today Thanks I'm sure you know about New York subway systems hilarious PET policy So that's partly why I ask, okay Thanks, that's it Thank you very much. Anybody else. Well that took a lot longer than I expected I will have to say, but I was really delighted to hear that you in fact are going to as BC Transit representatives endorse some amalgamation. To assist in all of your work So that's a good headline for you I'm happy to support that Yay. That's what I took from your presentation That being said of course we do appreciate the amount of time that you put into preparing for today as well as all of the work that it represents So thank you very much for coming And of course we'll have many ways to keep in touch and continue to work together over the next coming months and years Thank you, thank you. Council I suspect that the

next item and infects the next item is after that We'll take a significant amount of time So I'm going to suggest that we take a break now since we've been sitting for a little longer than we usually do in the morning And that we come back here at 2042.

Morning and welcome back to the City of Victoria's Victoria City Council's Committee of the Whole meeting. We are now on section G. These are two land use matters. The first of which is G1. This is the rezoning application and development permit with variances application for 517 and 533 Chatham Street and 530, 532 and 536 Herald Street. Staff, would you like to give us a quick overview. Thank you and good morning, Meroral to our members of Council. I'm Jim Handy acting assistant director at Development Services. And as it says first time presenting a land use site to Council, I'd like to introduce Jean - AC Octem, our senior planner of urban design. And with that, I'll hand the rinds over to Mr. PON. Welcome. Thank you so much. Honour it to be working in City Building and Public Service and this capacity alongside inspiring a support of colleagues. Marion Council, the proposal before you today is for a sick story mixed - use. Development in Old

Town. It includes 133 secure dental homes and ground floor retail on Chatham Street. It also introduces a publicly accessible pocket park plaza on Herald Street and two through block pedestrian connections across the site. The proposal retains the existing Heritage Designated Bigger Staff in Wilson buildings with no alterations and no tenant displacement. A rezoning is required to apply site - specific density parameters to support the proposed subdivision and infill development. A concurrent development permit application addresses the design considerations and include several variances to which I will speak shortly. Briefly on the justice of authority under the various sections of the local government Act Council has the authority to consider rezoning to security housing agreement to consider the development permit for a form and character and consider the requested variances. As this rezoning is consistent with the official community plan, and it is intended to permit residential development, a public hearing is not permitted per the local government Act. However, notice to nearby properties is still required

and prior to introductory readings per our land use procedures by law. Decide to the through - block property between Chatham and Herald Street. It sits at the transition between Old Town and Chinatown to the south and Rach Bay to the north. It is also located across Chatham Street from the Future Capital Culture District. The site currently includes two Heritage buildings, surface parking, and an existing commercial building proposed for removal. A total of 23 trees were inventoryed on and adjacent to the site, including five bylaw protected trees on the subject lots, and seven municipal trees along the frontages. There's also a great change of about three metres from south to north. From a public ground standpoint, offers a key through block connection, opportunity between Dragon Alley and the evolving capital cultural district block. There are already informal pedestrian desire alliance through the site. The proposal formalizes these connections through publicly accessible walkways and open space. The capital culture district block includes a five - story street

wall building and the 14 - Story Tower directly across the site, as well as a publicly accessible mid - block lane. A mid - blower crosswalk is also envisioned to provide a pedestrian connection between the subject site and the capital cultural district block. On Chatham Street, the property front digits between 515 Chatham at 5 - 3 residential building. The podium courtyard, also known as ironworks, and 555 Chatham Street, a 6 - story mixed use residential building with loft style homes, some of which face the subject property. The site includes two heritage designated buildings. The bigger staff building and the Wilson building. Both I retained as is with no architectural alterations proposed. As a result, there is no heritage alteration permit associated with this application. These buildings were originally built for commercial uses and now contain rental housing, commercial, and LU work uses following adaptive reuse and seismic upgrades works undertaken late 1990s and early 2000s.

Because they're being retained, homes and no tenant displacement. The proposed infill building is designed to remain separate from these buildings, but to be compatible with the Heritage Context. The site is within the downtown core as identified in the official community plan. It is also subject to the Downtown Core Development Permit Area 2, and the commercial heritage conservation area one policies and design guidelines. Therefore, the proposal has been assessed against the downtown core area plan, downtown core design guidelines, and the Old Town Design Guidelines. Staff conclude that the proposal is generally consistent with the applicable land use policies by delivering rental housing, active commercial uses, uh, and public realm improvements while responding to the Heritage Context.

Arizoning is required because the applicant proposes subdivide the site into three lots. Two of those lots will exceed the standard density limits of the old town district one zone standard of three FSR. The proposed overall site density is 3. 17 FSR with the North Lot at 3. 81 FSR and the Southeast slot at 3. 18 FSR. Staff consider the supportable due to the proposals public benefits and its alignment with the applicable policy and design guidelines. A key public benefit associated with the proposal is the pocket park plaza on Herald Street at approximately 687 square metres. It is designed as a visible and accessible public space.

And as the Southern anchor of the sites through block walkway connections. It includes seating, planting, lighting, and the flexible spatial configuration with accessible connections across the grade change. City - staff recommend that the owner build and maintain the pocket park plaza is a privately owned public space. Its provision, maintenance, and daytime public access are proposed to be secured to a legal agreement. From an urban forest standpoint, this space also contributes to greening of this part of downtown through retained trees and substantial new planting. While some removals are required to accommodate the development and frontage works, the broader landscape plan includes 15 new on - site trees, an additional municipal street trees on both Chatham and Herald Street. From a usability and comfort perspective, the pocket park is intended to be active, visible, and well - used. This relies on the design qualities of the pocket park plaza itself and the activities that encourages as a local public outdoor amenity, uh, available to the public. This

is complemented by adjacent residential, live work and commercial entrances and generous ground for glazing. Those that just help provide animation and passive surveillance eyes on the park plaza and walkways so that the pocket park plaza clearly reads as I cared for and overlooked space. Another usability and conference consideration is how the site access is controlled without underwinding its function as a privately owned public space. Here, the gates proposed are intended to open clear and unobstructed during the day so that the pocket park plaza in the walkways can read as natural extensions of the Herald Street public PROM. This approach helps balance openness. Everyday usability and site management in a way staff considered appropriate for this type of privately - owned public space. The proposal also includes two through block walkways connecting Herald and Chatham Street's in alignment with similar and successful precedents found in Old Town and supported by our city policies and design guidelines.

The primary walkway aligns with the pocket park plaza and provides a wider, more direct connection through the block. The secondary walkway aligns with the existing Wilson Build in courtyard and live work uses. Further walkways, the usability and comfort relies primarily on - PSIPE design. Active edges integrated lighting, clear sight lines, and the legible public path through the site. Complimenting this site design approach, public access to both walkways is proposed to be legally secured during the day with restricted overnight access supported by gates. Designed to stay open in a visually and physically unobstructed way during public access hours. Further refinement of the design of these walkways and gates and operational considerations is recommended as a condition of permit issuance. The new infill building has six stories and uses a base, middle, top composition with vertical articulation to reduce perceived massing and broadly align its expression with old towns - built fabric. Brick is used prominently on the Chatham Street elevation and also at lower levels to

reinforce the pedestrian experience and respond to the old town context. The proposal uses setbacks and careful placement of windows and balconies to respond to neighbouring built form, including residential uses. Step note that the current design reflects multiple design iterations to improve livability. Additional refinement is recommended through permaditions conditions, including further development of cladding and soffit materiality, any minor adjustments to the physical configuration of the interfaces between the proposed infill massing and the existing ones. The infield building is organised around a central courtyard through which the primary through block walkway runs. This supports daylight access natural ventilation and dual aspect homes and creates the shared outdoor space for residents. Staff recognised this as a positive livability feature, uh, with sustainability benefits in alignment with the applicable design guidelines. The courtyard is connected to a shared rooftop outdoormanly space via elevators and exterior stairs and walkways. These spaces are intended for the access and use of the residents. The rooftop men of the area includes community building

and supporting amenities such as spaces for gathering, eating, and play, as well as a PET relief area. The application includes several variances and staff recommend support. The height increase from 15 to 21. 1 metres is supported on the basis of the proposals general alignment with our design guidelines. The public space being provided at grade and evolving, built - form context across Chatham Street in the future capital culture district, whose street wall building buildings at that location are envisioned to be approximately 22. 5 metres in height. The family housing variants is modest and is supported by a strong supply of two - bedroom homes, uh, and secured rental tenure. Steph also recognised the applicant's efforts to align the project's family housing offering with changes in city policies and regulations that took place partway through the planning process. The parking reduction is supported by a robust transportation demand management package, including enhanced bike facilities, transit funding, um, uh, incar share measures. Uh, the remaining variances are considered

supportable on the basis of site configuration connectivity and the proposals integrated design approach. In conclusion, this proposal offers to deliver secure advental housing street activating commercial uses and meaningful public realm improvements while retaining heritage buildings and avoiding tenant displacement. It also contributes to public alem greening through new planting and the net increase in municipal street trees. Frontage upgrades are also proposed on chaterman Herald Street's including ervaised and realigned crosswalk on Herald Street connecting the site more directly to Dragonaley. A key public benefit items, including the pocket park plaza, walkways, rental tenure and mobility measures. I recommend it to be secured through legal agreements. While the project requires variances, staff consider them supportable. Staff therefore recommend that Council support the rezoning and development permit with variances subject to the conditions and legal agreements outlined in the report. Um, this concludes the staff presentation. My colleague also, uh, Crystal Steveno, our senior Heritage Planner, uh, is also online. Should they any heritage related questions? And yeah, we're

looking forward to hearing your questions and support you and their decision making. Thank you very much. Well done. We'll start with questions. Questions. Or coordinator or Councillor Hammond. Thank you and thank you for the presentation. Um, the proposal before us is very interesting and you said it almost fits into the Old Town District. And I've several questions, most of which refer to comments or requests from tenants and next door neighbours. So I understand from the schematics that the neighbourhood falls, that it falls into is DRA. Is that correct? The downtown REST Association. But the drop off 100 meteor community notice would be in both Burnside Gorge and downtown Bres Association. Is that correct? Um, I believe we would still be in downtown across the street because, um, North Park is part of at least downtown core area plan boundaries, uh, regarding like the community association boundaries. We may want to double check that. But DRA was the neighbourhood association with which the applicant engaged for

the CALUC. You know, I understand that. But my question is how many, because I think it was right on the boundary. I've seen just see little jog there along the bottom. We have Chatham, which means it would take you to burnside gorge. Uh, in your 100 metre drop. So that's really my question. I don't know how many people live on that side. So in our, uh, information package, I could have missed it. We had a thousand pages to look through in the last couple of days where I did. Was there any letter from the DRA as to the, uh, report from the Catholic meeting. We did not receive a letter from, from DRA. DRA. So was there anything? So that's why I'm asking for how many residents may have been north of there. Who, I mean, I don't understand why there wasn't a letter. I mean, I understand that the city wasn't responsible for creating the letter. But I think that's very problematic given how

many letters we've gotten since in emails. So I really like to know just how many residents were north of that boundary because I think that would take in a hundred metres. So that's a question that I think Jim is trying to look into right now. Through you, Mayor, yes. I'm just double checking. But, um, you know, with a rezoning application, we would notify people within a hundred metres of the application site. And, um, but that would include the properties immediately to the north of the subject site. But, um, yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm not sure if they're actually, um, any resident across the street. I think it's mainly a question. Thank you. So we don't know the answer to that question or do we? No. Okay.

This comes up further in our next application. Okay. Um. And there was no, no report from the committee from the DRA. I don't know why. Okay. So what is the intended size of the units within it? Because we had some comments on that and I didn't see it in the report. Honour Octamer. The units vary in size. Smaller offering of studio homes. A significant offering of one bedroom homes. And an offering of two bedroom and three bedroom homes. Regarding unit sizes, uh. I can't list them offhand immediately divided, you know, kind of listed by typology. But I can confirm that none of them are below the unit, the minimum unit area established in the applicable zoning bylaw. Can someone tell me the minimum size units that are using this complex place? Through the mayor, could you repeat that. I would like to know the minimum size of a unit in this that is in this complex proposed as proposed, please. Someone give me the number. Feet or metres.

Apologies, man. I just double checking on the data table. Yes, absolutely.

I didn't. Find. It.

Through the mayor, we might need a little bit more time to clarify this. Should I ask another question? Yes. Councillor Garden, why don't you proceed with your questions and we'll come back to that. Okay. Hang on. Just got to make sure I colour it so I see it later. How many units are accessible. Also through the mayor? We may need a bit more time to confirm this. Why don't you ask a series of questions. If they're in that nature of how much of this, how big is that? And that way they can try and find the answers to all of them at the same time. Okay. You can't decide to the units, yes. And the smallest, the accessibility, if the units that are accessible, the height of the building to the east on Chatham and the height of the building to the west compared to the height of the structure being proposed. That one you might have an answer to right now, the height. Do you have that one? Uh, qualitatively,

um, we have the renderings showing the relative heights of the proposed building in relation to the neighbouring buildings on Chatham Street. It is, it is quite close to the, to 555 Cham Street, the six story mixed used residential building with Lot style homes. Uh, it is a little bit taller than, uh, 515 Chatham Street, also known as Ironworks. So I'm scrolling through the presentation to, there we go. So. If this provides a qualitative clarification on it. Would you be able to provide the actual metre height. Of the proposed building. The proposed building is seeking 21. 5 metres. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Garner, does that answer your question about height. Well, that tells me the height of one of them. What's the height of the other?

Are they existing. Do you know the height of the existing adjacent building. Comparatively speaking? Not numerically. But, uh, we can also look into that. Councillor Gurder, other questions? Well, the height to the east and the one to the west because those were the people who gave most comments. And now the distance between the proposed buildings and existing neighbours, I understand on the east, it's very tight. It's about just over three metres, is it not? And on the west, it's different because you have the parking. Is that true? Um, so, uh, in this, on this slide, are the partial setbacks proposed are shown. Towards the east.

So this is the, this is 555athom Street. Combined with a, so the three metres between existing building and the property line. And another close to about three metres. On the other side is provided to get to a six metre building separation. Uh, this is to the east. And to the west, there is a three metre setback. This is aligned with the podium CORTYART at the Ironworks building. Okay. Um. So I appreciate the study of horizontal angle of daylight. That was interesting to read. However, the issue of space between buildings is real. Um, and it seems to be more of a problem from the letters we've got since we don't have a catacriport. For those in the neighbouring East residential building, which I believe is 555.

So what will be the wall treatment which residents there will see from the windows. When I reckon. Um, it would be metal panel and cementitious cladding. And the applicant has been, uh, working with staff to align the fenestration and new balconies, um, not on this interface, but on the other interfaces with existing buildings. So, um, if that provides clarification through the mayor. Not quite. Will it be the, you showed us three different types of cladding. Will it be the black ones, the dark grey black. Is that going to be the view from the windows of the balconies across the windows across the correct. So we're looking at that elevation slides. So it would be the darker cladding material. So three feet away from their balconies or the decks. They're going to have a black wall.

Through the mayor through the Mayor six metres away. On the, on the 555? Correct. But it's going to be a solid block wall. Not the brick finish or anything else, but the solid black wall. Not solid articulated still through the mayor. Um, but, uh, correct. It's the darker cladding. And as shown on the setback diagram here, uh, six metres from, from the wall of the. But still solid black wall for six stories. Um, yes. Yes. Okay. Mayor, I will have an amendment later. Okay. May. Thank you. Uh, my comment being, of course, okay. We've had comments on the pillars and the sidewalk area by the main entrance of Chatham. Are there pillars for within the sidewalk area on the entrance Adam. Through the mayor, um, that was, uh, very early, uh, design proposition from, from the applicant, uh, throughout the planning process, the pillars have been removed from the site. So chat and frontage is clear. Um, and supported by, um, a canopy rather than

pillars landing on the sidewalk space. Great. That's good to hear. The property should be subdivided into three lots. Why and which parts are going to be subdivided and for what reason? On Rakin. Through the mayor, uh, so, uh, now, uh, as shown on the, uh, subdivision diagram, subject to approval officer, um, should counsel, uh, decide advance this application. Um, so these are the three lots. Um, lot number one, the northern Latlan chat on street. It is for, uh, for the infil Mixed use building and the two through block walkways, uh, and the Southern lots to the southwest, it contains the pocket park plaza proposed and the existing rigger staff building and the Southeast slot contains the Wilson building and its existing CORTYART. The subdivision was an applicant ask and from an urban design and land use, uh, standpoint, uh, staff have been working around that ask. So looking to, uh, and recommending the securing of required SRWs, say for the pocket park plaza, uh, and

also, uh, the through block walkways through the site, going through multiple lots. Are these you be rental or strata? I still understand why it's being divided. Through the mayor, um, the proposed infill building, uh, to be secure rental. Shirley? Secured rental. And the other two. The existing buildings, um, bigger staff in Wilson buildings, uh, are operating as rental buildings, uh, staff understanding is that they're not stratified. Okay. So I understand the reasons of division will remain mental and perpetuing. Effectively, yes, through the mayor. So we don't know why they're being divided. Through the mayor, um, I mean, this might be a question that's best answered by, by the applicant. Okay. To vary the height, the roof line along Chatham and give relief to the residence of the existing buildings to the east, perhaps the west would not have five - story structure for those short sections on either side, closest to the other buildings, give even more of a varied roof line. Through the mayor,

sorry, could you please repeat the question. I believe Councillor Gardner is asking your opinion on whether or not you would have thought a lower structure would have less impact on its neighbours. I'm also suggesting that if just the two N's were lowered, we would have quite the objections from the neighbours there, but also you might therefore fit into the Old Town Zone standard of three instead of the higher level. Through the mayor of staff explored, uh, what, what approaches can be pursued with the massing with the applicant. But, uh, you know, while advancing, uh, multiple public policy objectives. And while being mindful of, um, the applicants more practical considerations, um, the massing has, has stayed throughout at six stories this way. Uh, but still to improve the architectural expression of the building to put it in better alignment with Old Town Design Guidelines, especially, you know, the variation of the roof, roof profile, uh, which should be visible in this rendering, uh, with an expressed

parapet at certain locations. Understand that there was concern to vary the roof lines. And again, lowering the very ends by story would also accomplish that. Wood lowering just those two sections of the end take us down to the zoning. That is appropriate for old town. Lockdown. Through the mayor, um, it is hard for me to say, uh, quantitatively, uh, right now, we would need to sit down on calculated, uh, but it would lower the density ask for the north parcel or for the proposed Northlot. Thank you, Mr. After. And consider it I gather. Okay. The gates to the midsight passages and courtyard must be gated, no given, no question given the street disorder in our city. What would be the opening time in closing time and will tenants have a fob or lock code to enter during lock hours or is that impacted at all.

They're coming and going. To. Mayor, uh, the gates, um, uh, regarding the opening times, um, you will notice in our recommendation that this is something we're hoping to work on with the applicant, uh, towards buy our introduction. Should the council decide to advance this application towards the rezoning and development permit. Regarding the times of operation, generally during the planning process, daytime, was noted or dawned to Dusk sometimes emotionally. But at the same time, staff are looking to discuss with the applicant with the availability of the public space as an amenity to the residents, uh, during the day, uh, is possible, uh, the, uh, access to existing, LU work units and commercial units, um, on, on the site are possible. And also mobility connections. Throughout the planning process, we heard from the applicant notionally, initially perhaps eight to eight. But at the same time, uh, we want to sit down. Should cancel advanced this application. And discuss and confirm this for the three reasons I mentioned.

Availability of the pocket park plaza and through Balkoa as public realm amenities, uh, their potentials as mobility connections through Old Town and also access to existing loop and commercial units. That will be within the bounds of the gates. We'll turn on to have a Farber Lock code to enter during long hours. Through the mayor, um, it is understood that, yes, when the gates are in operation, uh, the access would be restricted to, uh, to residents. This is after hours. Thank you. Now, um, 536 and five, three, two, which areled are part of the current assembled spots. You said that correct was Heritage buildings. That is correct. Thank you. So and they are currently have tenants.

And tenants usually have certain rights and amenities. And there are existing parking tenants who live in the heritage street buildings. Will they be provided the same amenity they have now. In other words, access to parking. Undon. Uh, through, through you mayor, um. This is, I think, a question best directed to, uh, to the applicant, um, rather owner who operates the existing rental rental buildings. Yeah. Yes, Mr. Handy. Thank you through you mayor. I'm going to circle back to some of the questions as well here. But, um, so my understanding here, and Ms. Dogden can jump in and correct me if I've got anything wrong. But, um, the, from the correspondence we received, I understand that tenants in some of the adjacent rental buildings currently use the surface parking lot for parking. And, um, there may be concerns about where they park in the future. Um, so in this area of old town, um, on, um, smaller lots. We typically do not require parking.

Um, that's because of the heritage context in nature of the area. And often it's impossible to provide parking. And there was never any parking provided in this area, um, given the heritage context. However, 70 plus parking stores being provided in the new park head. We, what we don't do is specify or manage who has access to those parking stalls. So the parking stalls, um, may be available just for the people who rental the building, renting the building, or they could also become available for the neighbouring properties that are in question here. So, but we, we, that's not something that we normally participate in. I mean, if it's a conversation, Council have a desire for us to have, um, with the applicant. We can do that and explore that further. Um, but that would be the situation regarding parking. Um, just circling back to a couple of other questions that were raised. The smallest unit sizes and the building for residential units. I believe about 36

square metres, which are slightly larger than the minimum unit size of 33 square metres. That the zoning barely requires. However, that's just a handful of the units. Most of them kind of start off at about 44 square metres in size. Um, we don't have information around accessible units at this stage. That's normally something that is, um, dealt with through the PC building chord through a building permit. So we don't have that information to share with council at this stage. So sorry, that's an answer in a few questions, David. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. And so how many of these micro units of 36 square metres will it be? Mr. Hendy, do you know that? Instructal? Uh, through UMS, sorry. I don't have the, that exact count. We'd have to have another look at that. I was just looking at the smallest unit size specific to the question that was raised. Okay. One more question, Mayor, before it gets moved and we have amendments.

And that is, how many channels are in those heritage buildings that, uh, have parking and was five, three, six and five, three, two. How many tenants are there and how many currently have parking. Uh, through the mayor, we do not have that information. Cause I was a huge. I would just note actually that that information based on Mr. Handy's earlier comments about how we are involved with adjacent parking issues. I would not be material to this consideration of this matter. Number 10 is a garden. Number of tenets. No, not necessarily not in the adjacent buildings. Well, usually we look at tenants rates. So I'm very surprised. That's it for questions. Okay. Councillor Hammond. Thanks Mayor.

There's been a number of issues that have been raised already. And I just want to ask about attachment K in which there was the first letters from a couple, uh, Marley and Angie. And that letter was brought about or was sent to us on July 1st of 2025. I'm just wondering, would you know if there has been any change that would appease their concerns from this letter, uh, since that time. Structum. Through the mayor, um. Now, uh, scanning through their letter. So, uh, of the issues that they, they listed regarding building placement, um, well, the developer or the applicant has worked with staff to better align to fine tune their, um, the adjacencies or the relationship of the proposed building in relation to the existing ones through the planning process. Uh, so, uh, you know, that's six metre from wall of five, five, five, Chatham, um, to the wall of, uh, to the west or the east elevation of the proposed building came out, uh, happened during that process. Um, as an example. Regarding

building appearance, um, that has also significantly changed from the time of the, uh, CALUC and the Rezoning application submission to better align with Old Town Design guidelines. The previous expression was in comparison a bit more monolithic and repetitive. And it had those pillars that Councillor Gardner mentioned earlier. Uh, so that has also changed significantly through the planning process through multiple iterations as applicants work with staff. Regarding safety, um. Uh, again, as an operational, consideration, uh, for the applicant and also, uh, quality of public ground consideration on our end, we staff worked with the applicant iteratively, uh, to see how, um, the pocket park plaza and the true block walkways, uh, can work successfully. So the alignment, uh, the configuration, the walk of the walkways, uh, the design of the gates, um, the operational assumptions around the gates. We're all developed to this point through multiple iterations of staff working with the applicant to speak to the safety or the usability and comfort concerns that derivate. So staff opinion at a high level would be

that, uh, that concern is addressed. Okay. On this one, is it the case, unless I'm getting mine mixed up, where they're building the main entrance to their building is that on the right actually goes into the park, is that the idea. Uh, so, uh, the pocket park plaza is towards Herald Street. And one moment. Maybe on this diagram. So the lobby of the building is on Chatham Street. Actually, right next to the main through block opening. You see the, you know, swings of the gates with the blue line. So immediately to the, um, east of it or to the right - hand side of it.

Are the doors providing access to the building. Okay. So when, when they say that they're building, um, they're building it 53. Two herald. Through the mayor, uh, right, 532 Herald would be, uh, would be bigger staff building. So, uh, one to the, to the South, Franting Herald Street here, um, you're seeing, uh, it's immediately next to the pocket park plaza. Its access is through the pocket park. It's accesses through still on that west elevation. You would walk through a surface parking lot with two rows of trees, uh, that is the location to be proposed to be, become the pocket park plaza. So yes, so the access would be through there, maybe more directly from Harold Street. And then, um, and then turn, turn right to get to the door. Uh, so you'll see in the, in the diagram there, there's a blue line. That is the location of the gate. Since the blue line at the bottom of the top. Right. The blue line would

be the location of the gate. That would again, at the bottom of the top of this, to the bottom, to the south. So on the Herald Street, there would be the gate. Again, with an operable, um, operable portion for after hours, access, uh, restricted to residence. So that's how the residents at bigger staff building could get to their units if they're approaching the site from Harold Street. Okay. Thanks. And I think the only other one I've got is just to be clear, the gates are on both sides of the street. Is that right? So it's for the park and it's also for the throughway. Through the mayor, correct. Uh, so, uh, fronting both Chatham and Harrell streets, uh, would be the gates that would open clear and unobstructed during public access hours. And they'd be closed offering only restricted access after hours to residents. Okay.

Thanks. Thanks, Mayor. Councillor Caradona. Sorry. Thanks very much, Mayor. All of my questions have been asked and answered. So I'm ready to move the staff recommendation. Let me just check and see if there were any other questions. Before we go to motion. Not seeing any other questions. You have questions or no questions. One second. Okay. Council Cardona. Go ahead. You'll move and I'll summon this second ding. Any comments, Council Herbert? Uh, yeah, I'll make a few comments now. It sounds like there will be some amendments, but I'll just motivate generally. I'm very happy to support this proposal. I think it's a very tasteful project that to my eyes really fits in with Old Town. And I know it can be somewhat subjective and challenging to come up with a modern building that fits in with buildings that are 100 years old or more. It's not easy to my mind. It really fits in very nicely and complements what's around it. It will in the future

deliver 133 units of market rental. As always, it's my hope that the proponent would consider our revitalization tax exemption to think about freezing property taxes and exchange for 10 percent of the units being below market. I love, love, love the pocket parks and the courtyard and the three blocks. They're a really cool addition to the public sector and the statutory rights away that are quasi public and quasi private are, I think, a really great addition to the city. I always think about the atrium as a good example of that, where it functions kind of as a public space and then SRW there, but at night it's not open to the public. But during the day it is. So I think it'll add to the public realm downtown. I think that, uh, the shared EV for that site is a very good idea. I like the two and three bedrooms. I lament to a certain extent that the percentage of three bedrooms is below. Our bylaw

and regulation state at eight percent but I do acknowledge that this project was in stream when those regs came about. So I'm willing to be a little bit flexible there. I think that the six stories is the right height there. Uh, the mixed use of course. We want to absolutely have mixed use downtown to ensure that we have street activation. So all of those things tick the boxes for me, um, and, and most importantly, it doesn't displace any tenants. And it also doesn't adversely affect heritage assets. And in fact, I think one can make the argument that it's complimenting those heritage assets by filling in some of those empty spaces, not only with housing, but also with some really nice public realm or quasi - public realm improvements. So there's nothing about this project I dislike. I think it's a fantastic treatment. And we'll add vibrancy and housing and activation to Old Town. Thank you Councillor Kim as a secondary. Thank you through the chair.

I'd like to move an amendment. In section three sub B sub two. Three. Sub B sub two. Okay. Yep. We got you. Yeah. Uh, it's your amendment. To strike out provided that they remain open to the public during the day. Okay. Let's just make sure that makes sense. And the way it was. I guess I've already. Used it. Okay. Yep. That makes grammatical sense. Doing a second down. It's essentially opening up the park for the day for everyone. Also, okay. Councillor Dell is seconding that. The great Councillor came on your amendment. Um, thanks. I continue to stand on my little hill where I think that space that we designate or try to designate is public should indeed be public during as many hours of the day as possible. But, um, beyond the principle of that, this project borders, um, capital, oh my gosh, I'm blanking on the Capital Arts District. And so we're planning activation of that entire area. It's going to be a tourist

hotspot. I don't know why we're trying to impede mobility through a space that we're anticipating a lot of activation through, particularly if, um, the language itself. Provided in this motion says, um. Facilitate mobility connections through the site. It is just counterintuitive to me to, to block it off. Um, outside of the principle of maintaining openness to the public. So I hope that that motivation helps, um, explain where I'm coming from. Thank you, Councillor Dell. As the Secondary to the amendment, any comments. Um, yeah, I'll just probably listen to everyone else. I guess the question was, is the intent to just, um, cause it's still, the still allows gates. Yes. And so the gates, I mean, it's intent to have it open all day long, like 24 hours. Are you asking me as the mover? Yeah.

You know, I'm a bit confused about the timing. Like, cause that the language, I understood what you said, but I don't know if it reflects in there. So my interpretation of that amendment is that the intention is that, well, there might be decorative gates, that they're not to be closed. Uh, okay. So that I'm just speaking listening to your commentary. I took from that to that the, what's been designated as a pocket park and public walkway would be open to the public period. May I just be further. Yeah. Um, and I don't want to preclude the possibility that you might need to close the space off sometimes for an event or let's say something does happen where the, uh, owner of the property feels like this is indeed necessary. I just would rather we start with a literal open door and then revisit moving forward if need be. Councillor Dell. You still have the floor.

Uh, okay. That makes sense. So the gates could stay because I might need to close but I tend to have it open for the most of the day. Um, okay. I'll, I'll just keep it open mind and listen to anyone else. Thanks. On the amendment. Any other comments? Councillor Thompson. More of a question to staff. Looking at the wording that struck out there and hearing having heard the explanation, uh, that I guess gates, yes. But let's try to keep them open. They can be closed if they need to be closed. Is that your understanding of the effect of that language? Staff, is that how you understand the impact of that amendment? Should it be adopted.

Through you, Mayor. Yes. That's how I would read it too. I think, um, the challenge would come and how we would word that through legal agreement. Because typically, would you do the say the pathway needs to be open at all times? Or we would specify hours when gates could be closed. But what would be the circumstances where it would be reasonable for the gates to be closed. So, I mean, that might be something that we have to go away and work on if that's the direction. But I just wanted to flag that. Perhaps as you're anticipating discussions on a number of other factories, that could be one of them before it returns for final consideration.

Yes. Councillor Thompson. Anything else? On the amendment, Councillor Cardona. Yeah. It's, it's interesting one. I mean, I think for me it's challenging because this is private property. And this isn't something that the proponent is offering to the city to have essentially a daytime quasi park on private property. My, my, my worry is that they will say, you know what. This, this is, this doesn't meet our intention. So we're just not going to do a public space at all. And it ends up backfiring. And I mean, that's maybe an unfair question asked the staff because it's sort of speculative. But I'm, I'm worried about sort of a backfiring effect here where they're just like, well, we're just not going to do an SRW then because our, our stipulation is that it becomes, it sort of returns to being private space for tenants after say 10 p.

m. or something. So can our staff in a position to comment on that. Stuff. Do you have any indication in your previous discussions with the applicant of whether or not they have a position on that. Mayor, um, like the, the gating, uh, of, you know, after hours gating, uh, restricting access to residents has been, you know, heard from the applicant from very early on as in operational, uh, consideration. So, um. So we have worked with the applicant being mindful of that. And, you know, the gate design, their location, them being open, opening clear, um, to not impede visual and physical access to the drill block walkway. And the pocket park plaza has been discussed for that reason. So that during, you know, daytime hours, uh, everything should read as an organic and a natural extension of the public realm of the streetscape into the property and through the property, uh, but we heard from, from the applicant that it's an operational, um, consideration on, on

their end, uh, to be able to restrict access after hours in ways that aligned with the, with the, uh, the letter from the member of the public that Councillor Hammond mentioned. So we work with the applicant that way so far. Yeah. I just, my reading of the erasure of that clause is that the gates would no longer have to remain open during the public. I mean, couldn't they read that in exactly the opposite way of what was intended is that they'll be like, Oh, okay. Now they don't have to remain open to the public during the day. So maybe they'll just be open sporadically like on Canada day or something like that. I mean, it seems like I'm trying to figure out what the problem is we're trying to solve. And I don't want to have an unintended consequence here. It sounds to me like the intention is we want this to be as public as possible as much of the time as possible. So

I'm going to put that to staff. If that is the intention of this conversation, how do we start in this negotiation from a position that we would, we would like to have the maximum amount of public access. And maybe the proponent comes back as well. Let's, let's be reasonable. And we'll have a compromise here. How would we convey as a starting point? We want to maximum public access. Before that negotiation begins. Is this the right amendment to do that. Mr. Achter. Or Mr. Handy. Through you, Ma'am, I'm not thinking that the, uh, the motion would need to be amended any further to have that conversation.

I think, um, we're hearing that. Sorry. Wood or would not. Would not. Okay. Um, I think the amended motion helps, but also the conversation here, the applicant here in the conversation and us being able to hear what we've heard today and have that conversation with the applicant. And then that would come out through the conversations and negotiations with the applicant and the terms that we would, uh, put into an SRW that we bring back for council's attention the next step. So, and when we report back to cancer, we'll be able to tell you what the results of those conversations were, what the applications, applicants desires where the push pull and where we landed. You could have an opportunity for the consideration. And that, in that case, I can support this amendment, but and I'm just one of nine votes, but I want to make my position clear here. One, I do not want this to backfire and the proponent, this proponent or other proponents say,

well, forget you guys, we're not going to offer SRWs anymore if you're going to be overly binding our hands. And second of all, my intention is to begin and negotiation. My assumptions that we begin to negotiation about a reasonable public access to this space, but it does not necessarily mean that it's open 24 7. That's not my intention here at least. I think it's a reasonable if they want to restrict access at certain times of the day or the year. I don't know exactly where that falls, but I'm okay with starting a position of saying in theory we would like to maximize public access. Thank you very much. On the amendment, Councillor actually know on the amendment, Councillor Gardner, go ahead. I do not support the amendment. I think the way it was written, although I didn't quite like the word provided. I'm not sure it's the right word. It gives flexibility the way it was originally worded. In other words, uh, it is very

clear that the remain open during the day, but of course the owner could keep it over any other times that they want. It doesn't prohibit them from keeping it open longer for the candidate day or whatever else that they want to do. But I think it's very important that they have the right to be able to lock the gates at night. And so I don't support the amendment. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Coleman. Thank you. I don't support the amendment either. Um, it was referenced early as this is a quasi public space. The CEPTED nomenclature is public property, semi - public, semi - private, private property. This plays in the middle of that. Um, I think as we try and keep it open for a longer time, we create our own set of issues. I think that what we've got on private property that's offered as semi - public, um, is a daytime capacity that I think is useful. If the owners wanted to change

that over time, that might be acceptable or if there were certain occasions when they wanted to do that. But I think that this is part of a give on their part. And I don't wish to put it at risk. So I don't support the amendment. Thank you, Councillor Thompson on the amendment. I think we have to bear in mind the distinction between what the final rule will be in the agreement. And the guidance that we're giving staff, uh, in their negotiations. And what we're, it's the latter that we're doing here. We are not wording anything here. And staff have already indicated, uh, that the understand, uh, what's emerging as a collective intention here, which is, um, not jeopardize, uh, SRWs. Try to keep it open as much as possible. Um, it can be closed when it needs to be closed. So, uh, given that, that staff understand that. I'm happy to support the motion. Thank you on the amendment. Anybody else, counsel hand. Thanks, Mayor.

Am I missing something or is the mover of this amendment interested in keeping this open under most circumstances 24 hours a day. I believe I heard the mover earlier say as much as possible and the goal would be all of the time. Is that correct? Um, yeah, but also I live in the real world. So if it needs to be close sometimes, it can be close sometimes. For a special events. Maybe. Thanks, Mayor. Unless I'm wrong, I believe the issue that we're talking about that no one has said anything about is that we're concerned about people sheltering in this place. And that hence why the reason that they are, um, at the moment suggesting that sundown or whatever the time would be that that's why it would be locked. So that we're avoiding that problem.

I'm not interested in putting those kind of barriers in front of them to say, I mean, we all know the realities in this city. And we are inundated with emails of things that go on during the day as well as things that go on during the night. And the city is as per law allowing overnight shelterings so that people don't die from the elements in public parks. But suddenly if we're saying that they have really got to get into a habit of deciding whether it's appropriate to keep it open or not, uh, it seems to me as though they're working with a good model. And by the way, I was very impressed that this was actually being part of this application. So I won't be supporting this because I want to deal with the realities of what our city goes through, not just fantasy. Thank you. Anybody else on the amendment. Just note that I am going to support the amendment. I think it provides

direction to staff. I also think that it's fair to consider that part of the attraction of this application is the consideration of a pocket, park, and plaza. And if that's going to be rewarded as something that is a positive for an application, I think it should be accessible to everyone. Obviously with the limitations, that would be at the purview of the owners. So that being said, everyone's had a chance to speak on the amendment only. And that is to strike out the bold language, which is struck through all those in favor. Call's your doll, Councillor Kim, Councillor Loton, sorry, Councillor Caradona myself and Councillor Thompson.

In opposition, Closer Coleman, Hammond and Gardner. So noting three in opposition, that phrase is removed. And I believe staff have understood the context of that conversation. E - Councillor Kim, you still have the flora, as you made that amendment. That was the second there. Um, let's go. That's it. That's it. Okay. Councillor Thompson and Councillor Gardner. On the main motion. On the main motion, thank you Mayor. Um, yeah, this is a project that has a lot going for it. 133 secured rental homes in a mixed use building with ground floor commercial space. Uh, the new pocket park slash plaza two walkways. Um, retention of two heritage buildings. Um, significant public realm improvements from, um, street upgrades to trees and wider sidewalks. Uh, the bike infrastructure improvements. Good TD transportation demand management measures. Um, no tenant displacement, which is quite interesting. It's unusual for a project of this scale. To have no tenant displacement. Um, because most of our zoning has historically forced new multifamily to

only exist where, uh, multifamily already exists. Uh, so it basically has, um, uh, maximized displacement. And it's why displacement has been so common in the past and why many people have been demo victed. This doesn't face that, uh, constraint because it's an unusual sight. So I think it's fair to support the variances given all of this. One final comment is that, uh, you know, it's a sick story building. We do need more housing than this. Uh, however, you know, it's old town, it's Chinatown, uh, it's wood frame, uh, is possible at six stories, which makes it a lot more, uh, doable. Uh, so I'm happy to see this project go ahead as it's currently described.

Thanks. Thank you very much. Councillor Gardner. Thank you. There was much that is positive with this proposal. The completion of Chatham and Harold Street fronts is needed. And this will be a very attractive, very positive contribution. The highlighting of the heritage buildings is very important. Uh, with the pocket park and right next door. And the passageway and the POCAPART and general are very much wanted. In the increasing offence height from 1. 22 metres to three metres is supportable. Indeed, necessary given the street disorder in our city. What is a missing is accommodation of people who currently live on Harold and Chatham. While tenants unheld are not to be evicted, they will lose some amenity ability to park. And this should be a win - win for everyone. So I have two amendments. May I seek your advice? Cause I don't know where they go because I just wrote them up. Okay. Okay. And I'll just tell you what the first is about and perhaps. And

that is ensure that the walls facing navy residential properties to the east and west are textured to have a finish that is more neighborly bracket, not deadly black. Oh, I don't know if you can put that in there. Where would it be appropriate for their to be a reference to those design features? Would that be the rezoning or would that be the development permit. Through the mayor, that would be, uh, under the development permit. Yes. Can you scroll down? That's what I thought. Do you scroll down to the development permit pieces. Thank you. Keep going, I think. Hold on there. Through the mayor, uh, under one B, we have this further design resolution item. So perhaps a new number five. Under one B5, a new number five under one B. Councillor Gardener, could you repeat your sentence please. Ensure that the wall's facing the neighbouring residential properties to the East and West architecture have a finish that is not black. I think the neighbours to

the east and to the west. During the presentation, they suggested three different finishes. West. Can you complete that sentence, please Council Gardner? Are not black. Are not black. Okay. Or not black. There you go. The wall is facing the new properties at the east list are not black. Okay. That's one amendment. It's your second tier for that. Councillor Gimbal second that. Go ahead Councillor Garder on your amendment. Thank you. I haven't been in that many jails and penitentiaries, but I bet you they wouldn't have a black fence, just a few feet away from where people live. A black wall, which is for someone who lives there permanently. So thank you. Councillor Kim, anything that you want to add to that. Minor, but you know, I didn't think about this, but it also just makes sure there's less heat absorption from the building. Yeah. All right.

Anyone else on the amendment. Out slur Lotton. Go ahead. Amendment. Thanks to you mare. I just, I just have a quick question. Is this going to be clear enough? Like it says not black, but we don't, we also don't want dark grey. Like something light. Like I might, am I splitting hairs here or? Yes, I think you're splitting hair. Okay. Then never mind. The applicants are listening as are there's our staff. So I'm confident that they've understood that. Okay. I'll leave it at that. I support this amendment. Mr. Dell on the amendment. I'm going to oppose this and go to bat for the black walls.

I mean, I think part of that area is a bit industrial and it's nice. And I mean, staring in a white wall or staring at a grey wall or a black wall is all the exact same. Some people like to stick. Like I like how dark it is. I look at that building on the corner of Yade Street and Blanchard above the new glitch. That's all painted flat black. And I'm sure some people said don't paint it. But it looks, it looks great. I like to design this building. I think the architects have done a good job. They're proposing what works best. And I really don't think the colour of the wall is going to make a difference to folks. So I think this is getting way too in the weeds, uh, council should not be getting at this level of, of development. Maybe we should have become architects or developers if you want to do this. So I think this is a bad precedent

to set. And is putting our own personal preference on a private development. So I'm going to oppose it. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the amendment. I will just note that in reference to the, um, particular location that the Councillor reference is that was certainly opposed in that day. And in fact, it appeared without anyone knowing until it was after the fact. So it's not suggesting that you do that as the applicant of your listening. Yeah. Okay. On the, um, on the amendment, oh, sorry, Councillor Coleman, go ahead on the middle. Not a problem. I think the intent is, um, we tend to look at these things in the light of day, in particular on a sunny day and say, Oh, the black's okay.

Um, I wasn't always a Rolling Stone fan, but painted black was never one of my favourite songs. Um, I think that this actually makes sense because what we do see on the grey overcast days in the winter, that black can become overbearing. So I think that this actually makes some sense. I'm not going to suggest a different colour palette for it. That would be inappropriate. But I think just lightening it up on behalf of the adjacent neighbours does make some sense. Thank you very much. Anybody else on the amendment? Yes. Go ahead Council Bernard. Me? Yes. Thank you. Yeah. The idea is to, and also introduce either some texture or some different colour. And I think, uh, the people who wrote to a suggested a green wall, I'm not suggesting that only because you might get rats and other problems coming into play. But it would, uh, I hope that the proponent is listening and realising that people are living there and permanently and looking

out a black wall just isn't humane. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Thompson on the amendment. Go ahead. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but I'm wondering if staff could easily pull up, uh, images of the walls that we're actually talking about. It takes a long time. Then I'll just conclude my comments without that. Presentation that we had earlier. I believe there was a representation of the walls.

Through the mayor, uh, here they are. Okay. And so there are properties that are directly facing those from close up, what I think six metres or something. Through the mayor, uh, so, uh, on the East elevation, yes, that's the one where, uh, the building separation in total, uh, is about six metres. On the west elevation, you see that grey hatched portion that in fact coincides with, um, the existing buildings sidewall, the elevation, uh, and the darker portion on the elevation that you see to the right hand side. That would coincide with the podium CORTYART. That ironworks building has. Okay. Um, thanks for that. Uh, yeah, I really don't know where I stand on this. Like I, I guess it would be nicer, some residents feel it would be nicer. I don't know if all residents feel that way. Um, I certainly don't want council getting into this kind of, uh, detailed work, um, in future.

I'll have to just listen to my colleagues the rest of their comments before I decide how I'll vote on this. Thank you very much. On the amendment. Anybody else. Not seeing anybody else on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment. Councillor Kim. Councillor Carona Council Loton, myself Councillor Coleman Councillor Hamon Councillor Gardner and Councillor Thompson. Council Gauthier, you still have the floor. I think you have a further amendment. Yes, I'm sorry. My apologies. And Councillor Dell in opposition. Noting one in opposition, that amendment is adopted. Council Grudner, I believe you have another amendment. Yes, thank you. We're concerned about 10 minutes having cats and tenants having other rights. And the people that wrote to us said they need their cars for their businesses.

And some of them have specific, uh, have cars there now that they are renting from the same owners. So I am suggesting an amendment just to ensure the existing tenants only are given the same access to parking facility as they currently have. Now return is at 532 and 536 Herald. The third tenants. I think that might, that's not a design. Well, sort of as a design parking. Is that something you would prefer the development permit or the rezoning. Through the mayor, uh, development permit. Okay. So I'm thinking this would be, um, probably a new one A7 as opposed because it's not a design feature, right?

So Councillor Gardner, can you repeat what you just said, please? Grandfather in accessibility to parking spots for current tenants of, were the numbers 532 and 536 Herald. Okay. I think it's not grandfathering. I think you're probably suggesting that you would provide parking spots in the new lot to existing tenants of those two buildings. Yes. Okay. So provide parking spots in the new parking lot to the existing tenants of repeat the numbers, 526. No. 532 and 536. I believe they're called 532 and 536, Harold. Okay. There may be only two of them. There may be 10. I don't know. It's an existing tenants. Are you intending all the existing tendons or just those who know the ones who have for existing tenants of three 532 537 who currently have parking? Yes. In the adjacent lot. Any adjacent law. Yeah. I think that's more clear. All right.

I think that's clear. I believe that's what you, I have understood you to intend. Is there a second or for that. Councillor Kim is seconding that. Councillor Gardner, go ahead on your amendment. Yeah. We've, as I said, when the letters we got from people, uh, that was very much the concern. And they said that they needed it for their employment. And they have been living there in some for several years in the letters that we received. And I just think that, uh, it's a different type of way of, uh, ending tendencies, uh, someone has to either end their employment or change it in order to stay in their residence. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Kim as the seconder and Mr. Johnson has a question. Councillor, can you want to pause just let Mr. Johnson speak?

Mr. Johnson, go ahead, please. Thank you, Mayor. It's just going to suggest that potentially this amendment would be more appropriate as a new, um, one C because it's not a, it's not a variance to the zoning bylaw requirements. Okay. So let's just, that makes perfect sense. So staff, if you could just cut that out and put it down as a new one C in that same section. Oh, yes. For many. We'll let you play with the formatting while I go to Councillor Kim. Any comments. Anything else on this, Councillor Thompson. Yeah, I guess it's a question for staff. Does this change the economics of the project? Like whether the suites that now have fewer spots would be rentable at the same rates. Mr. Octon. Uh, through the mayor, uh, this is best answered by the owner and operator of the existing rental buildings. And yeah.

Right. Councillor Thompson. That's not a question that appears to be answerable at this point. Okay. Councillor Coleman. Any other questions on this? Councillor Carejon? Not a question. Um, comment. Yep. A comment. I don't support this because we're getting deep into the weeds. Um, it doesn't necessarily change the economics, but I think we're, as I say, getting deep into, uh, components that should deal dealt with through the rental agreements of the landlord and the residents who are already there. Thank you, Councillor Caradona. Thanks Mayor. This is one where I have absolutely no clue if this is what the proponent would want to do or if this, the existing tenants would want this. It's just to me, this is too far in the weed. So I can't support this one is currently written. I think that the proponents are probably listening and they can maybe have a conversation with the current tenants about. Considering offering them parking spaces or something, but I don't think it needs to

be a condition of the DP. Thank you. Anybody else? Councillor Del? Yeah. This, this is complex in the weeds. I wouldn't even want to ask staff to start getting it to legal agreements about parking spaces. There's a lot of parking around here. There's a parking lot across the street. There's, there's this parquet is one or two blocks away. So the new project's going to have 72 spaces plus 11, I think. And so starting to get like legal agreements of who parks where should not be where we're at. And I think it's going to cause headaches for everyone. So I just going to oppose this, um, on that principle. Thank you. Anybody else on this amendment?

Councillor Kim. Uh, thanks through the chair. Um, surprisingly, I think I'm in favor of the amendment. Uh, because the words of our BC Transit presenters are bringing in my head about curb space, um, new tenants, uh, will self - select into, uh, this area. But the current ones, um, yeah, I think the mover made a good point about folks who are sort of selfie victim, um, because they need access to parking. It's not a life I personally know, but I can recognise that need and want to think about future proofing ourselves with respect to transit. Thanks. Thank you. Anybody else on the amendment. We also need amendment. All those in favor of the amendment. Of the amendment, please indicate all those in favor of the amendment. Councillor Kim Councillor Hemman to Councillor Gardner in opposition.

Councillor Dell, Councillor Caridona, Councillor Loton, my self - Councillor Coleman and Councillor Thompson. Noting the six in opposition that amendment is defeated. But Councillor Gardner, you still have the floor. Before I go to you, Councillor, uh, are there any other speakers to this after Councillor Gardner. No. Not to the main motion. All right. With that, then I'm going to go to Councillor Gardner despite the fact that it will bleed into our regular lunch hour so that we can see if we can finish this before we break. Well, I've already said, I think it's a great development. And I just wanted to make it a win - win for the current tenants and others. And so, uh, I think that it's really going to be very, just so positive for the area to have those, that sections of Harold and Chatham to be completed. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other final comments. I go all the positive things. This is a great thing. And I'm very excited to see it start with that. All those in favor. Is anyone opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you very much for that. Congratulations. And thank you folks. So we have completed G1 when we return after lunch at a few minutes after one. Let's give us to 105. We will start with G2.

City Council's May 28th meeting of Committee of the Whole Prior to our break we concluded the land use matter that was called G1 and now we are moving on to the land use better that is G2 just for your information and reminder this is the rezoning application for 90912 Vancouver Street 911 Quadrat Street and 930 and 990 Verdet Avenue. Before we begin Councillor Coleman would like to speak to the reasons why he will be recusing himself from this matter. Councillor Coleman. Thank you your worship. We recuse ourselves when we feel that we might be perceived as being in conflict of one form or another. I would like to spend a little more time in explaining my recusal because I'm aware that some comments from this table in the past have suggested that on this issue I'm not really in conflict. I have been a parishioner of Christchurch Cathedral for more than four decades. I attend regularly. I spent more than five years on parish council.

Those weren't the reasons that I recused myself when we dealt with the many years ago now with the Mount Edwards court decision. It was because my wife was working for a series of bishops in the Senate office on the precinct. My wife has now retired but she still gains a pension from the Anglican Church. If we want to protect the integrity of the system, then I feel I need to recuse myself from these discussions and have done so assiduously since the Notion first came up. Thank you Councillor and kudos to you for properly using assiduously. So I'm also aware that before we begin our work on item G2 that Councillor Gardner would like to propose an amendment or rather a suspension of the rules. And so let me describe for folks who are on accustomed to this how this works under our rules. So under our rules and procedures bylaw, under Section 10 sub two, Council May at any time vote to suspend specific rules

as it applies to Council. Under section 37 sub 2 sub C, this allows an application of the section that I just previously mentioned which applies to Council to also to apply to committee. Under Section 18, sub 9, sub D. It contains our current policies around the number of minutes a member may speak to a particular item. And that currently stands at 10 minutes. In order to change that, someone would need to make a motion to suspend Section 18 sub 9 sub D of our rules and procedures to allow up to a specified number of minutes for a Council member's questions and deliberations on item G2.

Would anyone like to do that? Councillor Gardner, would you like to make that motion? Yes, thank you. Very good. So just for the information of staff who are recording this, I'll repeat that. Council Gardner has moved to suspend Section 18 sub nine sub D of the rules and procedures applying to Committee of the Whole and Council to allow up to how many minutes? 15. 15 minutes for a Council Members questions and deliberations on item G2. Is there a seconder for that motion? Councillor Hamit is seconding. This is usually considered as any regular motion. It is only a simple majority, not a particular supermajority. And so there is commentary aloud on the motion. Council Gardner, or B. Thank you. Mayor, this proposal is quite contentious. And it's very important that the diocese, its parishioners, the neighbourhood and the city. It's important to all groups. And I have many questions and I'm sure others will too. And that is why I would like the time limit lifted

because we frequently run into problems only when we have a major proposed that like this. And it's especially contentious, I believe, because of the absence of some information, uh, which I believe should have been here. And it was not staff's fault. It isn't here. But it isn't. And so, um, I'm quite concerned about this proposal. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Hammond. Anything to add. No, nothing to add. Okay. Any other comments on the motion to suspend the rules specifically to suspend section 18 sub nine sub d for the purposes of discussing item G2. Councillor Dell. Um, yeah, I'll just oppose a motion. I think 10 minutes is a lot. We spend a lot of time this morning. Some folks around this table have talked a lot this morning. So my show that I thought hadn't had no time to speak whatsoever. Um, more importantly, 10 minutes, maybe not enough individually, but there's nine of us around this table or eight of us who

was going to be asking many similar questions. So, um, we have things to do. There's a lot of information. Some of the stuff could have been answered ahead of time. And I think we should keep it as is. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Motion to suspend, not seeing anybody else in the motion to suspend. Always in, oh, go ahead, Councillor Thompson. Sorry. I didn't see you there. Just sorry, Mayor. I was late getting my hand up. Um, yeah, I generally think 10 minutes is plenty long enough for us to be speaking if we're being courteous and careful with our, our comments and questions. Um, in this case, it is a, it is a very, uh, complex and important file. So I'm not going to oppose it. But I will say that I'll be watching my colleagues closely to see if we stick to the idea of being concise and courteous, uh, for future, uh, votes on this subject. Thank you very much. Anybody else

motion to suspend. I'm not seeing anyone else just noting of course the Councillor Coleman has recused himself. So their AWS hear all those in favor of the motion to suspend. Council CORGONA, myself, Councillor Thompson, Councillor Gardner, Councillor Hamed. In opposition. Councillor Do, Councillor Kim and Councillor Loton. I believe, if I'm correct, that would be five in favor and three in opposition. And therefore the motion to suspend in favor of replacing actually 10 minutes with 15 does pass. So all other rules remain in place, just to be clear. And so the only thing that has changed is that rather than 10 minutes as a clock, it will be 15 per person on this one item reminder that includes all of your questions and all of your commentary. So that does not change. That remains the same.

With that then, I will turn it over to our able staff who seem comfortable, uh, and when you begin to speak or whenever you start actually, it would be great for you to remind us who you are. So the public has that information. And whenever you're ready. Thank you. Uh, good morning. Apologies. Meroralto members of Council. My name is Miko Batanzo, senior planner urban design with development services. And I'm here with my colleagues, Crystal Steveno senior heritage planner. And Jim Handy are acting assistant director of development services. Uh, this is a rezoning. I don't know if we can get the presentation up. Um, that would be helpful. Um, so I can just sort of carry on talking here where we get that presentation up. But, um, this is a rezoning application only. So a development permit is not associated with the application, meaning that the key considerations for council are the proposed additional land uses.

The proposed increases to the maximum building heights and heritage conservation goals relative to the proposed density mass and location of those proposed buildings. Uh, specifically the rezoning is to increase the density from two to one FSR or floor space ratio to 2. 4 to one floor space ratio to increase the maximum building heights from 22. 5 metres to 54 metres or from seven stories to 18 stories. And to add commercial and residential uses. This is obviously the site of the Chrysler's Cathedral and the Christ Church Cathedral School and it occupies a city bloc with significant heritage value. Uh, here are some photos of the subject property showing the cathedral from quadrant street just on the left. The dinery building on Burdet along with the temporary school and portable buildings at the top right hand image.

And Yarrow Chapel and the Diocese offices on Vancouver Street in the bottom left or bottom right image. Sorry. Um, moving over to Rockland Avenue. You can see Memorial Hall here at the corner of Vancouver and Rockland. And then the, uh, that North facade of the Cathedral building on Rockland as well. And then this slide just provides an aerial overview of the site to look at sort of the assembly of gildings and open spaces that make up the block as a whole. And this might be a good image to return to should we want to discuss specific aspects of the site. Moving to the site context in the neighbouring properties. This slide is a photo montage of the buildings to the south on Burdette Avenue. Uh, and then moving to the north alongue, we have pioneer square in the bottom right - hand side. Pioneer Square Park rather than a four - story residential apartment and the three - story Mount Edwards court support of housing

building in the top two images there. And then looking across the street on Quadra, uh, west, uh, we see the courthouse playground and the former YMCA building. And then looking at Vancouver Street, we have two and three - story apartment buildings lining, uh, Vancouver Street directly adjacent to the property. To provide a more in - depth account of the heritage aspects of the site, this slide shows the four heritage buildings that our senior Heritage Planet will brief us on. And an excerpt from the OCP, which speaks to the vision for the city to value and celebrate these heritage assets while balancing development in the city.

And I'll just turn it over to Crystal. Thank you. And through the mayor of Crystal Steven, I will senior hater to planner for development services. The Heritage designation by - law applies to the area shown in grey, which means the buildings and the space around the properties are protected. Christ Church Cathedral Precinct is made up of four heritage buildings, three of which are formally protected as shown in the previous slide and one which is on the Heritage Register. Memorial Hall was built from 1923 to 24, construction of Christ Church Cathedral began, and both were designed by architect John Keith. In 1938, the Yarrow Chapel and the Deanry were built, and both were designed by the architect Percy James. The standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in Canada have a section on cultural landscapes where heritage districts are defined as a place comprising a group of buildings, structures, and landscapes, and their spatial relationships where built forms are often the major defining features

and where the collective identity has heritage value for a community, province, territory, or the nation. This unique site and collection of faith - based buildings make up what is often referred to as the Christchurch Cathedral precinct, and they are significant as individual structures and valued as a grouping as they share a full - city bloc and with their character - defining mature landscapes. The spaces between the buildings make an inspiring and meditative setting. All which are significant in terms of the relationship to one another, creating a collective identity which has Heritage Value for a community. I'll now provide a summarized description of the character - defining elements for each heritage building as listed in their respective statements of significance. The Christchurch Cathedrals character defining elements are its location and citing a top - a - hill with prominence in the street scape, including the view corridor of the building from Courtney Street. Its relationship with memorial hall, yarrow chapel, and the deanery. Its community use

and cultural associations, including its rituals and traditions, including the bell ringing. Its form, scale, and massing, including its two towers on the west end, and its outdoor pulpit to the south. Its characteristics of the gothic revival style and stone materiality, and its mature landscaping and surrounding grounds to the south. Memorial's, sorry, memorial halls character defining elements are its location to the east of Christchurch Cathedral. It's varied uses over the years with a constant connection to religious education. Its form scale and massing, its characteristics of the Gothic revival style. Its materials, including its rust stone construction, and its landscaping including mature trees out front. Eurochapel's characteristics are defined by its relationship with the Christchurch Cathedral and its ongoing use for church purposes. Its small form scale and massing, its characteristics of the French romanesque style, including the rounded apps, its arched windows and doors. Also, it's materiality, including wood detailing and stucco finish. It's crossed on the east end apps, and it's mature plantings. The denery

is valued for its continued use for church functions and relationship to Christchurch Cathedral. Its form scale and massing. Its characteristics of the English arts and cross movement, its form and pattern of fenestration, its use of materials, um, natural materials, and its mature landscaping. I'll just turn it back to Mr. Patenzo. Thank you, Crystal. And so, uh, now we've kind of been through the site background, and I just wanted to speak to some of the analyses carried out that informed the recommended motion. And so this slide shows the key policies used to assess the application, but I wanted to draw council's attention to the downtown core area plan. And so previously, the Christurish cathedral land, we're in the Fairfield neighbourhood, which means that proposals here would have been assessed against a different set of policies. But when the downtown core area plan was updated in 2021 - 2022, the downtown boundaries expanded to include this site along with portions of North Park, Rock Bay, and James

Bay. And so now the application is assessed against the downtown core area plan as opposed to the general urban design guidelines. And when we go to our official community plan, the proposed new land uses in the OCP, sorry, the proposed new land uses, when we consider the proposed new land uses, the OCP supports a wide variety of land uses at this location. And those include residential and commercial, which are the proposed additional land uses being sought, meaning this applicant, this aspect of the proposal is supportable. Notably, the only land uses currently supported on the site are for not - for - profit community recreational facilities, theatre use, or public buildings. To assess the proposed density and building heights, we look at the BULF form guidance in the OCP. Here, the key policy directions are to contribute to and not detract from the Envisioned Urban Forum, and to promote traditional building heights and building typologies between different areas of the city. The goals with these policies

are to work within the Planning framework that ultimately optimizes the developability of the city while maintaining livability and while maintaining livability and a predictable investment ecosystem. Part of the BULF form guidance in the OCP relies on the urban structure concept, which broadly outlines the City Vision for Building Heights, land uses, massing, and density. Within the urban structure concept, this site sits at the edge of the downtown core between it and the residential areas of the city. And you can see it highlighted there with the big red arrow. Uh, in the downtown core, the tallest buildings in the city, which are generally up to 24 stories, are envisioned to be concentrated along dallas, or sorry, how long Douglas blanchered and Yate streets, transitioning to lower building forms at the edges. And the residential fabric of the city envisions a range of low - rise and ground - oriented residential infill buildings for buildings up to 6 stories. Other key objectives applications are assessed against, include how

well they preserve and highlight Heritage Assets, and how those distinctive features of the city are promoted or affected by a proposal. Additional guidance is provided to discourage land speculation, which can occur when proposals significantly depart from the urban structure concept. Looking at the downtown core area plan now, uh, it provides further guidance on proposed building heights and densities. And we can look at the urban amphitheater concept, uh, which you can see here, uh, and note that the site, this site is actually outside of the urban amphitheater concept. Uh, meaning that tall buildings are not part of the City vision for this site. Notably, the urban amphitheater concept has served the city well by focusing tall building growth along the Blanchard and Douglas Street corridors and extending eastward toward the 8. By utilising this concept, tall buildings are clustered in areas where they have the least impact to the surrounding areas. Although the site is outside of the urban amphitheater concept, or urban amphitheater, it's noted

as a special height area in the downtown core area plan, maximum building height map, which is what you see here. And this is typically interpreted to anticipate a potential for taller building forms at this site to help preserve the heritage assets. Looking at adjacent areas of the city on this map, helps to inform what that might mean. So across the street on Quadra Street, uh, the maximum building heights range from 10 to 12 stories and buildings up to six stories are envisioned to the northeast and south, so everywhere else around the site. Now turning to the proposal, this image provides a rendering of what some potential buildings could look like at the proposed building heights.

Again, I'll emphasize these are just illustrated representations of potential buildings, noting that a building proposal with a development permit is not actually before council today. To provide a scent of the proposed massing, the next few slides illustrate the building envelopes, which provide a better indication of what council is considering instead of a specific building design. PENTE! This first slide represents the existing building site. And this is the proposal. And as you can see, five new building locations are proposed. Immediately behind the cathedral is a 12 - story building, then along Birdette Avenue, we have a four - story amenity building proposed within the Heritage Landscape of the site, which is currently a parking lot. Then an 8 Store building envelope is proposed to the south of the proposed 12 - Story building. And then a mid - block location, um, and then at the mid - block location, the majority of density is proposed to be within an 18 - story building. And flanking that

to the east is another 8 - Story building. The proposal is for all the buildings to be market strata residential, and then commercially uses within the 4 - story amenity building and within select ground floor locations. This slide shows the actual proposed heights. And so what's intended to be demonstrated here is that typically the City Vision would seek to promote buildings to be no taller than the height of the Cathedral Towers, which are roughly 38 metres. The 12 - story building behind the tower is proposed to be at 39 metres, which would limit its visibility behind the church. And although the proposed 18 story building is at 54 metres, it is proposed at a location that is the least impactful to the Heritage Assets on the site and the surrounding neighbourhood context. And I just wanted to provide this slide to illustrate sort of the flexibility within the OCP and in terms of how it's being used. And so it shows sort of three versions

of a potential proposal. The image in the top left shows a stringent interpretation of city policies. It includes the retention of the DNARY building, um, on the site highlighted in yellow, and building heights up to six to seven stories. The bottom image represents an early iteration of the proposal that saw the majority of density placed directly behind the cathedral within a 25 - story building. And with another 18 - story building proposed at the edge of the site, on the corner of Vancouver and Bradette Street. And then in the right - hand shows the current proposals distribution of density, which preserves key views to the cathedral from Courtney Street, while also transitioning building heights to the surrounding residential areas of the city to the east.

The Heritage Landmark policies also apply to this site, and so the Cathedral is one of 13 heritage landmark buildings in the city. These buildings are noted for their prominence as visual landmarks within local streetscapes, their ability to be commonly recognised and memorable, and for their overall contribution to the public realm. The related policies aim to ensure that the height, setbacks, sighting, and overall massing of proposed new buildings does not detract from or obscure the visual prominence and character - defining importance of these landmark buildings. Christ - church cathedrals also one of seven heritage landmark buildings, that is within a protected view terminus, meaning that the view of the cathedral defined the end of Courtney Street and does so to be prominent within the urban fabric of the city. And so this slide sort of illustrates that terminated Vista condition. And you can see the outline of the proposed building locations, which have been located where they maintain the prominence of the cathedral within this view.

Oh, I think that's the slide. There we go. So this is sort of that view terminus of Courtney Street. And then there's a light white outline in the right - hand image that shows the outline of the proposed buildings. Um, I'll also mention that this junction that there is an alternative motion in the report to Council. That alternative motion caps the building height across the site at 12 stories. What this achieves is an improved relationship with the Heritage buildings on site. And with the surrounding context, without affecting the proposed density. This slide incense makes that point. And applicant could still apply for a height variance when a development permit comes in and should Council wish the alternative motion would permit the review of a proposed height variance in relation to an actual building design as opposed to outright granting the height allowance requested within the proposed building. I'll just sort of walk through the next few slides in terms of, um, that view analysis for

how the application sits within, um, that framework of the Heritage Landmark radius. And so, um, this slide obviously looks at that view terminus on, um, Courtney Street. And you can see from further back, it's the 18 story would actually be visible in this view. But I think this does a bit of a disservice to how that may be interpreted because I think the human eye can actually assess depth a little bit more than what's shown here. But what is maintained is that the prominence of the cathedral in this view. Um, this is sort of at that corner of Vancouver and Rockland. And we're looking at Memorial Hall. And again, we can see, um, some of the relative impacts of the proposed building heights here. And then sort of looking further afield, there's a small key at the bottom there where we're kind of looking at the site from, um, uh, sort of the intersections of, you know, Vancouver and Burdette, but a little bit further

down the hill. And then again, at the corner of, um, pioneer square park. So I'll just turn it back over to, uh, Ms. Steveno. Through the mirror. Uh, through this rezoning application, there are proposed alterations such as a partial demolition and additions to the heritage site. These need to be determined at this stage of rezoning to allow for the added density to the site. Although there is no alteration heritage alteration permit at this time, um, the alterations proposed are supportable. The application proposes to add a four story building to the Heritage designated open space currently a parking lot just south of the Cathedral. And to create more space on the site for new infill development, they proposed to relocate the Heritage Registered Denery to an off - site location. At Memorial Hall, they are requesting to partially demolish and reconfigure the West End side of the Cathedral School to make room for a 12 - story tower. They also proposed to remove non - heritage additions such as the Cathedral schools portable and later

additions to the Eurochapel. Ideally, the Deanry would be adoptively reused on - site, either Institute or Relocated elsewhere on the precinct site. However, relocation offsite is supported in the rezoning and development policy. The other proposed additions, especially the residential towers, are challenging in this historic context and from a heritage conservation perspective. The City of Victoria's Heritage Conservation Policy, the standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in Canada, state that a new use should be compatible with the historic property and have little to no impact on the heritage value of the place. There is no question that this proposal will be impactful. It will provide housing, which will benefit the city, which will then provide the means to conserve and upgrade the heritage assets to extend their physical life for future generations. Other policy states that new development should be balanced with heritage conservation, and this proposal would not be supportable without the commitment to Heritage Conservation and the various upgrades to their associated

phases of development. The site and the four buildings contained within it our heritage assets for the Anglican Diocese and the City. These buildings and their interstitial spaces between create a setting valued by the community who experienced them. Over time, they have given this area of the city or neighbourhood a sense of place. People who visit the cathedral or pass by daily or weekly have come to know this place and it is one of the many micro experiences that define their identity of the city. Individually and as a collection, they are significant historically, spiritually, and culturally and important to the community for diverse reasons. By adding this much density to this specific site, we could lose this micro experience, which would be a loss for those that use in a frequent this place and could in fact diminish the identity of this part of the city and the heritage assets that we are trying to conserve and protect. And so I'll just looking at the proposal

in a bit more detail, just a few more slides. Um, this is the proposed site plan. And so because this application is not associated with the DP, Council should be aware that the site plan is more illustrative than a definitive proposal. But what it does is define is the location of the building footprint relative setbacks and building separation distances, uh, and these aspects would be further defined within a set of specific design guidelines that recommended motion makes mention of. Additionally, the mid - block crossing between Burdet and Rockland would be secured as part of this rezoning, as shown in this plan going north - south.

And as is becoming more typical, a three metre setback from the property line would also be secured to help retain street trees even when underground parking may be proposed in the future. These aspects of the design would all be secured within a master development agreement. A similarly, frontage improvements that are in addition to the standard works and services by - law would be secured in the MDA. And this slide illustrates broadly, uh, what those frontage improvements would be. They include new pedestrian crossings with flashings, flashing beacons, uh, sidewalk ball boats improvements to rockland avenue to help create a plaza - like area, green stormwater infrastructure, and a small plaza added to the verdet attitude per debt avenue, uh, at, at the Vancouver intersection, along with some roading changes to help address the anticipated increased traffic volumes associated with this proposal. Running through the elevations, the image on the top is looking west with bridette on the left and Rockland on the right. And then the

below image is looking east with Rockland on the right and burdet on the left. It is evident that the proposed building forms are novel for the area. However, the site size and adjacent parks helped to mediate that density. Uh, looking at the north and south elevations, again, we can see how the proposed building envelopes relate to the cathedral and the surrounding area. And then looking over at some, uh, wider context elevations, we can get a sense of how the proposal relates to the wider urban fabric of the city. Uh, the next couple of slides just provide some illustrative renderings of the proposal. Again, these are not actual building proposals, but they do provide a sense of how the proposed building heights and massing may be experienced on the site. That's these two here. And then finally, uh, this slide shows the proposed phasing, which would be secured with the MDA. There are really only sort of two main phases, and that would be the Q4

and Q2 identified here, or development area two and four. These development areas are associated with the majority of density on site. And therefore, development in these areas, uh, the triggers for heritage upgrades in front of improvements. There is not a required sequence of development, and instead, any development area could be commenced with, but as mentioned, the development areas with the majority of density trigger those amenity contributions. And to conclude, Chrysler's Cathedral and its landscape are significant heritage and community assets in Victoria. Given that the application is for a rezoning only, establishing the density proposed building heights and distribution of density along with the proposed new uses are the primary considerations for council. As noted, expanding the permitted land uses is consistent with the OCP. However, the proposed density results in both positive and negative impacts to the heritage value of the site and the surrounding context. To offset this, the applicant has committed to Heritage's restoration, uh, accessibility improvements in seismic upgrading of the three

remaining heritage designated buildings. Additionally, frontage improvements and a mid - block crossing will improve the public realm in and around the site. With these considerations in mind, it's recommended that Council consider supporting the application. Into questions. Thank you very much, all of you for your able contributions. Before we consider the actual recommendation of staff, which I will flag, I'm going to move at some point. We'll start with questions. Questions Council Secured on a start. Thank you very much. And through you to staff, this has been a very fascinating one to read and consider. And I appreciate all the work that's gone into it. I wanted to start out by talking about why it is that there's not in a company development permit. It's somewhat unusual that we consider rezoning without a DP. It does happen on occasion. But the challenge here is that we're not able to have a direct conversation really about land tenure.

Which complicates things. So my question is, why is this being pursued in isolation of a DP. Mr. Patanzo? Sure. Through the mayor, thanks for that question. So maybe I'll just outline a few things. So an applicant is free to, uh, submit just to rezoning application or a rezoning with a concurrent development permit. Um, that's at their discretion. And the multitude of reasons why they may or may not do that. Uh, often it has to do with the upfront investment and actually creating a development permit application. Um, in distance, I think that would be the case where, um, the applicant, the diocese itself is sort of, um, taking an approach, uh, sort of a slow approach to this proposal where they're trying to secure many respects kind of baby steps towards an overall vision, not having to partnerships with them at present to actually put forward a building proposal. The other aspect of your questions about securing the tenure, that is a consideration at this point

in time as well, where Council can make a motion to that effect. And typically that's something that's recommended with a rezoning. Um, and so if that's something Council should wish to explore, this is the time to have that discussion as well. Thanks. Uh, I note that the seismic upgrades come up quite a bit in the staff recommendation. And as part of the legal agreement consideration, this one is complicated and unusual because ordinarily, if we have a rezoning that doesn't involve a DP, we don't usually have a conversation about land tenure or what the relationships are between the rezoning and the future land use. It's just more conceptual and abstract. I'm thinking of the one that we did for Laurel point in, for instance, which was just a rezoning without a DP. But in this one, the diocese has made it pretty clear that the intention here is to pursue seismic upgrades. Do we have a sense of what the rough cost is of the seismic

upgrades required to the Cathedral and the other heritage assets. That being said, Ms. Steveno. Through the Maron, thank you for the question. Um, I have reviewed a report by RJC, the consultant that they had retained. Um, and they provided a probable cost, um, based on a 2023 seismic upgrade schematic design report. And it was roughly around, um. I think around 15 million to seismically upgrade all three buildings. Okay. And sorry. I just wanted to also make the distinction that the extent of seismic upgrading that's likely being proposed would be potentially not everything that would be included in that report, but rather, uh, commeasured amount of seismic upgrading to the density being proposed on site, which is still to be established. Okay. And that's important one.

It's, it's my presumption. I'm just going to state it as a statement and a staff. I want to respond to it. Grade. And if you don't feel like it's appropriate, then don't have to. But my presumption is that they would pursue stratified buildings because stratified buildings have the potential to have a relatively large upfront cash out, pay out. They could be then moved into the seismic upgrades. They need to generate 15 million dollars from somewhere. Based on everything I've learned in the last four years, market rental, let alone non - market rental don't generate that kind of revenue. If those are long - term play, well, non - market doesn't generate any revenue whatsoever. But market rental takes years and years to generate wealth. Is it fair for us to assume that the land tenure is likely to be condos or stratified at this site?

Mr. Tanzo? Uh, so through the mayor, the proposal is for condos at the moment. Um, obviously we've had the discussions with the applicant about securing affordable housing and all of the other ambitions that are outlined in the OCP. But at this point in time, without a development partner, the applicant was uncomfortable with, um, going ahead and trying to secure those aspects of the proposal. So what's before council today is, uh, the 10 years being considered and what's being proposed is, uh, market residential condominiums. Okay. That didn't quite jump out at me. So thanks, clarification. I'm going to ask you just to speculate here a little bit, but can you fathom a scenario in which the applicant changes their minds and pursues market rental. Or a mixture of market rental and non - market rental in a way that would generate 15 million dollars of profit to do seismic upgrades. Chutezo through the mayor, I'll hazard a response here. And really, I think it's the ambition

of the applicant to go down that route. Um, I think it's worth noting that the church in and of itself has been a community asset with community ambitions and goals throughout its life. Um, uh, they've identified within their, their notes to council and as part of the application that is part of their ambition. Uh, whether or not the economics make sense at some point in time. I really can't comment too. Thanks. That's fair. I'll shift gears and talk about something else. So, um, will there be a land left analysis on this site. So through the mayor at present, that is not considered. And I'm trying to remember if it's required. I thought, I seemed to recall that our regulations require landlift analysis, but that we waived that for market rental, but not for strata. I swear that that's a rule we have. No, so through the merit, it's sort of at the discretion of staff on the application. In many respects, um, carrying out a

landlift analysis, uh, sometimes provides the benefit of giving some indication of what kind of amenities could be provided. It's somewhat inappropriate to do that at just a rezoning because we don't know when an actual application may come forward. Uh, so it's a bit of a hard one to fathom without an actual application coming in at the same time. That's fair. But the, the problem I'm having is that the baseline assumption here is that these are Shotified buildings. Even though this is not a DP. So we're in a little bit of a grey area where like the baseline assumption is these are going to be condos someday, which for me is fine. Cause I want them to be able to do the seismic upgrades. But. I'm still unclear about whether or not in our decision making, we should be presuming that this is a stratified development.

Because if it is, I'd like to have a conversation about amenity contributions. But that is maybe not an appropriate discussion now. Maybe that's a discussion for a DP stage. And yet we're making an assumption right now that these are stratified buildings. So do you understand the bind we're in here a little bit. Mr. Townsend? Yeah. Thanks. And through the mayor. So what I will say is that it's not a presumption in terms of council's consideration what the tenure is of the buildings. What's being proposed before council today is, um, stratified condominiums. Um, if it were anything other than that, that would be form part of the motion where they would be a commitment to secure aspects of affordability. The applicant has been reluctant to do that because they are not coming forward with an actual application as well. And so it's, and so they may have those ambitions, but unless it's something being secured, the presentation to Council considers that not part of this proposal.

Um, and then in terms of the other part of your question to, to seek an amenity contribution of a particular value, the key amenity contribution being secured here are the heritage upgrades. And so it is, you know, uh, the obligation of staff to go and consider the extent of what those heritage upgrades would be as part of the conversation when we get into the master development agreement. We have an outline of a menu of heritage improvements in seismic upgrading. That would form, uh, commeasure at level of, of, uh, amenity contribution considering the density being proposed. Okay. So just to clarify, if a Venice said correctly that assuming this does end up as the stratified building, which are buildings, which is the baseline assumption now staff would consider the seismic upgrades themselves to be an amenity contribution. Does that not run afoul of the new ACC legislation though where we have a bit less discretion about where we apply amenity contributions. So to the mayor, I'm

looking at my director or acting director, shaking his head. And I don't believe that's the case. Mr. Johnston. Uh, thank you. Uh, through the mayor, this being an in - stream application would actually also be exempt from our amenity cost charges bylaw. And so that legislation wouldn't apply to this particular proposal. That's great. If it were not exempted, I would presume it would be a challenge though, because my reading of the ACCs is that the monies can either go towards parks or community centres. This is neither park nor community centre. Mr. Patazon. I'm just going off the cuff a little bit here, but I think there's some discretion there that if there's a voluntary amenity contribution as part of an application that there can be some, um, wiggle room within that interpretation. If it's voluntary.

Voluntary in terms of significant heritage upgrades, yes. Through the mayor, would it be appropriate. Today potentially to amend this direction or would this, that would be something that would happen at the DP stage to clarify council's position that the seismic upgrades would be a valid usage of potential future amenity contributions coming from a stratified development. Mr. Patanza? Sorry. Can you repeat the question. Let's just assume for a minute that it is the council's will to demon acceptable. On the assumption that this becomes a stratified development. To use what would be the ACCs or the CACs coming from that towards the seismic upgrades. Would that be appropriate to do as part of this rezoning and legal agreement work that we're working on today? Or would that be something that would not be considered until a DP stage? Yeah. So through the mirror, that is your what is being considered today. Okay. I'll keep that in mind later on when this is on the floor. I want

to move forward though and talk about. What happened with advisory design panel and the Heritage Advisory panel. I gather that ADP was supportive, although I'm a little bit unclear about which version they looked at. If you could clarify. Any comments you have on HAP and the comments about them waiting to see the revised design guidelines. I'm a little bit unclear why we didn't just wait for that to happen before things came to counsel because we're now in a position to wonder what the Heritage Advisory Panel might have thought about this proposal. So can you clarify? Sure. Thank you. Through the mayor. So in terms of the advisory design panel, the version that the advisor design panel saw is the same version that's before council today.

Uh, it's with the 12, 18, 28 and one 4 story building. Uh, the advisory design panels recommendations are outlined in the report. Um, they had recommended, um, some additional height to the 18 story building to move away from, you know, what you can see when you look at that view corridor down Courtney Street is kind of a consistent building line, which from their perspective obscured the prominence of the cathedral and then reducing the eight story buildings to sick story buildings to fit with that aprohord context a bit more. In terms of, um, and I'll just speak briefly to the Heritage Advisory panel. So I think that the and Ms. Steven O can fill on the blanks here, but I believe that one of the comments was that the, um, the design of the buildings was significant consideration for the Heritage Advisory panel. And so because there is not a concurrent development permit with this, we don't know what the design of the buildings would be.

And so what we're trying to secure is a high level of design. And so there are some design guidelines that are required for us to do that. But those design guidelines have not been completed and they're actually in the motion before council for the applicant to complete those design guidelines prior to coming forward with, uh, for second reading of the bylaw. And a lot of the reason for that was, um, just a significant sort of pressure to get this before the Committee of the Whole to get a temperature check on the application. Okay. Thank you for that. I mean, trying to frame this in a way that doesn't put you in an awkward position, but is this. How do I, wouldn't it be better if development permits and Rezonies come together at the same time so that we don't have to be left with these.

I know that's, that's just a comment, but I'm just going to put it out there if you want to respond to it because it creates awkwardness for us. Uh, easy, easy question. Thank you through the mayor. Uh, yes, absolutely. It's something that the city is encouraged for long period of time, but it's not something that's always, um, reasonable to expect with the variety of applications that come forward. Okay. One last question for me. Are we worried about future blasting affecting the foundation of the cathedral? We saw that not that long ago in new west where the new rec centre messed up the foundation of the existing Brext Centre next door. And obviously the other examples.

Are we worried about that. Steven O. Through the mayor. I mean, I can comment that yes, it is a concern. Um, but I guess it would be the, it would be up to the construction manager to, um, protect those buildings. Um, I don't know what more I could say. I mean, through the mayor as well. I mean, the development of the site is also the developer is also the diestes. And so it's in their interest to, you know, maintain their buildings. Um, but with every form of construction, you have blasting is a consideration, but those are the liabilities that, uh, contractor takes on when they care about this work. Okay. Uh, it sounds like, go ahead. Mr. Johnson. Thank you through the mayor. I just wanted to add on to an earlier question about, um, rezonings and, uh, rezoning and concurrent development permits. And just to note that it is something we often see is standalone rezoning applications on larger master plan sites that where

development is intended to come in phases. Whereas development of a standalone site, um, without phasing, uh, then we would more typically see a rezoning concurrent development permit. So the number of other large sites in the city that have recently gone through standalone rezonings and we're anticipating those DPs will follow in the future. Thanks. Thanks, Mayor. Councillor Gardner. Yep. You're next. You don't have to. I thought you had. Something. Well, I understand that the property is within decap, the downtown core area plan. In what neighbourhood is the cathedral property located. Through the mayor. So it is in downtown. And that was part of the downtown core area plan amendment of 2021, 2022 with a downtown neighbourhood boundaries expanded to include this site along with some other portions of neighbouring neighbourhoods. So at present, it is considered within the downtown. PON. Huh. Okay. The COM, the COLIC discussion was in Fairfield, not downtown. Is that correct? Through the mayor, that is correct. Mr. Johnston. Thank you, Mayor. Uh,

I just wanted to clarify because it, it does get a little complicated when we have overlapping plan boundaries and at neighbourhood boundaries. And there have been some changes in the past few years, uh, related to neighbourhood boundaries and not just planned boundaries. Um, but just to clarify, uh, this site is actually in the Fairfield neighbourhood. Although it is also covered within the downtown core area plan. Thank you. That's what I started out saying. And therefore, just the opposite. Okay. Phew. So, um, in 2023 Fairfield was still the neighbourhood. Thank you. Now were there any boundary changes around this property in OCP 2050. The new Officer Community Plan. Striptowns O. Do you know that? Off the top of your head. So I think through the mayor, the fact that it was in Fairfield was somewhat of a surprise given, uh, that the downtown courier plan design guidelines applied. But there are per our acting director's comments, some grey areas with these parcels that border two different

boundaries. I don't believe the boundaries changed into twenty five update to the OCP. Is that your understanding, too? Thank you through the mayor. The neighbourhood boundary did not change. The plan boundary changed and the policies and design guidelines that applied changed along with that. Thank you. No, I'm quite familiar with DCAP overlapping another neighbourhood since a lot of Jamie Spa is handicapped. So I get that. Okay. So in 2023, what proportion the community meeting notices went out to Fairfield Residence and how many to downtown residents. Mr. Council. So to the mayor, I can't comment on the exact proportion, but those notices are mailed within a hundred metre radius. And so that 100 metre metre radius would sort of presumably split the proportion of notifications between both neighbourhoods. Okay. I was hoping someone might have the answer because I know I gave some notice that I'd be asking that one. Okay. Um, for an unknown reason for me, I just don't get it. But anyway, the

Fairfield Calloc made the decision in January to forego a community meeting on this development, January of this year, I believe. Um, this decision would also have affected residence from outside Fairfield. So, and we have seen in some of the, we have over, well, it's close to 200 responses on this one. Some people saying, please let us know when it's coming back. For consideration. So was there any city communication with these residents from beyond Fairfield who participated in the first meeting, but were not considered for this, for what we see before us today. So through the mayor, the initial caliq meeting occurred in 2023. And then when an additional Calloc meeting is triggered when significant changes are proposed. And so those that second caliq meeting was triggered in January of this year. And the PUR, our lane use procedures bylaw, um, the CALC has the right to waive that meeting, which they exercised when they were reached out to. But I can't comment on whom within

the CALAC, um, participated in that decision. Okay. Um, in 2023, I attended an open house event at the catheter. If you get a glimpse of the proposed development, they had a few open houses. This was not the CALIC meeting. The project before today is not what I saw that day. It is significantly difference in although the word changes is used. It was very significantly different. And the over 100 comments in today's information package that we have are from really from 2023, which means they're all updated. And has there been any public notice or any public meeting to review the proposal before us aside from, we read and saw, um, through the media, the Times colonists and TV stations has a public, aside from that, been actually introduced to this project as it stands today. Mr.

Townzone or Mr. Johnson? So through the mayor, I can comment that the development tracker is updated throughout the application process. And that's an avenue for, uh, community to view the application. And then the CALAC would have received notice that the application has changed in the iterations that have come into the city, uh, but beyond that, an official notification process has not been triggered. Thank you. And I understand of, okay, soy. Go ahead. Thank you. Through the mayor just to add one thing. Uh, there's also signage that's put up on site and was updated to inform the public of this step in the process and also to direct them to the development tracker to find out more information. PENT Yes, I truly understand that, but I understand people don't look at the organ tracker unless you have a reason to look. Uh, and I think that the Times Columnist article, thank goodness they did it was a real shocker for a lot of people. Anyway, Onward

Hole. When I visited the open house in 2023, remember this was an open house that wasn't the Caleb. It was apparent to me that the congregation at the time was not on side with thee proposal. And I felt the diocese had a lot of work to do with their own congregation. And a lot of that was due to the school. And so I understood that. But that was three years ago. So there's nothing in the report suggesting that anything has changed. So just staff know if the congregation or if anyone else is supportive of this project. Mr. Patenzo. So through the mayor, some of that correspondence staff receive and forward to, uh, legislative services to form part of the package that's before counsel today. Um, but in many respects, the, um, because that second Calic hasn't been triggered. The community responses, uh, relatively unknown by staff at this time, noting that primarily our objective before council today is to present on the, on the policies

or rather on the proposals, consistency with policy as opposed to the community response. I understand it. I just think it's really quite sad, quite problematic that the public, uh, did not have that opportunity to review the proposal before us today. I'm quite disturbed by that. Onwards, um, of the 300 units of housing to be built in the site are all I'm going to be strata. I mean, what property tax is kick in for most of it or all of it? Do we have any idea at this point? Townsell. So through the mayor, that would be the case. Yes. The, um, property taxes would be applicable to those stratallots. Um, how the applicant, uh, either subdivide the site in the future, uh, may affect that. But the intent that this stages, um, stratified properties would be taxed at normal rate and not be some sort of, um, uh, tax, um, relief, exemption. That's the word I'm looking for. Yeah. Okay. You mean therefore, especially let's just

say the Southeast corner might be sold. Through the mayor. That is correct. Thank you. Um, in the staff report, it suggests that a heritage oversight type of committee is going to be struck for the project. Yet as we heard and we knew the city's Heritage Committee did not support this development. And of course, as it had been mentioned by another councillor is we're not sure when we read anything here, whether we're talking to 2023 proposal or today's. So how are you going to handle this whole heritage contradiction. Mr. Towns - ORM and Steven O. So maybe I can just speak broadly and through the mayor about, um, I'm not, I might get you to rephrase that question in terms of the Heritage Condiction and what supported or not supported. When I read the report, the pages before us, the Heritage Committee essentially did not support this. I mean, the other committee did, the design committee, even though there wasn't a design yet. So I'm just

wondering, um, how you're going to approach this will be the City Heritage Committee? Are you, what are you planning on doing or thinking of doing. Yeah, thank you for that. So through the mayor, the, the motion before council actually includes direction to send this application back to the Heritage Advisory Committee. In the same committee. And so that's the city struck heritage advisory panel, rather, um, and that's forms part of the motion that's before you today. Okay. And so, cause they have not yet seen this proposal. To the mayor, they have seen this proposal. Their concern was that they hadn't seen that the design guidelines that were to, uh, accompany this proposal. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Um. Now I understand, of course, we're looking at different, we looked at 2023 and a lot of the comments. And from what I've seen today, some of the questions have been answered from what a lot of people wrote about, but I'm going to ask one in case some of those people are watching today. And there are references to the closure of quad a street to create a plus at the front of the cathedral before Courtney, between Courtney and Burdet. But given the many, many days of events, especially in Jamie's Bay, when, uh, there are very few streets that residents can use to exit the community.

And we have now seen backlog sometimes for an hour or two when unusually events occur. And, um. With the closure of Vancouver Street, quadra is one of the few north - south streets that can be taken. So I was wondering how that is coming along whether or not that plaza and any kind of closure is still being considered. And I'm especially conscious of the fact that Crystal Poole will be on Quandra. And so can someone comment on that, please? Mr. Council? Yeah. Through the mayor, I'll just comment briefly and maybe look for our transportation group to comment further, but there isn't a planned closure for Quadr Street at this time. Um, but I think I'll turn it to our transportation group to fulfill any other parts of that question. So for you, Mr. Kenny. Good afternoon, Merrick Council. Ross Kenny, assistant director of engineering and public works. Um, regarding Quadra Street, there is no plans to change vehicle access on quadrant street. One of the

things that we actually are seeking with, um, along with this or other projects and changes on South Quadrat through the OCP was to actually extend transit service, um, south on quadra, currently buses turn at Yates and Fort. And at some time we'd like to see them travel south, uh, through this district. And we've been, um, communicating that to BC Transit. So there's no plans to say close quad rest. There was earlier discussions about, um, from various, um, developments in the area about higher quality treatments at that intersection. Um, such as pavers or raised intersection to give it the experience of maybe more of a pedestrian focused area, uh, well, respecting that there would be through traffic on quadra, uh, but currently no one has come to the table to be able to fund that. So that's still something that we'd be looking at as possibly a future scenario, but not as part of this application.

PENNEN Okay. Thank you very much. Cause you've done a lot of work the last couple of years in clearing up the Southgate quadra intersection, which is now much friendly or in usable for, uh, pedestrian, cyclists and vehicles. And so I wouldn't want to see that wasted. Okay. This, um, could you mention again to me what the density is and what is being proposed. The difference I understand is not great. Yes. Through the mayor. So the existing permitted density on site is two to one floor space ratio. And what's being proposed is 2. 4 to one floor space ratio. But keep in mind, while that number may seem small, this is a large site. And so it takes into the account the entire site. So there could be a significant amount of density with just a 0. 4 addition here. Um, you know, in the realm of 30 to 40, 000 square metres. Yeah. And I also understand of course that given that site a lot

of it is not buildable because we have a cathedral. Now, so I get, I get that. Um, please respond when we look at the option one. In option two in the way of recommendations from staff, which provides more flexibility. Mr. Badhanzo. So through the mayor option one, the recommended motion would provide more flexibility because it provides larger or higher building heights. Option two, um, has the same density, but it actually restricts the building heights, uh, more. Okay. An option too then. Because it's lower. Does it occupy more larger footprint? What would be the footprint comparison between option one and option two? In other words, how much open space will there be? So what would be the, uh, footprint change. Yeah. To the mirror. I can't quote on specific numbers, but you are correct. Option two would occupy, would have larger footprint buildings. Um, and just for everyone's recollection, option two is, you know, a 12 story building and a six story building. Whereas, um, the

recommended motion is a 12 story, 18 story, two 8 story and one 4 story. So could we. It must be some ideas to how much footprint, how much outdoor space would be given up with option two? Would it be much left outside of the commons green, which is to the southwest? Would there be how much of the rest would be eaten up between the two? I'm just trying to compare the two. So through the mayor, I just thought I'd flick to this image here, actually. And so there's, um, there's the two buildings that are located sort of in the centre of the site. And if you imagine that being completely occupied without the pathway in between the two. And then the two buildings on the bottom right hand side corner, that would be completely occupied as well. And so you'd lose those interstitial spaces between the buildings. And then the four story building to the left of the mid crossing would just be the same.

And so it's mostly a loss of those interstitial spaces between the buildings. That would be the change, uh, between those two options. Based in between, which is near the school would be lost. Correct. Okay. I may have more questions later, Mayor. You're good. Councillor Hammond. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mayor. My dilemma is I have more comments, which I won't do now. More comments than questions. But actually, I think there's one sort of broad question. And because of the notes that I took, it struck me. It's, oh, what pages are on? Anyways, this isn't the document. And maybe it's a page five. And it says the proposal is consistent with parts of the downtown core area plan guidance with respect to transitioning, building heights from the downtown to the edges of the downtown core area.

And this is what I put in red. However, the proposed building height and form of the 18 story building poses challenges for neighbourhood fit. And believe me, there's lots more that is throughout your report, of which it made a lot of notes and a lot of red highlights on my page that just kept jumping out at me about the height. And this was before I looked at the rendering. I get technicalities. I get that, yeah, when we look at those boundaries, I get that it's just happens to be inside there. But that comment that was given to us in your report is really the problem.

I shouldn't say the problem, but the dilemma here, isn't it? That there's all kinds of things that say this technically can be okay. But when you look at that, and then when you look at the rest of the neighbourhood, it's put in that one little part of a sentence. What are your thoughts on that about this dilemma of something that's very, very tall can be allowed. But the impact that it has on the rest of the neighbourhood. Mr. Tensil. So through the mayor, and I'll just sort of keep my comments brief, because typically our commentary is going to be around policy as opposed to, uh, those sort of flavour of questions. But I mean, it is notably a challenge to land this much density on the site. That's clear. These are novel building forms that really stretch the interpretations of our urban structure concept. The trade - off is, it's a very large challenge for, um, the maintenance and upkeep and retention of these heritage

assets as well. And so these are two very key policies within our guiding documents that we're trying to balance. Um, where we landed is kind of the best go that we could sort of, uh, achieve with that. Um, I think some of that language around the alternative motion helps us to, um, mitigate some of those concerns a little bit. Um, but I won't deny the fact that it's a challenging application that's really sort of, um, on, on the edge in terms of, uh, putting a recommendation for support before council. Thanks. And, and thank you for that. And Mayor, through you, um. When, you know, when you, when you say that, I thought on a number of occasions when something comes to us, we're not supposed to, we're not supposed to really think of the proponent, you know, the good that they do in the community or if someone thinks less than good in the community.

And yet, I mean, I'm very, very aware of the importance of raising the money to preserve this structure. You, you don't have to go more than, you don't have to go a block as the crow flies. And I used to live, like really close to there on Mir Street, really close. And so, you know, I get the importance of that. I've been up the tower and got a tour of the bells and everything else. And the importance of this church. So, so that's important. But maybe I missed something. Is this something that we are absolutely supposed to be giving consideration for this application. Mr. Pachenzo.

So through the mayor, I'll just reiterate that we regulate land use, building height, form and character and density. And our preservation of heritage assets. And so that's not the regulation of people or the consideration of whom is making the application, but the consideration of what assets are on site that the city has identified as valuable assets for the city. Right. And as a result of that, then you're saying that the money that they need to raise and maybe the extra height or extra dense and or extra density is in fact a factor in this proposal. That we need to consider. Through the mayor, absolutely. Great, thank you. Very good. Any other questions. I actually have a question actually. Oh, I'll go to Councillor Kim Purse.

Go ahead. Um, thanks for the chair. Uh, I wanted to ask about, uh, the MDA process has it been typical to do the MDA process with rezonings. Cancer? Yes, to the merit. That is the time when we do the MDA. Yes. And so, um, can you walk me through what the process looks like to do? The MDA process with the rezoning while then also having to keep doors open for the building permit and the design and all of that. Yeah. Through the mayor. So typically what, what occurs should this application be advanced? There will be a motion that we share with our legal department who will then draft an MDA or a master development agreement to capture those aspects that we're trying to secure. And in some respects, it's like adding another layer of policy of things you must do when, when a development permit comes forward. And so as an example, we'll have a master development agreement that'll speak to the mid block crossing.

And it'll say that this must be delivered with this phase and this building when an application comes in, we refer to the MDA. Where's our mid block crossing? What are the details of it? And so it's just a, it's almost like putting additional zoning requirements, um, on the proposal. So that's how it operates typically. It's a very elegant way to put it. Um, I think my concern here is with, uh, because there marks around what's going to come, um, that the MDA could hamper either party, um, who, who's to say. So, um, I guess my question to you is, do you have any suggestions on how to work the MDA process to, like I said, keep doors open for, um, for as many folks as possible. I think you're speaking specifically to this proposal. You're not speaking in general. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Not this proposed.

Thanks for clarifying. Yeah. So through the mayor, it depends what doors you are referring to, to keep open. The things that we are trying to secure with in the MDA would be the amount and type of heritage restoration and conservation. The three metre setback along the property line. The building footprints and where they're located and the spaces and the separation between buildings, which is typically a consideration for portions of the building above six stories. And that's about it. Um, in terms of what the MDA secures. So in many respects, it's still quite, um, uh, flexible, uh, going forward, but it does secure the key aspects that, that, uh, kind of inform the key considerations of what's being proposed. Right. Yes, Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Yes.

Just to, excuse me, just to add to that, having an MDA in place also does provide some certainty and clarity for, uh, anyone who's maybe interested in partnering with the diocese on developing. So it can actually really help inform those future stages by taking away the, any uncertainty as to what the City might expect with the development of those lands. Great. That's, that's very helpful. Thank you. Um, and then I was also wondering, um. Because the dioceses is, are they considered a charitable work. Through the mayor, that is correct currently. King, is there any context or history of similar processes with a charitable org? Again, I'm just trying to look for like a baseline comparator so I can, cause this is a unique to me.

Brutazo or. Through the mayor. I mean, some of the sort of comparables might be our processes with not - for - profit and affordable housing providers. I don't recall in my tenure at the city dealing with another religious organisation. But I think that would be the most sort of relevant, comparable. Okay, thanks. Um, there was a note about, sorry, I'm just looking at my notes here. Special urban place designations. And the definition is arguably quite vague. So how do you manage coming to a middle ground on how to define that. Mr. Danzo. The references to a special urban place. Sorry, let me read my note here. During the OCP update, uh, were the policies and designations for large parcels of land, like this precinct, updated, um, and within the OCP with things like special urban place does designations. They're vague definitions. And so how do you like work land somewhere with that. Does that make sense? I'm through the mirror. I'm just a bit unfamiliar

with a special designation. This site has a couple characteristics that have a special height area. Um, and in terms of the special height area, I think that's spoken to a bit in the report where we speak to that consideration was baked into the downtown core area plan to deal with, um, anticipated potentially taller buildings at this site in order to help retain and support the preservation and conservation of the heritage assets. And then further to that, when we're sort of going through the assessment to assess appropriate building heights, we're looking at, you know, the suite of policies that speak to that and the density in and around the area and some of those wider objectives of transitioning from taller buildings downtown, less tall buildings as we get into the residential fabric. Great. Thanks. I know my question was a little vague, but you knocked it out of the park there. Okay. That's it for me.

Thanks. Thank you. Um, just have a question actually based on this photograph. I think we fairly recently looked at an application that was sent back to staff for further review with the applicant that is on the corner of Fort and Quadra, which if I see this is the block, not right in front of the Cathedral, but one over. Can you remind me about what was anticipated in the height of those buildings. Through the mayor, I can speak to the policy. And the policy anticipates, I believe, up to 12 stories. Um, then what was actually proposed was, I believe it was 25 stories, but I think I'll just 27 stories, uh, was what was proposed. So I'll just fire up our, yeah. So in terms of, um, so it's 12 stories in terms of the downtown core area plan and what was proposed was 27 stories.

Right. And then if you go back to that photograph, well, you don't need to because it's the same colour. Uh, but it would be the same colour. Where the current or former rather YW said building is I know that that is far away as far as distance goes, because a rather as time goes because we don't know what they're doing. But do you recall, was there ever a conversation about what those heights might be. So through the mayor, I can't speak to the proposal, but again, the policy was, it's sort of that 10 to 12 stories. And I think perhaps our acting director can speak.

Do you call any discussions about what those ones were the why was. I don't see the mirror. I don't recall the exact height of what was proposed in some of those preliminary concepts. Um, but I didn't do know that they were proposing something that was substantially taller than the policy envision for that location. Call as well. Okay. Those are my only questions and I believe, uh, you have more questions. No, I'm going to move the recommendation because I have an amendment to make immediately. So if you want to put the staff recommendation on the, um, screen, uh, I will move that recommendation and look for a second. Concert cure to seconder. So, um, before I even speak to the motion, I'm actually going to introduce an amendment to the motion. And that is something that staff have that I sent to them, uh, last night actually, I think it was or later yesterday. And actually it should be as a new number two as opposed

to a number one, which is where I think I suggested it might go earlier. We have staff could put that up. That would be excellent. Thank you. And if the second door for that, I will speak to why it is there. Thanks Councillor Loton. So before speaking on the main motion, um, a number of folks have commented through our conversation so far that there was curiosity about why the advisory design panel and recommendations or rather the application wasn't changed or amended to reflect the advisory design suggestions. And so for me, I think that the, uh, ADP recommendations were sound. And so far as they allowed a greater flexibility and how the height could be adjusted to ensure the best possible use of density, well at the same time, trying to both preserve the corridors of views around the cathedral as well as making as much as possible the footprint full of narrower, taller buildings. So you had lots of more capacity to have open space

at the ground level. And it sounded to me reading the ADP's Minutes that that's what they were going for too. And so it seemed to me without trying to introduce very restrictive terms to introduce this general statement of trying to work with the applicant to greater a line with the recommendations of ADP would provide greater flexibility for those items and considerations. This does not suggest, uh, that it is absolute. And that's why the phrasing is to better align with. If in fact, it would turn out that this is the best they can do. So be it. Uh, and there isn't a sense here meeting a particular threshold of what that means, but rather providing the space for a further conversation about how best to deliver both the density and the height in a way which maximizes open space maximizes the preservation of the view of the cathedral, uh, and provides the greater space for discussion about all those things. So that's why proposed this amendment.

Councillor Loden on the amendment only, please. Thanks, Andrew. You mayor. I don't have much to add to that. Only that I think that the flexibility component is really important here because that's why we are considering a rezoning application today without a development permit because the actual project and the development itself will not come to fruition without a partner. So this creates the ability to have more flexibility in that as the proponent looks to attract a partner so that they can then eventually come forward with their project for us. So thank you for that. Any other comments on this amendment. Councillor Cardone. Uh, thanks Mayor. I oppose the amendment. And I think it's a situation where reasonable minds can disagree. But my, my concern is that aligning more closely with the recommendations of the ADP means that this is likely going to be a taller building.

And if it were three blocks to the west or even one block to the west, I wouldn't be fussed by it. But given the proximity to the cathedral, which is undoubtedly the most important religious institution on the island. And one of the most important ones in Western Canada, I think there needs to be an extraordinary amount of sensitivity to the fact that housing is going to be added most likely to this campus. And I think we need to be really, really cautious about not allowing for a built environment that is going to tower over those heritage assets. And the taller of the buildings are, the more they diminish the feel and aesthetic and sighting of the cathedral. I think 18 stories is totally reasonable. And when you combine all the other stories of the other buildings, we're talking about between 46 and 50 total stories, most of which would be housing. I think that that's already very generous. And in a lot of ways, we're

kind of pushing it by allowing housing on this precinct at all. So again, I think reasonable minds can disagree, but I think that we need to be sensitive here. I think that we've landed in a really good place. The email that we got from the proponent. Uh, makes it clear that they support the staff recommendation. Staff supports a staff recommendation. Uh, contrary to some of the commons that came out earlier. I think that this actually has not been very contentious. I think that it's taken a long time, but I think the proponent and staff have gotten it to a place where it is largely supported and supportable by the community. And I think that the more that we mess with the staff recommendation, the more that we risk undoing that relatively high level of consensus, which I'm not willing to do. And I don't want to, uh, overshadow the cathedral with a building that's going to tower over it someday. So I think the status

quo for me is totally supportable. So I don't support any amendments to it. Thanks Mayor. Thank you very much. I'm just going to flag for Council, as I mentioned before we begin, uh, I have unfortunately phone call that is required to be taken at 2. 30. So I'm going to look to Councillor Hammond. Do you have brief comments or would you like to break down? I have a brief question, but maybe this will give me the time to do it. I'm, I've opened appendix N and I was just hoping someone could give me a quick Cole's notes of the, um, uh, the advisory design panel in these 11 pages. Cause I haven't memorized them. Mr.

Patenzo, can you summarize the ADP recommendations, please? Yes. Through the mayor, um, the ADP recommendation was that council provide direction to staff to give consideration to implement the offsite public realm improvement to ensure they are implemented through eventual development, in particular, the Cathedral court and Rockland Greenway. The applicant considers shifting height from the 8 Story buildings to the 18 story building to provide a height contrast between a cathedral and the 18 story building and improve the relationship to the street. And the applicant to consider adjusting the future cathedral house, which is the small four story building to provide more space for the walkway between the cathedral and amenity building, which would may require a setback reduction. Very good. Mr. Potion. Very good. Uh, are there any other questions or comments on the amendment. All right, perhaps we'll call the question on the amendment and then we'll take a break. On the amendment, all those in favor Councillor Dill, Councillor Kim, Councillor Loton, myself, and Councillor

Thompson in opposition Councillor Coronado, Councillor Loton, uh, Councillor Hammond, rather and Councillor Gardner. So with eight people here, I believe that is five to three in favor of the amendment that is correct of looking at staff. Yes. So that amendment is adopted. Uh, I'm going to reserve my comments on the main motion until a slightly later in the conversation and suggest right now that we take a 20 minute break and return at 250, 250 when we will then go to Councillor Cardona as the secondary. Very good. Right.

Pretty much for that and we are back now on item G2 from our Committee of the Hole agenda. And that is of course the Cathedral District Application. The motion is on the floor. It's been amended once. I reserved my comments for later and the seconder was Councillor Caradona. Over to you. Yes, I think I have an amendment too, so I'll hold off on general motivation until I've done that. Sure, go ahead. So my amendment pertains to the potential community amenity contribution, or I don't know. I don't know if I should call it a CAC or an ACC, but let's just call it an amenity contribution.

Which, well. Starting to motivate, I'm sorry motivated. Yes, you are. So let's have the amendment. I don't know where it would go though. But generally knowing it's about that. Is there a suggestion about where it might go? Can you speak your amendment and then we can perhaps get stops advice on where it would fit? Sure. It would be that council. Confirms. That. Comma. Assuming the development permit proposes stratified housing, comma, and subject to legal agreements, comma. Council, they Council confirm that. Seismic upgrades. Would be considered an acceptable. Usage. Of amenity contributions. So, Steph, where would such an amendment best fit in your view. Obviously, this is about ACC's in seismic. So what would be your suggestion is to location. So through the mayor, that's kind of already how the motion reads. Can you explain that?

And so I'm just going to find the spot in the motion here. So there is subject to the third reading of the Zoning Amendment bylaw. The applicant completes the following priority of the adoption of the bylaw. Prepare and execute legal agreements. Blah, blah, blah, you date that section. Provision of a master development's agreement to secure a phasing plan that identifies the associated amenities and improvements for frontage improvements, relocation of the Heritage Registered Denery Buildering to an off - site location, Heritage Restoration, Accessibility Improvements, and Seismic Upgrading of the 3 Heritage Designated Buildings on the site. So that's item 1, 3, 1, I, 1, 3 point, I. 3A11, yes. Thank you. Okay, I hear that. I guess my, going back to the previous conversation, to me, it's not entirely clear that when this comes forward as a DP, it will be stratified. The baseline assumption is that it is, but it is possible that could change.

It's possible that they could propose market rental or something. So I want to clarify that if they go the strat or route or even, let's say 75 percent of the development ends up a strad in 21 that we've clarified that the proportion of the development that is stratified that would have in many contribution associated with it, that X, Y, and Z usage is are considered appropriate. If that is already in there, then I'll let it go. But to me, it didn't jump out as clear enough. So Mr. Patenza, we'll ask the question is given what Councillor Caradona has explained. Do you think the existing language considers that? And I suppose the secondary question is, if that kind of detail is necessary, is it necessary now.

Or when you get to the point where you're preparing and executing those agreements. PONNES So through the mayor, I mean, you just will restate what you're trying to achieve here, is that, so we're securing a level of amenities. At this point in time, under the assumption that the entire proposal of Strata residential. You would like to be able to offer the applicant the ability to reduce that level of amenity in exchange for affordable housing at some future date. Is that correct? I don't know if I would frame it that way. I'm just trying to be realistic of the fact that we don't know what the development permit application will look like. We've made some assumptions about what it'll look like. But I'm trying to get across is that whatever percentage of this housing development ends up as stratified, whether it's ordinarily have an amenity contribution attached to it because it's stratified, that the usage of those monies are allowed to go towards X, Y, and

Z on site, as opposed to what the ACC policy says, which is it's going to a park or a community centre. It can stay on site for that work. But acknowledging that it might not be a hundred percent of the DPU So Mr. Patazo, I guess the question is, is now the time to try and secure that supposition. Or is that something that comes at a later date, Mr. Johnson? Thank you, Through the Mayor. So right now, the way the recommendation is written, all of the voluntary amenities associated with this application would be secured at this time, and it's not tied to the tenure of the residential development in the future. So we're assuming that, I mean, it sort of, regardless of the tenure, these menis will be delivered with those phases of development. And this project will not be subject to our amenity cost charge bylaw, because it's an in - stream application. It is exempt from that bylaw. For all future phases of

development. So in a nutshell. I don't think it's necessary, okay. So that's the, so it seems to be not necessary at this time. Okay, can you just clarify through the mayor why we're calling them voluntary? Because even if you set aside the ACC legislation prior to that legislation, we had our own policy around CACs. Those were not voluntary. Those were obligatory. Mr. Jones. At least as we considered them. Oh, everyone is pointing at Mr. Johnston. Through the mayor. So with a rezoning application, uh, that's proposing additional density. Um, additional pressures on existing, um, community amenities. We seek to, we look to applicants to propose some form of amenity contribution that helps to offset the impacts of increased growth and development. Those are ultimately sort of voluntary contributions that are made by the applicant, but they're negotiated by staff. And they're, we're seeking something that aligns with our current policies of the day. Um, so when we had a community, uh, amenity contribution policy that provided

some guidance for applicants on the type of, um. Voluntary amenities that we would be expecting to come with a rezoning application. Okay. So if I've understood correctly, sorry, mayor for, for putting up with this, but so the legal agreements will enshrine as part of an agreement that quote unquote voluntary compensation, which ordinarily go towards something that the city chooses could, in this case, stay on site for the seismic upgrades, et cetera. I almost said irregardless, regardless of whether or not this does end up as stratified or something else in the future. So that, so just to clarify that if, let's say three years from now, they come back with a deeply application and it's not fully stratified. It's some combination or whatever. They are still bound to put those voluntary contributions into seismic, et cetera.

It's not in a sense tied to it being stratified. Mr. Tanzer, through the mayor. So typically stratification of the tenure is not an amenity. So, uh, it doesn't make any difference. It's the, those amenities are being secured, um, reflective of the density being proposed. Um, but it doesn't preclude them from proposing a different 10 year at a different time simply because a market strata residential is not considered an amenity. But presumably by that point these legal agreements will have already the inkle have been dry on them. The assumption is that they're going to have to put those money towards seismic upgrade, et cetera. To the mayor, that is correct. Okay. So then it sounds like my motion would be redundant, in which case I'm happy with draw it. Do you want to speak on the main motion at this point then? Or. I'm a bit out of breath at the moment. Okay, all right. Welcome back to you and we'll go to Councillor Loden. Who's

next? Uh, thanks, Mr. Yumer. I have an amendment as well that I have sent over to Ledge Services. It's letting get that. Boing to be. Um, a new 3A. Well, 3A. It could go, um, as an amendment to number two. Uh, no, it can go in number three. Okay. As a new A number three. Okay. So 3A is a new, oh, they have it already. They have it. So just wait for that to come up. Just give books a minute to read it. I'm seeing from my peripheral vision that Councillor Thompson would like to second that Councillor Lotten, why don't you motivate. Thanks, Mayor. Um, it seems to me that there is a desire from the proponents that they would like to be able to deliver some aspect of affordable housing in this project. But at the state of the rezoning application in front of us, an avenue for that. So the goal of this amendment is to give them an avenue to deliver affordable housing if they choose to pursue it.

Because, um, this must be established during the rezoning phase. We have to introduce it today at Camp Beatted at a later phase. So that's why I'm bringing it right now. As we have heard already today a little bit, faith - based organisations frequently hold significant LAN portfolios, but lack the liquid capital required for major developments. So to fully realise housing on this site, they have to attract and engage development partner. So hence the reason there's no development permit to consider with this rezoning. By passing this amendment, we would give the proponent the flexibility to incorporate affordability into their model, making the project potentially more attractive to the right partners. And ultimately, this is a proactive step for the city to incentivize and unlock desperately needed affordable housing on this site. I also believe that the proponent genuinely wants to include an affordable component. And this tool will give them the flexibility to fully explore that vision. And so I heard I listened on CBC and

the Reverend Jonathan said, we want to be able to live out our values with the assets we have. And that, um, that struck home with me this morning. And so I just want them to have the freedom to be able to do that. And additionally, the diocese, the Anklund Diocese of islands and Inlets have delivered 500 units of affordable housing, including in Sanich and Duncan. So giving them the potential opportunity to the same on this site is important at this stage. And I just was doing a little blue skying myself as I was reading the application and I, I was daydreaming about the possibility of the reconciliation component of the Southwest lawn extending potentially into affordable housing partnership with the nations. Now that's just me blue skying. I'm not suggesting that this is going to come to fruition. But I'd like the proponent to have the freedom to blue sky to do the same thing and to see what happens with that. And this amendment

grants them that freedom. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Thompson as a second or two. The amendment, please. Thanks. I'll be brief. Agree with all that. Um, we need to be trying to enable affordable housing wherever it's feasible. And it's not always feasible. And we don't know if it will be here, but this at least gives us the possibility. And I think, um, in our final decision, we need to bear in mind that we're not dealing with an applicant we're dealing with an application. Uh, but I will say that, uh, this is a church. And a lot of churches are in this position of having property and having the opportunity to deal with the housing crisis and the Affordable housing crisis. As an extension of their mission. So, um, this is kind of doing Lord's work.

And I'm strongly supportive. Thank you Councillor Hammond on the amendment. Thanks Mayor. Being that I'm already concerned about the size of this thing exactly what does it mean while maintaining the general four massing in site plan is currently proposed. Does that mean they're going to be getting bunkers underground or something. Can someone explain that. Through the mayor? I think the term generally would see us looking at, um, not adding significant amount of height. So we're in the realm of one and two stories of height, maybe three at the at the outset. And perhaps reducing the setbacks between that interstitial space between buildings and reducing the amount of open space, uh, and utilising a building form that has a larger footprint. Okay. So then while maintaining general form massing and site plan is currently proposed really means going taller, going higher. And using up more, um, space. To the mayor, that is correct. How does that seems to be inconsistent with maintaining general form massing and

site plan. Doesn't it? Jensew? Too bad. I can speak in terms of generalities. And so, you know, our, our OCP is written in such a way that the flexibility in the OCP. I'll reiterate that this site is sort of at, um, a challenging position in terms of the amount of density that's being programmed on the site. In many respects, you know, a lot of that amenity contribution that's been considered with this site has been eaten up or programmed towards the retention and upgrades of the heritage buildings on site. So there's a challenge in terms of one site doing many things in terms of achieving all of the objectives in the OCP. Um, perhaps I'll just leave it at the point that it's challenging already in terms of the density. And this may exacerbate that to some extent. PENTER OK, thanks very much. And then to the amendment, mayor, I'll oppose it just because I'm already concerned about the, um, the height and the density. And,

you know, when I read the report, they said, okay, we're not there yet, but we certainly would like to be able to put in something that's affordable. And I got to assume that with a lot of very good intention people, as I know, people are not only from this church, but as religions as a whole, uh, they got God on their side. And I'm not saying this in a bad way, meaning that I'm not being funny about it. I'm saying that they have a church that they want to maintain and have seismic upgrades and heritage and everything else. And at the same time, I know that if anyone is going to be interested in supportive housing, it is going to be a church. Thank you Councillor Caradona. Thanks Mayor. I can support this amendment because of course, uh, I would want to see affordable housing as possible. However, I continue to believe that it is a very bad idea to allow the tallest building on

the site to be above 18 stories. That is my view on it. I want the cathedral to maintain all the cathedral to continue to be the centrepiece. I don't want it to be overshadowed by looming towers. So the way I read this is more generally around density on site reminding staff that there is an 8 Story building, another 8 story building, a 12 story building and a 4 Story building. So if there's possibility, maybe one of those 8 goes to 10 or maybe the 12 goes to 14. But the density does not need to go into the tallest building. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the amendment. Councillor Kim. Um, thanks to the chair.

I can support this. Um, beyond just considerations around general form massing. Because anything that can encourage affordable housing is actually also encouraging mixed income communities. And particularly having something that starts to encroach into the Fairfield neighbourhood, um, for me is actually like a huge piece around equalizing the distribution of various incomes in our cities. So for that reason alone, I can support this. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the amendment. Not seeing anyone also in the amendment. So on the amendment, all those in favor. Council Dell, Councillor Kim, Councillor Cardona, Councillor Loton myself and Councillor Thompson in opposition. Councillor Hammond and Councillor Gardner. Noting to, in opposition, that amendment is approved. And Councillor Lochny still helped the floor. Thanks, Mayor. I'll just provide a few comments just to close to close off. Um, I think we all know this. But Christchurch Cathedral is a jewel in our region. And providing a viable avenue for the essential seismic upgrades on this historic site is crucial.

I think we've all had that experience, um, turning east on Courtney and seeing that church, it takes my breath away every time. I'm not sure why, maybe because I don't turn down that street very often. But it is, it is an absolute crown jewel of our region. And this the seismic work to the Heritage Elements of this are really, really critical. Um, and I also have, I noted this in the amendment, but I do want to highlight the creation of the reconciliation garden and the profound roundtable work that has been done with the Local Nations. It shows a deep, genuine commitment to reconciliation. And as I have also mentioned too in a dream world, I could see this important foundational work eventually expanding into an affordable housing partnership with the nations and the amendments we passed earlier, just a few minutes ago might help to provide the runway to realise this vision, even though I recognise this, this is an aspirational hope. And in these

very early days. I also want to note that I'm deeply appreciative of the perspective shared in the first paragraph of a letter address to Mayor and Council by the ED of the, of the diocese. And I'm going to just take a second and read that. In Christ Church Cathedrals Chapel of the New Jerusalem, there is a large window on the east wall. This stunning artwork speaks to the hope of urban life deeply aligned with our faith. The design draws inspiration from the final book of the Bible, where there is a vision of a future city where God lives with people in all tribes and languages.

The trees bear fruit for all. And tears are no more. This city is a place of radical belonging and beauty that can inform our vision of the city we want to live in. We do not imagine this proposal will fulfill that vision, but we hope that by offering our space as a commons for the community, we together might take a step in that direction. So while their goals are clearly aspirational, I think it's vital for the church to provide that kind of North Star for our society to reach towards. I believe that is exactly what they are attempting to do with this project. And I'm glad to support that direction today. And I wish them well as they plan for the next several decades on this site as the Ministry morphs into a new way of serving our community. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Council Cardona. Would you like to make your comments now general comments now? Yeah. Uh, comment my breath a bit. I would like to, that's a tough act to follow. I don't, I don't, I won't be able to top that, but I will say in closing, I want to thank staff for how much work they put in on this. I think that you did a superb job in the report and in the negotiations. I want to thank the proponent for bringing this forward and thinking about ways, creative ways of solving problems for themselves. And also solving problems for the community. I recall having a conversation with the proponent a couple years ago as I think a lot of us did. And the initial conversations around this was talk of a very, very tall tower. Like above 40 stories or something, 40 to 60 stories, something like that. And which the idea was to cash out and solve the seismic problems. That was the story that I

was sort of sold in a way. We need money to upgrade our seismic. And my comment at that time, which I think in hindsight, they took was this, that's not a compelling enough narrative for this community. That's solving a problem for you, which is great. But you need to think about how you're solving multiple problems for this community. And I think that they took that advice. And I think others said some of the things wasn't just me. And I think they also listened to the community and they came back with a proposal that actually delivers real value to the community. We haven't really talked at all about the fact that this is a mixed use development. And I don't even think it's come up today.

The idea is that the ground floor commercial. Those are going to be restaurants. They're going to be coffee shops. Maybe the lawyer's office or a notary or something like that. But the, the, the cathedral precinct in essential in a sense will turn into a kind of mixed use village where the Heritage assets that can also be used as kind of a community centre. There'll be housing and there will be commercial and street activation. I think it'll be a place that draws people in from downtown, draws people in from Fairfield and elsewhere. There are certain number of tourists. Of course, that go and check out the Cathedral. I think there could be a lot more. And I think if you have a gathering space, an internal patio, uh, and, and courtyard that maybe there's a coffee shop in a restaurant where people can hang out around the cathedral and enjoy that heritage, that Heritage said and go inside and do a tour. It actually will enhance

the viability and the, um, the attractability of that, uh, of, of that heritage asset. So for me, this, this, I know it's taken a long time. It's taken a few years, but I think that the arc of this project is landed in a good place where there is the real prospect where they will have the financial means necessary to solve their own seismic and maintenance issues, which are not insubstantial. But also deliver value to the community in a number of different ways. So I think this will add to Victoria. I think we'll add to the edge of downtown in Fairfield. And someday it'll be a really vibrant village that I think all of us will be proud to have supported. So mayor, this has my full support moving forward. Thank you very much. Anyone else like to comment on the main motion? Councillor Gardner. Thank you, Mayor. My first experience with rezoning properly owned by the diocese was in 2014. That's the first cathedral school

at 529 Agra was being rezoned facilitate a sale the property. It too was contentious. For me, there are three significant issues before us today. The cathedral. Millions are needed to safeguard the structural integrity of the cathedral. Thotor donor is willing to donate many millions of dollars. The diocese has chosen the path of development of much of the site to provide needed funding. This is balanced by the need to preserve one of Victoria's important heritage landmarks. And I support that. The public voice. With review of this proposal, the review by the public has been flawed. The failure to give clarity to residents and others is why this is contentious. Staff did not fail, but others did.

And this is important. Three. The planet is presented today. Well, the density lift from two FSR to 2. 4 does not seem to be a great leap, but it is. That's a 20 percent increase. And of course, more density and reduction of livability may come about. The density must be on the east side of the full area just to preserve the church or the church, the cathedral and the common green area on the southwest corner. And this really complex the whole proposal. So I came today not knowing how I would vote. But the amendments have firmed it up for me. More density and reduction of livability. I don't want most of the outdoor space on the east side of the property to be eliminated. And I fear with a, let's add more density here and there that that may happen. There was just too much that is unknown right now. And again, as I mentioned, the flawed consultation for the public. In the years ahead,

the DP applications may come before council. We will then know what will really be happening at the site. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. Anyone else. Councillor Thompson. Thanks, Mayor. Um, and thanks through you to the staff and to the, um, the church team. And thanks to the members of the public who wrote in and emailed and spoke to me in person, uh, enjoyed all those conversations. I do think it's a very supportable project. The cathedral is a very important part of Victoria's history and heritage. It needs that seismic work. Um, as a lot of buildings in Victoria do, um, we have beautiful older buildings. And when the earthquake happens, not if we don't want them to be a pile of stones, uh, causing injury and death. So the challenge is paying for it.

And this is, this is the way to pay for it. Um, it'd be great if we had a big donor. Just throw the money at it, but, uh, it's not happened so far. Um, I did hear from members of the public worried about the height near Vancouver Street. And the mayor's amendment, uh, helps to address that by moving some of that, um, height, you know, the eight stories down to six, uh, in that building and adding it to the taller building. And I guess there's two buildings where that, that height comes down to six and goes on top of the 18 stories, which would take it up to 22. Or I guess depends on the, uh, floor plate and design. But, um, that partly addresses the concern of one of the people that I spoke to about, uh, the height, uh, near Vancouver Street. I do want to ask a question of staff, um, because this was asked of me, um, is there any opportunity

to move more of that density away from Vancouver, uh, further west on the property, like South of the church. And I know that we've already discussed the First Nations work that's being done there. And I wouldn't want to, I'm not proposing that we disrupt that. But is there any way that more of that density could be moved to the West. Mr. Patazo. So through the mayor, the sort of the primary locations that perhaps staff have identified where density is most appropriate would be, um, you know, we've got a building directly behind the cathedral at 12 stories. And then we've got one mid block at 18 stories. And so the addition to height to the 18 stories building is a, uh, reasonable option in terms of relocating some of that density. Um, noting that the buildings at the periphery are now down to six stories. Um, the same as what's considered in those adjacent neighbourhoods as well. And so, you know, all of the adjacencies are

all six stories. Um, so that's kind of consistent with, um, the broader urban structure concept for the area as a whole. Makes sense. Okay. Thanks. Thanks for that. Um. And then when it comes to, uh, Councillor Lauten's proposed amendments and accepted, um, the distribution of the additional density, um, if we can do it to get some, some affordability, um, I'm, I'm comfortable with that being added, uh, anywhere, um, I note that Council didn't give any direction to throw it into any particular building or to avoid any particular building. Could be the tower that's over 18 stories or it could be, uh, one of the smaller ones. I don't know, um, I think we should keep an open mind about that and address staff to work with the applicant to make that happen. So overall, um, great project. I'm thrilled, as somebody who toured the church and had discussions about, um, how on earth you protect it, seismically, uh, I think it's, it's going to be

a miracle to see that happen, uh, and I'm glad that we can, uh, play a part in that by, uh, allowing, uh, the financial conditions for that to go forward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else. Councillor Hammond. Thanks Mayor. Thank goodness I was given 15 minutes. I'll use it all up. Um, I'm kidding. But I usually have stuff planned out. And this one, I'm just going to go through, so this was the process I went through last weekend when I looked at this. And I started with, I think this one, this was the one was the 19 page document. So I go through, I'm making all these notes. And I didn't look anywhere else yet. And so this is, I made a bit of reference to this already, but these are some of the points that I put, put in my notes. I put in red and it says, you know, talking about proposals consistent with the OCP, the core insofar lane use

guidance. However, Heritage values are challenged with the inclusion of an 18 story building, which diminishes the prominence of a Heritage Landmark building. Another one is the preservation and heritage retention comes at the cost of impacts to a designated heritage landscape. And the relocation of a Heritage registered building. And then this one I might have said, yeah. However, the proposed, when I was talking about the downtown core, however, the proposed building height and form of the 18 story building poses challenges for neighbourhood fit. And there were other things that were also, you know, commented in there, but I won't go into those. Okay. This is in red. So I'll take a chance on what I, what I put in red. Ideally a new use should be introduced that has little to no impact on the heritage value of the place. Adding housing to a culturally and spiritually significant site is supportable. However, the density being, um, applied for in this application significantly impacts the heritage district

and will dramatically alter the spatial relationships and experience of the historic site. Uh, and then also staffed work with the applicant to come up with a scheme that will minimize impact on the Heritage value of the place. However, the density proposed will undoubtedly have an impact. And so the focus has been to reduce the heights of the buildings. You know, so that was to take it from higher where it was. So I'm going through this, and, you know, so it's, I'm, I'm being told by staff, accept it, um, you know, look, there's good things. And each, not each time, but as I read, it was like, but watch out for this. Have you got the picture of the, um, the rendering is that, can you pull that up. Which one.

So while this being pulled up, let me just put it this way. I was really pleased that. That I. Got in close. Yeah. So I was really pleased that I saw this first, right? Like I wasn't, you know, I work in the field of human rights. And I talk about stereotypes and how they can impact. And so I didn't have the height. And so I just had to report, which is saying positive things, but okay, you know, heights a little bit much. Then I went to this. And I thought, thank goodness I've read that first before I saw that because that would have really tainted my view on anything that I was reading. So the thing is, like I get it, you know, it's, um, it was good reasons in order to do it. But when you look at that neighbourhood, and even if to the west and a little bit to the north, there's going to be changes that are coming about. Also the

why, the proposal that is going to be coming back to us across from the why that we just had last week. Sure, that's going to change it. But that is massive going into Fairfield and therefore into other communities. So for me, and I thought I'm probably just going to be the only one who's opposed to this. But it's, it's just, it's just too much. And the interesting thing is that this church is not immune to issues that go on in the community and the impact that their decisions make on the community. And I remember 10 years ago, this month, there was an article in the Times colonist. And it was about Dean is at Ainsley Tucker at the time. Where she said the tent city, the encampment across the street has got to go. And up until then, the church was supportive of the, um, of what was going on for these people who were homeless and the encampment. And they can't, even they came

to the conclusion, an organisation that. Jesus would be pretty happy about them taking the stand on helping people that were across the street, but because the dangers were so great, even this church said, this thing has got to go. So they're not immune to the impact for themselves and their community. And the difficulty is, I think that the impact on the community is going to be too great. And then the notion that now I'm hearing this potential for this to go even higher and more dense, uh, just means I think there's more concerns. I don't live in that neighbourhood used to. I don't live right in that neighbourhood now. Um, who knows how long before this actually comes to fruition. So there could be a lot of people that are going to be in seniors homes by that point. There's some of us maybe like myself. And maybe I'll be dead by that point. And if I was living in the neighbourhood and I wouldn't

have to worry about it, but for those people that are there, um, that's going to have a big impact. And it's, it's just, I just think it's too much. So I'll be voting against it. Thanks Mayor. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Any of my points? Councillor Kim. Through the chair. Thank you. Um, I, I actually want to put my remarks in a bigger context here. Um, I want to recognise that the, uh, project in front of us, to me, I see it as, uh, response to a changing society. We are in a context where faith - based orgs are increasingly challenged in a number of ways. Um, and one could argue that the new faith is the Almighty Dollar. And so, um, I really appreciate how this, uh, the proponent is trying to maintain relevance to community and people and society in a context where, um, economics is the language du jour. And I want to recognise that this is unique because it kind

of, uh, symbolizes a pivot in the way we conceptualize faith - based spaces and housing and community and how they come together. And so on that note, um, thanks to the applicant for being willing to, um, envision themselves in a unique way as well. Thank you to the staff, um, navigating a very unique application. I can't imagine it was easy, but you did it. You're here. And you deserve whatever cold beverage you're going to drink at the end of the day today. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anybody else. That's your bell. Sure. Uh, I want to speak. I do have an image I just wanted to show up, pull up really quickly. Just for some context. So this is a Christchurch Cathedral of Montreal here.

And that's the KPMG building behind it. Which is 34 stories tall and was actually built in, uh, 1987. And this is just one image. There's lots you can Google Christchurch Cathedral Montreal and lots of images from different angles that all look pretty cool and show this building, uh, in a really beautiful spot in the downtown. And I think in some ways when you look at it, some of the buildings around it help bring focus to the building. And I guess, I guess we won't know. But for right now, how that's going to look. But when I look at this, uh, application, I think the potential to make some really beautiful housing buildings that fit the context better, maybe a little better than the KPMG glass, but that's from the 80s. So who knows what they were doing back then. Um, so I'm really supportive of this project overall. I think it's, it's a beautiful site.

It's an important, uh, important, uh, institution that wants to help out preserve their site and provide more housing. They've been at this project for, I think at least four years with many iterations and community work and consultations. And what I think staff of that an excellent job on working with them and trying to find a balance that, that works for the city. And it's kind of a monumental day that we finally get to move this forward. So I'm not that concerned that in the future, the housing is going to hurt the, hurt the site. I think it is going to support it. Uh, and help bring mixed use and to kind of revitalize that into a cathedral district or cathedral village. So, um, yeah, I'm happy to support today. Thank you very much. I believe everyone who wishes to speak has done so. I won't repeat all of the positive comments. I'll simply echo them.

The word that comes to mind when I look at this is elegance. And that is the sense of how a very potentially dire circumstance has been turned into a remarkable opportunity that will, I think, meet many important policies that the city has adopted and refreshed, but also provide an extraordinary opportunity for our residents'current and future to be part of something substantial, unique and iconic. And so for those reasons, I want to thank the proponents for sticking to this for so many years, our staff for being their guides and being obviously very well prepared and talented guides to see this for us today. It is a pleasure to support this. And I hope it's an example of what can be done in the face of challenge.

When many different interests get together for a common good. So thank you. All those in favor. That would be Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim. My Councillor Carried on at Councillor Loton myself and Councillor Thompson. In opposition, Councillor Hammond and to Councillor Gardner. And of course, noting that, uh, Councillor Coleman had been recused from the matter for his conflict. Uh, noting to, in opposition, that motion as amended has been adopted. And so we look forward to the rest of the process. Thank you very much, everyone. We will move on then to two items of new business. The first of which was placed on our consent agenda. That is item H1. That was the Council MemberMotion on Advocacy to extend local government climate action program funding. That was on consent, as I mentioned. And so that will return to us for final consideration at a future daytime council, which takes us to our last item of our committee agenda, which is item H2. Also a council member of

motion about increasing protections for Victoria Renters. We'd like to move that. Councillor Thompson's movieing, Councillor Cardona's second in Councillor Thompson, would you like to motivate? Um, yes, Mayor, thank you very much. Um, uh, renters are the majority of, uh, the residents of Victoria. And we are and have been for many years in a rental housing crisis. Um, we've had, as we've discussed here with staff many times, we've had a vacancy rate following downzoning blanket downzoning of the city a few decades ago. What that did was, uh, it stopped effectively a lot of apartments from being developed. Created a shortage. Uh, raised rents dramatically. And now, uh, a lot of renters are in the situation where, uh, if there is redevelopment of their properties, um, they face demoviction. And as I mentioned in the previous item, uh, that's been exacerbated by the fact that zoning for many decades has constrained apartment construction to areas where there's already apartments, um, we're starting to see that loosening off, uh, now with the policies developed over the

last few years, including, uh, are missing middle, and the provincial equivalent, uh, and our recent OCP. So, uh, things are starting to improve also partly due to other policy and economic developments across the city and across the country. Anyways, what we're seeing now is vacancy rate a little bit above three percent building. I think it's time to just keep going as we're going. Um, because we want that, uh, we want that vacancy rate up around four percent. And we wanted to stay there permanently. We don't want to go back to one percent or last vacancy rate. But in the meantime, we do have people who are suffering, uh, and have a lot of challenges when they're in their places, in their rental places, uh, and, um, as they're looking for places. Um, and so this, this motion is intended through those points that are on the screen, one through six, to address some of those problems that have been developed by that housing shortage that

the city created and the cities across North America have created. So, uh, several specific ones, and I won't, um, extend our meeting by going through each one of those. Um, this has been published for six days now, uh, people have had a good chance to look at it. Um, I may come back to some of those if they, if they seem to be controversial, but I note that this was pulled from consent for a question. So I'll just, uh, end my comments there. Thanks, Mayor. Councillor Codona is the secondary. Thanks very much, Mayor. And I will note that this is a request for report back.

And it also doesn't have a timeline on it. So it, it's actually unlikely that this would occur by the end of the mandate, which is actually fine because part of my interest in supporting this is thinking about a one year review on the work that we did around the OCP and the tenant protection during rate development bylaw. And remind me when we finalise EOC, was it October or November. Mr. Jones is October, was it not? Last October? Yes. October. So in October, it will have been a year. And I'm, I'm a bit like how we approach missing middle. I think it's smart to have a six month or a one year update to really understand if these new policies are working. I'm really want to know if our policies are delivering the market and non - market rental housing that we had assumed they would.

I really would like to know if the tenant protection bylaw is working. We had a very robust debate last year about whether or not the terms and conditions were sufficient. The amount of compensation that would go to displace tenants, et cetera, et cetera. I'd love to know, you know, after year one of that bylaw, how many people were displaced in staff's assessment is the level of compensation adequate or does it need to be adjusted? I think those are really pressing questions for the city right now as it grows intensifies. And then a couple of others, I also won't go through all of them, but the rental property standards of maintenance bylaw is a bylaw that precedes us that came out, I think in the previous mandate. It's my understanding that it lacks a little bit of teeth. So I think it would be interesting to have an analysis on what could be done to add a little bit more compliance enforcement to that bylaw to

ensure that renters are living in safe, inhabitable locations. And as temperatures rise through climate change, the question of comfort and going back to the conversation we had around the 26 degree Celsius max temperature, I think that that's becoming more germane to the conversation around standards of maintenance. I think in the past, it was more about, I don't know, whether or not you had a safe furnace or things like that. But now it's also about, are you actually safe in your unit and you're not going to overheat. So a number of these adjustments sort of piling up, uh, you know, they're not necessarily like connected to each other. But I think it will be good, whether it comes back in this mandate or the next mandate for council to have an update on whether or not our policies around renters are working. And if there's an opportunity for some, some greater policy interventions to ensure that we're supporting tenants into the level that we should be.

Thanks, Mayor. Thank you very much. Anyone else feels Councillor Hammond. Thanks Mayor. Actually, I was just going to leave this on consent, but being that the opportunity to, uh, bring that up. I was wondering if, um, I could get a little bit of a, an update on number three. It says the first year of the tenant protection during redevelopment bylaw, whether it may be necessary to strengthen it. I'm under the impression that on May of last year, I brought, I think, Councillor Gardner and I brought forward a Council Member motion asking that the, um, the protections and the monthly payments would go up substantially as far as 18 months for 18 years or more. And, uh, I ended up voting against it because, um, I found that it was so diluted that it wasted the time. That being said, in that motion, it stated that we would get a report back in six months. And since I just heard after the OCP. And so since

we heard from our director that that was in October, because I couldn't remember whether it was the October 2nd or whatever it was. Then so we're past the six months. So I was wondering being that we haven't got anything, and I don't mean to push on that, but is there anything you can tell us on what is happening with that request. Mr. Johnston. Thank you. Through the mayor, um, I appreciate the opportunity to provide an update. We have, um, completed or just are in the process of completing the analysis of the, uh, the bylaw, um, preparing a report back to council. And, um, we anticipate that could, that could be in the near term, um, don't have an exact date yet, but, uh, I appreciate that would likely come shortly to counsel. Okay. Right. Thanks very much. Um, for that through the mirror. Um, then I don't have any more questions about this. And it certainly seems fine. Again, I was going to leave it

in consent. But I was wondering if, um, I could make an amendment number seven. And so if I could get legislative services to put forward that amendment. Sorry, I shouldn't laugh at you. Seven. Go ahead, Councillor Heming. Please put a baby. Um, I just presumed looking at this that, um, uh, this is something in which all of us would be able to say how important in the fall election, um, tenants and renters are and how we want to make them, we want to give them more protection. And so I thought as opposed to waiting until the next term, um, that this would be particularly effective to be used for this election. Thanks Mayor.

Councillor Gardner is the second or anything that thank you very much. And I think it's a wonderful amendment. And I have to say even coming here and talking to people during the day, they all say, boy, these are sure. Election motions aren't they. And, and I mean, so let's, let's acknowledge it. It's true. And that's what it's all about. And, uh, we're getting a lot of those recently. So, uh, I quite appreciate this one. This amendment. Anyone else on the amendment? The amendment is in order. It is reflective directly of the rest of the one through six. So I would probably suggest a slight amendment to the amendment, but I'll leave that on the table.

Councillor Thompson. It's a, it's a, it's a fun stunt. And I'm glad that the mover and second aren't doing anything political these days. Uh, but I just wondered if I have a question for staff, um, good wording to use an election material. Does that get us into any kind of trouble if this does go ahead. I'm going to suspect that it would, uh, only because of the fact that, uh, it is more appropriate for us not to particularly use the work of the city, specifically for political reasons. What you do with that is up to you as an individual council member, but I was actually going to suggest an amendment to the amendment, which would actually end the sentence after election. Because use is not necessarily political and it would in fact, I think, protect the city, which is always my interest from being embroiled in any type of suggestion that the city itself has an operational unit, as a corporation, was involving itself in

election material. So I will move that amendment to the amendment that the, uh, words after the word election are deleted. And thank you, Councillor Hammond for a seconding that. So on the amendment to the amendment, which I think I'll just speak to that briefly. Thank you for a second to get leaves the portion that is most humorous and perhaps what I had interpreted as the intention bind it, but protects the city in removing any reference to election materials, which is always, I think, I think we should all have that in our front of mind as we're here projecting the city at all costs. So anything to add, Councillor Hemet on the amendment to the amendment.

Just to reiterate to always have the best interests of the city in mind and to protect our integrity. Indeed. So on the amendment to the amendment to delete the words that are struck through, all those in favor. Anybody oppose, dead is unanimous. Thank you. Uh, on the remaining portion of the amendment, anybody else. Oh my, okay. Councillor Kim, Councillor Cardona, Councillor Lothen on the remaining emotion, the amendment rather wording Council Kim. Thanks through the chair. I would flag that there is a good chance that the analysis won't be flattering and we should also be ready for that. That's all. Very true. Council Carano. Uh, thanks, Mary. I don't find any of this funny at all.

And I don't think it's good governance for us to be making these kinds of jokes. I oppose this dumb jokey amendment because the reason that there's not a timeline on this is that it will take some time. And if there's a timeline placed on it, it all of a sudden bumps to the top of staffs work plan. And they have other things to do. I mean, part of it was taking a head because the OCP was approved in October. So if there's going to be a one year analysis for a number of these things. And it sounds like the Tena Protection during redevelopment bylaws coming back sooner, in which case that's great. But the rest of it will take some time. And I think we need 12 months of data to actually do a proper analysis. So I don't find this funny. And I don't want to bump this to the top of staff's work pile at all. So I suggest we vote against this

and it should have been ruled out of order, frankly. Very good. Thank you Councillor Lotton. You had your hand up previously. Mr. Gamer, I was actually. On the motion as a whole. Okay. And hold that, just hold that thought. I'll come back to you. Uh, anyone else on the amendment. Councillor Loew. Councillor Coleman, writer, sorry. Well, just a question through you to staff. What does this do to your work plan. Mr. Johnston, if you had a deadline that essentially is, I guess September, October. How does that, what impact does that have? Through the mayor, maybe I'll start and then I'll turn it over to, um, manage your close to add any comments that she may have on the impacts. Um, but I just wanted to note that, uh, as one of the priority implementation actions coming out of the OCP, uh, staff are preparing a monitoring and evaluation framework, um, for near and long term monitoring of progress. Um, uh, which would include on all

of the new tools that, uh, that, that came into place with the OCP update, um, which would include a number of the things covered off in this motion. Um, and a baseline and early trends report, uh, was targeted for, uh, mid 2027, giving enough time to kind of see how these new policies and regulations have landed. So that was the sort of timeline that we are operating on right now based on the previous direction from council accelerating some of this work would have an impact on, on other, uh, work that is currently underway. Um, and I'll just turn it over to, nope, nothing to add.

So that's everything I've got. Anything else, Council Goleman? Well, yes. Um, this is exactly what we did to staff with the OCP in shortening it. And then it got shortened again. Um, and I think it leaves some holes. I think the request for the information is absolutely valid. But when we speed up timelines, um, it does have an impact on other staffing requests. And as someone who hasn't said publicly whether I'm going to run again or not, our job is still to manage city ordinances perfectly. It's not an election issue. It will become for all of us or none of us, if we all choose not to do. But at the moment, um, I don't think doing, laying this on staff to get back on a shortened timeline is fair. So I will vote against it. Thank you. I am actually going to request that anyone who has already spoken not to do so again, given the rest of our agenda that would therefore, um,

suggest that Councillor Gardner, unless you have a burning desire to speak twice, I'm going to go first to Councillor Thompson. Yes, you did. On the amendment. You did. You were the seconder in fact. And you spoke to it already. Oh, not after you cut off. That doesn't matter. You've already spoken to the amendment, which is the original. Quick learning. Mr. Thompson, go ahead, please. I did speak to the. No, you did not. Okay. Nope. I just wanted to say that we've removed the illegal bit, but we haven't yet removed the bad public policy bit. And so I'll be a voting against that. Okay. Councillor Gardner.

It's not amusing, but what's true is this. Many months ago I suggested that the motions be cut down in the number that come forward. And what have we seen posturing after posturing after posturing many of them? You want to maybe pick this someone out to say we don't want to go forward with it. I get that. But please, what do you think we've been doing for the last several months, the same kind of motion after motion and week after week Councillor Gardner, I'm going to at this point because now you are to degrading into invective, which we're trying to keep a little bit in the house. Thank you very much, Mayor. Anyone else who is desperately wanting to speak to this amendment. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor of the amendment.

Councillor how many Councillor Gardner. I take it that in opposition is Councillor Dell. Councillor Kim, Councillor Corona, Councillor Loton myself, Councillor Coleman and Councillor Thompson. So that amendment is not adopted noting that there are seven N opposition. Back on the main motion, I have still Councillor Lotin. Very quickly through you, Mayor. I just, I just want to note that recently I've had some correspondence with a residence that resident that's really having trouble in their building. And the rental property and standards of maintenance bylaw would really help. But it's very difficult to enforce. So I really appreciate that that number one is there. And we, the livability and securing affordability for renters, we all know this is critically important. And I'm just going to reiterate some, some stats that we all know. And I just, they've gone up a little bit, I think since we heard from the last, um, annual housing review, but 27 percent of renters in Victoria are in courthousing needs, spending more

than 30 percent of their, um, before tax household income on rent. And extreme core housing needs spending more than 50 percent of their before tax household income on rent. So this is actually critically important work. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else on the main motion, Beltrand. I'll say it's important work. And I would say that if when we came up with the OCP and we had the opportunity to give more protections for tenants, um, so that people are up to, what is it, 19 years or more in an apartment. Our plan only has and our bylaw only has up to six months. In addition to some other, um, for moving and other things along those lines. So we wanted more protection for tenants.

We wouldn't be suggesting that older buildings that have a lot of people who do have supportive housing in them now. And if not a supportive, I should say affordable housing in it now. We have a plan that kicks them out of their apartments. And then they go back into, um, market rents, which are much higher with maybe protections of coming back at which for many people would that would still be higher than what they were at. And for many people, even if it was slightly better, they were not going to upgrade, um, sort of just move their lives around, uh, for the second time in two years of their boats. So if we want real protections, we could have done it. We did not, or at least the majority did not. Thank you. Anybody else on the main motion. Also the main motion? Okay. I mean, motion seconded and discussed all those in favor Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim, Councillor Cardona, Councillor Lotten myself, Mr. Coleman,

Coster Hammond, Coster Gardner and Councillor Thompson. That is in fact unanimous. Uh, thank you very much. That would take us to a closed meeting. If that was required, but that is not required today at committee. And so I would look for motion to adjourn. Thanks Councillor Coleman, second by Councillor Kim. All those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Since we did get up not too long ago, let us just take a few minutes until stuff can convert us into our daytime council meeting.