Transcript: Committee of the Whole - 2026/09/24

Before we begin, we always like to start our work together by taking a moment to acknowledge and ground ourselves before we make difficult decisions. In the knowledge that the two nations on whose territories our city sits in its entirety have spent hundreds of years, many generations taking the time to be incredible stewards of these lands and the waters that surround them. It's so important for us to recognise not just to the work of the nations in the past, but the reality of their generosity in the future and in the present as they continue to work with us as we try and find those pieces of work and family and conversation and programs and projects and ideas that we believe will benefit everyone who has the opportunity to live here in this territory. We want to welcome back to the Song He's Council Jackie Albany, who was reelected at their by - election a couple of weeks ago. Jackie's had many years of service to community,

took a bit of a break, but then has returned to two council. And we welcome her back. We know that with her and the experience of all of the other members of council and the members of the nation, that there is much yet for us to do together. And we welcome the opportunity to do that work and to explore things that we haven't imagined yet, and to continue to work on the things that are in process. It's important for us to think a little bit about the impact of all of our decisions, not just on the nations, but on all of the people. We have the privilege to live here. And it's doing that, we always want to say thank you, and thank you to the nations. A bit of the language of their own history, and that is, of course, to say hi to Caseyama or Hydricus hymnequilia, which is to express our thanks, our gratitude, and to honour those folks who hopefully each

day take a moment or two to do something or say something or share something that makes someone else's life just a little bit better. I trick us, you have Nicole. I have no additional remarks to make, because the chair today, and I'm not aware of any late items that need to be added to the agenda. So that would take us on to the published agenda, and I would look first for a motion to adopt that agenda. Thank you, Councillor Coleman, seconded by Councillor Kim. And a discussions of the published agenda, Councillor Coleman. Just as you go into the consent. Oh yes, consent, yes, but that's next. So on the published agenda, any discussion, not seeing any older's in favor or anyone opposed. Not unanimous. So it does take us to the consent agenda, and I'll just read it out for the record and for the public's information was being proposed. In fact, are all of the five council member motions. I'll just note what they

are here. Item G1 is the council member motion with regard to a call to save critical provincial and federal rent supplement programs. Item G2 is a council member motion with regard to the commemorative signage recognising the 100th anniversary of the Real Canadian Legion. Item G3 is a council member motion with regard to support and principal for our community health clinic and licensed daycare at ICA's downtown site. Item G4 is a council member motion with regard to making Victoria the most earthquake prepared city in North America. And item G5 is a council member motion with regard to support for Victoria residents in lease hold buildings. When I would like to remove any of these items from the consented end of Councillor Coleman. Karen, I please remove G1 for comments. G2, because I need to recuse myself and G4 for questions and comments. Very good. Thank you.

Anything else. Not seeing anything else. So what that does then is it leaves on the consent agenda. Item G3, the council member motion in support in principle for a community health clinic and licensed daycare at ICA's downtown site. And item G5, the council member motion with regard to support for Victoria residents in lease hold buildings. So just those two items G3 and G5 on the consent agenda with someone like to move those please. Thanks Councillor Thompson is moving Councillor Coleman a seconding. All those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. And for the information of some of our residents in the audience. Item G3 has been adopted as part of consent and will therefore return as a matter of routine business to our next daytime council meeting, whether it's space available. I suspected that will be in two weeks. Moving on then to land at use matters. We have item F1. This is a Resorting application and development permit with variances application for 3075 Douglas

Street. So we'll let our staff come up and get settled. And once they are, we will turn it over to them.

And once you're ready, of course, we'd love you to remind us who you are, also for the public record. Thank you, Mayor. My name is Janar Opta, senior planner urban design with planning and development. I'm joined today by my colleagues. Charlotte Plain, manager of neighbourhood development planning. Of course, Andrea Hudson, assistant director, community or Citywide planning. And the number of other colleagues who supported and led the review of this SLANDU's item. And. Ms. Dr. Could you come in a little bit closer to your mic. You're a little bit quiet. You maybe pulled the mic closer to you. That'd be great. Is this better? It's a little better. Thank you.

And on behalf of staff, I'm pleased to present the rezoning application and the associated development permit with variances application for 3075 Douglas Street for your consideration. The proposal is for 22 - story mixed use building in Mayfair Town Centre. It would provide 208 purpose - built rental homes together with commercial uses at the ground for. The proposal also includes a publicly accessible plaza at Douglas and Finland Streets. Share the Man of these spaces for residents and indigenous - led artwork integrated into the building and public realm. The proposal also commits to a sustainable mobility package and a substantial offering of family - friendly homes beyond what our regulations require. Staff recommends support for the two applications associated with this project. The Rezoning would increase the permitted density from 1. 6 to 5. 39 floor space ratio and establish site - specific regulations for the development.

The development permit addresses the building in open space design. It also includes variances for housing mix height, setbacks, landscape area, rooftop structures, and parking. And briefly on the Legislative Authority, council may consider the rezoning housing commitments, development permit, and requested variances. Because the rezoning consistent with the official community plan and will permit a predominantly residential development, a public hearing is not permitted. However, notice is still required before council considers introductory readings of dislining bylaw amendment. The site is at the Southeast corner of Douglas and Finleyston Streets. It also fronts large street to the South. The properties within Mayfair Town Centre on the Douglas Street Rapid Transit Corridor and is near a future mobility hub. It currently contains a one - story commercial building and surface parking. The surrounding area includes large format commercial retail, unemployment uses. Mayfair mole is directly across Finley Street. Immediately to the east of the site is a multi - story commercial building with surface parking. There's also a 3. 05

metres city right away along the East Property line. A corresponding right away exists on the neighbouring property as well. The official community plan identifies Mayfair Town Centre as a major mixed use development and mobility node. The area is expected to provide housing, employment, commercial uses, public spaces, and strong connections to transit in active transportation. The proposal is generally consistent with that overall direction. The Rezoning and Development Policy provides more detailed guidance for the area. Within the core of Mayfair Town Centre, the policy generally anticipates buildings of up to 18 stories and densities of up to five four space ratio. The proposal is for 22 stories and for 5. 39 forest space ratio. So it exceeds both benchmarks. The policy also directs taller buildings towards Douglas Street and calls for active uses along Douglas and Finleys and Streets. Staff recommends support for the additional heightened density proposed. The site is in the core of May of Air Town Centre and is directly on the rapid transit

corridor at a key intersection. It's offering of a range of rental homes at great commercial retail spaces, public relevant mobility improvements. Put it in strong alignment with the official community plan and the rezoning and development policy objectives. City land use policies seek a minimum non - residential density of one floor space ratio in the Central part of Mayfair Town Centre. The proposal does provide street activating and usable commercial floor area along its three frontages on Douglas Finleyson and Large Streets, but does not meet the density target. The applicant has advised that pergeotechnical conditions limit the feasibility of a larger commercial podium that could help provide more non - residential density. The rezoning and development policy sports flexibility on the non - residential density target in favor of policy - aligned housing outcomes. Given the configuration of the AtGADE Commercial Space and its public relement interfaces, and this policy, staff recommends support for this land use policy departure. Now turning to housing, the proposal includes a

range of homes, studios, one bedroom homes, two bedroom homes, and three bedroom homes. Staff recommends securing all 208 homes as rental housing for 360 years or for the life of the building, whichever is greater. Approximately 30 percent of the homes would have two bedrooms compared to the required 20 percent. Overall, however, approximately 38 percent of the homes would have two or more bedrooms, staff recommend legally securing this family - family - family housing commitment. The project was initially advanced in anticipation of funding through the province's community housing fund. Following the suspension of that funding intake in February 2026, the applicants could not commit to specific levels of affordability. The application is therefore being assessed as a purpose - built market rental housing project. And at this time, no specific below market affordability commitment would be secured. I will now turn to the public realm. At Douglas M. Family Centre Streets, the proposed development agreement would secure a publicly accessible plaza, including a public art component. Commercial uses would frame the

plaza and animate this prominent corner. Along Douglas Street, an enhanced sidewalk space would include street trees, soil cells, and integrated rainwater management measures along with street activating commercial uses. Long family's in Street, the standard frontage works would include a separated bicycle lane and the floating transit stop enabled by a liprode dedication. This frontage is envisioned to have street trees, soil cells, and rainwater arrangement measures. It would also be activated by the residential lobby and that great commercial areas. The recommended development agreements would also secure the bicycle lane transition towards the neighbouring property to the east. Vehicular access loading and servicing would be located on Large Street. This keeps those functions away from the primary Douglas and Finleys enfrontages. There are less this frontage would also have street activating commercial uses, street trees, as well as a fool - width pedestrian crossing a large street at Douglas Street at the corner. And regarding mobility, the proposal includes residential parking spaces, mostly on the one below grade

parcade level. It also includes parking spaces on level one shared between residential visitors and commercial uses. The proposed parking spaces are fewer than what is required by our current parking regulations and would therefore require variances. Staff support the proposed variances based on the rapid transit accessibility of the site and the applicants commitment to a sustainable mobility package, including transit passes for residents and proposed car share and bicycle facilities. Accessible and van accessible parking would still be required at the bylaw rates and would not be varied. The sustainable mobility package includes a contribution of 1, 500 dollars per home towards ecopass or a similar transit program.

It also includes an electric CAR vehicle, car share vehicle enabled by at least 55, 000 dollars towards purchase and operation and dedicated parking space with charging usage credits for residents. The proposal means the requirements for long - term and short - term bicycle spaces. It would also include oversized spaces, e - bike charging, bike washer maintenance area, and the dedicated bike elevator. A variance would allow a larger number of double stack racks, subject to certain design criteria. Turning to build form, the proposal has a podium tower massing approach. Active commercial uses defined the base and above that, the tower is set back from the primary street frontages and is expressed as a relatively standard form.

Its strategic articulation, compact floor plates and facade compositions, um, help respond to the site's prominent corner location in alignment with the design guidelines. The podium expression, including the level two outdoor amenity area enclosure, is inspired by co - saleage building traditions. Indigenous - sled artwork is incorporated into the tower facades and into the corner plaza. The rooftop mechanical screening and elevator overrun are also integrated into the overall building composition. The primary exterior materials are metal panel and painted architectural concrete. Staff consider these materials to be generally durable and in alignment with the applicable design guidelines. The proposal includes a large outdoor amended area on level two with space for seating, play, gathering, food - growing and planting. There's also an indoor amenity room, and then joining terrace at the top floor on level 22. Most homes would not have individual balconies or patios. Therefore, the functionality and year - round comfort of the shared spaces is particularly important. In alignment with the advisory design panel

input, staff recommend adding an indoor amenity space beside the level two outdoor meded area with access to universal washroom. Exploration of design refinements I recommended for the outdoor amenity area. Staff also recommend an exploration of strategies for enhanced access to amenity, daily, and fresh air, uh, from dwelling units, particularly for larger homes. These explorations will be pragmatic strategic and focused and would not be anticipated to result in major departures from the key design moves proposed. The East Rider Way contains underground city infrastructure and also forms part of a required exit route. The corresponding right away on the neighbouring property may provide an opportunity for, um, uh, for future integration or interface, if and when that property is redeveloped. Uh, this site's specific condition offers design opportunities for access, planting, and outdoor amenity. Um, so the proposal in this space, um, would include a walkable removable surface, removable planting, lighting, controlled access, and treatment of the adjacent building elevation. Staff recommend, focused in the pragmatic exploration

of any further refinemus, the space is an extension of the proposals shared outdoor spaces while being mindful of city infrastructure needs. And while also not precluding opportunities to integrate or interface the space with future development next door. This open size condition on this site is mirrored on the neighbouring site. And the overall recommended urban design approach is for future development on both sides to meaningfully response to this mid - block condition six metres wide in aggregate. And turning to urban forest, the proposal would remove several protected trees on the property and a number of existing municipal frontage trees. Instead, uh, new irrigated boulevard trees are proposed on all three street frontages. The chief protection bylaw requires 12 by - log compliant trees on the property.

The current plan does not meet that requirement. Staff therefore recommend a strategic and focused exploration of tree planting opportunities on site, which can be approached in the coordination with shared amenity area refinements recommended. The principal variances relate to three bedroom homes, height, the large street rear yard setback, landscape area, rooftop structures, vehicle parking, and the double stacked bike cracks. Staff consider the variances portable based on the proposed housing mix site configuration integrated rooftop design, rapid transit, uh, accessible location. And the sustainable mobility package. In conclusion, staff recommends support for the Rezoning and Development with variances for this project. The proposal would provide 208 purpose - built rental homes, active commercial frontages, a publicly accessible plaza, indigenous - led artwork, and substantial public relembrant mobility improvements.

The proposal exceeds the heightened density, generally anticipated by policy and provides less non - residential floor area than targeted. Staff consider these departures to be supportable based on site's location. It's policyland housing offerings and anticipated overall design outcomes. The remaining design refinements can be addressed in a focused manner through the recommended conditions towards upcoming process milestones, of course, subjective council decision and support. That concludes the staff presentation. We're happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let's start with questions. Councillor Hammond. Thanks, Mayor, and thanks for the presentation. Was this originally supposed to include 88 Affordable units. Ms. Truckdom. I'm through the mayor. Yes. So, uh, the application was received last year, and this was prior to the changes. Or at least we understand suspension of the community housing fund. So while that was still contingent on the availability of funding, uh, the intent of the applicant. I believe it still is the intent of the applicant if funding becomes available. But

currently, it is not possible to commit to it due to funding uncertainties. So at the moment, we, well, and a prayer, we are voting on something that is as is with no affordable housing at the moment. Correct. Uh, through the mayor, so given the circumstances, but still, given the commitment to rental tenure. No, no, that's all good. That's all good. Yeah. Thanks very much. So the reason I'm asking this is that the parking study calculated 120 market rental units and 88 affordable units. But because the current application no longer secures those 88 units as affordable housing, in fact, it's not on there at all other than a hope. Has staff assessed the parking demand using the current market rental assumptions. Mr. Through Mayor, perhaps, um, our colleagues at Engineering and Tresportation could speak further to this question. Mr. Doyle, is that you or is Mr.

Kenney online. Through the mayor, I can confirm that the transportation to van management suite took into account the final configuration of the housing, which did not include the affordable. So the market rental, uh, reflects the housing or the transportation to bad management measures that the city found consistent with other applications. So just to be clear, the current recommendation did take into account the fact that there is no affordable housing in this current model. Ty, it's correct. Maybe on that, then I can just ask, was there any change in any of the, um, transportation amenities or transportation requirements? Was there any change from when it was expected to be 88 and what it is? And now that the housing.

Our colleagues at Transportation and Engineering, uh, might be able to speak to this in greater detail. I think they're looking. Mr. Doyle, do you happen to know that? Through the mayor, we reviewed the TDM package and considered the offsite works, including the Large Street works and the bike lane on Finleyson. And we believed it was, uh, it was, it was, it was a good refler package. Okay. And through the mayor, just to be clear, was there any, when this was coming forward, it affordable and therefore, um, there might've been less demand for the parking. Was there any plan of the TDM that was different than what it is now? Ms. Rectum. Through the mayor, I'm sorry. I'll just inquire with my colleagues. I wasn't involved through the steps of the negotiation, just aware that we supported the final configuration. Sure. Oh, I'll get back to you. Anything else? Okay. Any other questions. Councillor Coleman. Well, just a follow - up on that in a slightly

different, one of the TDM measurements that was brought to playering this is the 1500 dollars per unit. How does that actually work out? It's 312, 000 dollars. When the money runs out, there is an impact. It's expected that the residents will then purchase bus passes. Have we adjusted that? And it may be an ancillary question for Mr. Doyle to ask to his staff. I don't know. Mr. Dwell? Uh, through the mayor of the intention of the EcoPOS fund is to provide new residents, uh, chance to establish habits and of using transit. So yes, it's true. The fund does run out after some time. But the hope is that the residents have ingrained some, some, some better use of the transit. But thank you for that.

This subsidiary question would be the eco pass. Is for new residents. At some point the turnover in the residential capacity. And at some point new residents coming in will be told that there's, they're on their own for bus passes. Is that, is my assumption correct. Mr. Joyle? Through the mirror, if I'm not exactly sure if it's, say someone comes in and leaves within a few months while that, uh, 1500 dollar per unit is still there My presumption is it does continue on to, to the next tenant. Okay. Thank you. I've just received confirmation of that from a colleague. Thank you. Okay. Do you have that information now. On the previous question of the Affordable Housing?

It was a relatively small impact that the parking requirements from removal of the Affordable elements. So we did really see across the board a very strong package of transportation demand management measures. So considered it, uh, fine. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lotenciller Gardner. Good morning. And through you, Mayor. I'm just, I'm curious about how much the pausing or the repacing of the community housing fund affected this project. Like in addition to affordability commitments, uh, I think also, uh, based on staff understanding working with the applicant, uh, there was a certain timeline in mind. So I think that also got affected by deposing of this. And we understand also from the applicant team that, uh. This may result in the exploration of other opportunities, other development scenarios, uh, for the, for the site exploration of other funding, uh, avenues, uh, from provincial or federal governments, uh, could be partnerships with development partners in some form, uh, to advance this forward. So at a high level, those I

can say, but perhaps, um, my colleagues, Ms. Wayne and also, um, Mr. Sauer, the manager of housing, uh, might have additional comments. Is Wayne. Thank you, Susa Mayor, Charlotte Wayne, Manager of Napolevelment Planning. I think just to add to Mr Octum's point there, I think the key matters for councils'consideration is the supportability of the rezoning and the development permit with variants whilst we, of course, um, hope that development prospers go forward. Staff doesn't consider, um, funding as part of our consideration for the rezoning review of the application itself. Okay. I guess just to go down a little bit deeper, um, because this project was planning to use the community housing fund. So when that was removed around February or so things changed a lot. So did that effect. The height and density, how did it affect the proposal that were considering today? And I understand that we're not going to, we're not projecting like if there is more funding that comes in for affordable housing,

things are going to change. We're looking at what we're looking at today as just a purpose built rental. But I'm, I'm curious if that affected the height and density around the current project. Just to be clear, Councillor Loughton has correctly identified the fact that this is not a material consideration. But it is of interest to counsel, I think. So if you'd like to venture an opinion, you're welcome to, but you're not required to. Through the mayor, the former development, uh, remains substantially, uh, same. Very, very close to what was initially proposed after the inquiry stage. So yeah. Okay. Thank you. That helps. Thanks, Mayor. That's it for me. Councillor Gardner. Thank you. And thank you for the presentation. Um, just some questions going back in time and forward. Uh, what was the height limitation under the burnside gorge LAP local area plan. Ms. Rectum. Uh, through the mayor, prior to Burnside Gorge Lorea plan, uh, personally, neighbourhood plan rather, uh, being repealed and replaced, uh,

by the rezoning and development policy in October 2025. It would have been 12 stories. Thank you. Um. What is the height limit in stories or metres under the OCP. Mr. Thrim Mayor, our official community plan, uh, does not specify numerically, uh, density or, or height in a number of stories or metres, uh, but, uh, finer grain guidance comes from the review zoning and development policy, uh, in there, the density, the envision density, uh, for this part of Mayfair Town Centre is five floor space ratio and the height is 18 stories. Uh, but without a numerical number of metres. Sorry. What was that? I missed last sentence. 18 stories with 18. Thank you. I could hear.

Okay. Uh. No, it's a very high risk structure. And, um, not many years ago. Apartment complexes of 10 to 15 stories were considered a challenge for the fire department with some training actually being the building that I live in. So this is much higher. So does the fire department have equipment that could deal with major fires with such a high tower. Chief Hutkinson. Thank you for the question through the mayor. Um, verified in high rise is a very specific and unique challenge. Um, it is less to do with equipment and more specific to do with your strategies and tactics and how you deploy resources to the upper floors in order to manage those structures. Uh, the Victoria fire department went to head with a very comprehensive high rise operations, uh, training manual that we just updated last year. We worked with industry experts from back east. And we were actually featured at the high rise firefighting symposium in New York last year. So very proud

of the work we've done. We don't have any concerns at this time. Great. Thank you. Cause I think that is a question that I sometimes hear. Uh, the transition along Douglas from 0 to 20 stories and then 3 stories is actually quite harsh. And what were the, were there more considerations maybe for giving 4 to 6 stories kind of stepped in. Excuse me. And so I guess my real question is a step back are already, uh, suggested within the OCP 2050. And how does this particular, um, project vary or does it, is it the same as in the guidelines in OCP 2050 for high rises.

Structum. Through the mayor, so. Based on the general urban design guidelines, uh, which applies to this project, the step backs are very much aligned. In fact, more than the recommended step backs in most cases. So staff, consider in that respect, um, this project to be very much aligned with the design guidelines. On all sides, are they? So I thought the one picture, again, just looking at your photograph, the one picture seemed very vertical. Without, uh, which one was it? I'm thinking of the photograph. Yeah, there was one that looked very, that wasn't that one. What's the other face. That one. That one. Where'd it go? Uh, through the mayor, uh, and, uh, to Councillor Gardner's question, I wanted to switch to a floor plan if that's okay. Uh, that shows the, um, that, that, uh, portion of the site. In that case, on Douglas Street, yes, the tall form does come down to the floor, uh, to, to grade. But in that case, again, that condition is moderated

by canopies and other, other features of that nature. But, uh, on the other side, uh, there should be, um, a tall form set back from the edge of the podium. But there isn't any, on Douglas itself, which is the most visible. It is not there on the Douglas side. So there is no setback. So what would have been the setback on the OCP? What is it. Through the mayor, our official community plan does not provide this granular guidance, uh, on, on TOL form, relationship of a tall form to a podium or a lowerized component, uh, it is generally encouraged in our design guidelines. As in as an indicative kind of dimension, but without asking, without establishing that there is a requirement, uh, oftentimes about three metres or between two to three metres, uh, might be considered, uh, a setback is being provided. And were they considered here. That's correctum through the mayor. Yes, based on staff working with the applicant, uh, starting with the pre

- application inquiry stage, uh, yes, those were explored by, by the applicant, uh, various locations for the tall form. And this was the final result that they arrived at. So a number of setback conditions were explored during that process. Um, at the same time, the location of the tall form is in many ways conditioned by a parcade level. Uh, so there was that constraint. And also, um, additional consideration of, uh, the location of the TOL form in relation to the neighbouring property, any potential impacts on the development viability of the neighbouring property, um, and of course, its relationship to the street, imparting a sense of scale, um, and reasonable transitions to, um, to the streetscape.

So with all of these, uh, considered, uh, the applicant, uh, work with staff, uh, on a number of tests, explorations, if you will, and derive that, uh, at this approach, uh, that's striped to balance all of those considerations. This way and you wanted to weigh in. Thank you through the mayor. Um, just a point of clarification as Mr. Octum said the, the OCP doesn't provide the guidelines in terms of step backs for tour buildings. This comes from the design guidelines, but also the zoning itself does include requirements for setbacks as well above a certain story. And I did just, uh, have a look at the, um, technical review of the zoning by law and the comparison to the proposal. And the proposal is consistent with the upper story setbacks are required under the zone. It is consistent. It is consistent. Yeah. Okay. With that, so.

Okay. Thank you. Cause, um. Douglas is still the real face of the building for a longer than the public. So that's why I wanted to know if the discussion, especially since what we did on the duck building and others. So thank you for those, that's all my questions for now. Thank you. Any other questions. I have one question. Do you have a question or are you going to move the motion? Well, I can divide. It. Uh, well. Okay, go ahead, ask your question. I have one more question before. I think I just have one more question, which is around the design. And that is the bit. Of, I've just lost it here about, Oh yeah, explore more broadly available resident access to private outdoor amenity.

Through balconies or patios, particularly for larger homes. I wonder query that. Can we go back to the. Image that shows the rooftop amenity. And I'll just note that I think Mayor and I were the only ones who were at the opening of the Spencer block, council, weren't we? Yes, I think so. And, um, boy did that amenity knock my socks off. That was a proposal that didn't come to our council, went to the previous council. So I didn't know much about it. And it has this massive interior courtyard with fake grass and ping pong. And patio, sorry, um, planters for plants, et cetera. The only other building I know of that besides dispenser block in the city is the apartment on the corner of Vancouver and Pandora above savon that also has a really just incredible elevated interior courtyard that's just so stunning. And this one kind of reminds me of that. And so I guess my question is how do we, I mean, this,

how do we balance the affordability of the housing with the need for the amenities? This to me looks like an incredible amenity that's going to be way better than a two square metre patio that might drive up costs. And I don't know, I'm speculating here. That's why I want to ask staff. But if you're living in a small apartment, are you more likely to go down a couple of flights of stairs, the elevator and go to this like gigantic shared amenity? Or are you more likely to spend time on your little patio? And what I noticed that this Spencer block is that some of the quote unquote at grade units, because I think it's actually on the second floor, but they appear to be at grade, have little patios. And the ones on the third, fourth, fifth floor have sometimes those kind of grading that kind of lame. They kind of look like a patio or a balcony, but they're not. So I, I, I'm

mindful of the fact that we're trying to keep housing affordable. So how, how do you balance those two things, especially given that there's this massive and apparently quite, quite generous and incredible shared amenity. Mr. Rectum. Through the Mayor, our design guidelines applicable to the site, encourage both. Uh, so, um, of course, uh, that is the basis of staff conversations with the applicant on the topic. But of course, it's a conversation rather than, um, and ask a requirement. Exactly. Uh, from staff. So, um, of course staff are aware of the, of the qualities of the, of the level to outdoorminity area, uh, it's size. Uh, but still, uh, on the base of our design guidelines, uh, it is of course wonderful and ideal when both options are available. So, um, but I mentioned it's a conversation with the applicant. We hear limitations. That might be arising from a number of factors. Uh, so, uh, it is for that reason, uh, recommendation to explore this further is

pragmatic and strategic does not need to result in balconies. It could be larger fenestration with guardrails. Like Juliet balconies for that reason, uh, and conversation with the applicant deliberately formulated as an explore type of an item recommendation. If it is possible, um, in conversation with the applicant within the, um, uh, within the context of this project. Okay. Thanks. And maybe just one last question, which is the zoning bylaw amendment would obviously outlive the DP. The DP is applicable for two years only. So even if the DP were to lapse that zoning change is still on the books. Is that correct? Directo. Through the mayor. Uh, yes, correct. And, uh, if necessary, uh, staff, uh, might be able to, uh, work on extension of the development permit for two more years under a delegated development permit application. If so, if this is needed for the, for the project to happen, uh, but beyond that, correct it would, the DP would labs. Okay. Thanks. I didn't know

about DP extensions. Thank you. And one question somewhat related to that last question. And that's more specifically in your rezoning application recommendation, which is to C sub three. Exactly on that point. It does say explore more broadly available resident access to private outdoor amenity, etc. My question specifically is, is it explore and if the exploration does not allow there to be such a change without materially changing the design? Or is it require. Because there were two very different verbs in my understanding. Through the mayor. It was deliberately, um, proposed to be an explorer, uh, explore the operative. We're advaded and require. Again, all too. And these, these conditions are in there in consultation with the applicant as well with the shared understanding that, um, let's try, but, uh, it does not need to be an absolute requirement. A CNE QAnon condition for the project. So as long as there's been sufficient exploration to the satisfaction of the director of planning that that meets that requirement,

is that correct? Yes. I'm seeing nodding. Yes, Ms. Wind, very good. All right. That was my only question. Uh, anyone else have any questions. If not, would someone like to move these staff recommendation? Councillor Thompson is moving. Councillor Kim is second and councillor Thompson. Any comments? Uh, yeah, I'll be brief Mayor. Thanks very much. And through you, thanks very much to staff for the, uh, report and the discussion. Um, I think that, uh, it's a great project. It's a striking, beautiful building. It's much needed housing in an area that could use it. It's going to result in more eyes on the street. I'm not particularly worried about the lack of balconies. I think as everybody who drives around town can see a lot of balconies, our storage for disused exercise equipment. Some people live with them. Some people live without them. Uh, it's a choice.

Um, I had the pleasure of, uh, living in my university days on an enclosed balcony. But yeah, not everybody has to have balcony and city councils need to stop telling people how they have to live. So. Um, I think, uh, but going back to it, the staff report is very clear. The reasons for the recommendation. And I'm happy to see this going forward. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Kim is the secondaire. Nothing to add councillor current. I don't know. Yeah. I, I'm supportive of this one. I'm, I'm still a little bit confused by it. I mean, I know it comes from macola, which is usually, uh, a non market affordable housing provider, the level of affordability here for me is a little bit, uh, of a question and echoing what my colleague said, the pause on CHF and some of the financing coming from PC housing. Well, all of it really. I think could be a real challenge here. And that's why I was asking

the question about how long the DP is last. If the DP is renewable, it gives them a four year window to try to get something started. But it's just incredibly challenging right now. And the construction environment is really challenging. Both for market and for non - market. So I think I wouldn't be surprised if the action here in the next couple of years. But as noted, the zoning changes would outlive any DPs. But that's said, I think whether this ends up as deeply subsidized or near market or whatever it is, I do think that this is the right place for that kind of density. It's right on Douglas for those of us around the table who are transit commissioners. We just announced, when was it?

Yesterday, the day before Tuesday. The big moves that are coming, which includes long - term planning for, uh, light rail linemen along Highway 1 up Douglas and out to the West shore. There's also planning for the Inn line. It's hard to say when exactly that'll happen. But I'm trying to think long term, not three or five years, but 15, 20, 40, 50 years. Eventually the rapid transit along Douglas. And this is going to be the place for density. People will be able to hop on light rail or if not, then BRT. Get up to uptown, get to downtown, get to, it's a short walk to TOPAZ park, uh, where you can play pickleball on our 11 brand new courts. Three of what you're dropping. The rest you can book. I digress. This is the place for density. If we're not building density along Douglas, then really where we talking about building density. Also the RiftOp amenity looks stunning having just visited the Spencer block. I

just, I can't say enough good things about it. It was just, I didn't know it was there partly, right? Because we didn't approve that development. So I went up there. I was like, wow, this isn't an oasis right in the middle of the city. Yes, the noise and some emissions along Douglas, but I think people would be able to go up onto this rooftop amenity someday and feel some respite from living in the city. So I think the design is frankly better than nine - tenths of what comes to our desk. And so even though I have some questions about how quickly this is going to happen and the level of affordability and the financing, I don't think it's entirely material to our decision today, which is really about land use. And I think the land use can support this level of density there in the designs. So thanks to staff for working with the proponents and I'm happy to see it move forward. Thank

you. I'm going to go back to Councillor Kim as the secondary who has something to add at this point. I'll return to the speakers list. Thanks, Mayor. Um, through the chair, I won't echo all of the wonderful things that folks are saying about this. I'll just flag something that has kind of just been tickling in the back of my brain in a way, I don't particularly love, which is, um, what we're seeing with the trees happening on that site coupled with the fact that this is, uh, very dense rental along a transit heavy corridor just raises some air pollution concerns for me, which I understand are kind of more like, this is the reality of the situation. What can we do about it in this scope? But I do raise that as a concern, particularly because I, um, because of this rental being specifically for indigenous residents, um, yeah, just a real public health concern on that. But the relevance to the land use matter

here is outside of the scope. And I recognise that. Thanks Mayor. Thank you very much. Councillor Loten and then comes for COME Thanks to you Mayor. I just, I agree with the comments about it being the appropriate amount of density for a transit corridor. I think that is the vision for the future for the transit corridor. Um, it's an outstanding building. It's going to be a landmark attraction. I think it's incredibly special with the indigenous artwork incorporated into the architecture. I don't think I've seen anything quite like that in Victoria besides the teles building. And so that is very special. And although this is not germane to the conversation today, it was very upsetting. I would call it a travesty that the community housing funding was repaced. And so it was cut out of this project. This is a time when we need to be supporting and making affordable housing projects possible. It's not a time to go backwards on that. Um, it's a travesty.

And I think it must have come as a shock and an incredible disappointment to the proponents. And I share that feeling. It's an outstandingly huge missed opportunity in this project. And it's unfortunate. And I hope the way in the future that that comes back. But again, not germane to our decision today, but I just wanted that on the public record. Thanks to staff for all your work. Appreciate it. Thank you, Councillor Coleman. Thank you. Um, let's start with the aside. Repacing is a phrase that's used by, uh, other orders of government to say, we'll think about it later, um, to the development community, that means it's gone for the moment. I need to move forward.

So it's a convenient term to say I'm not going to deal with it now. And I think we need to be more honest about that. To the application specific, um, it's fascinating to me that 22 stories anywhere would normally get people going absolutely crazy. Um, 22 stories in an area that allows 12 would certainly gain some, uh, traction. In this case, both the ADP and the burnside gorge land use committee have come out in favor of this saying, it's absolutely appropriate. Yes, it's next to transit corridor. Um, I'm not particularly fussed about the balcony side of it. I think the amenities actually make up for that. What I think is startling not just because the burnside gorge land use committee wrote two letters in support about a two months apart, I think. But I think it signals the importance of this area adjacent to a major commercial hub and the transit lines to say that this is the appropriate move forward for this. The concern

I have is on the parking side. It's not enlarged enough concern to move me away from this. But in the parking report, they talk about the appropriateness of the parking that is being supplied and in conjunction with the on - street opportunity. And that becomes the externality that's outside the thing. At some point it's used in the residents, the street side parking, which is owned by all of us. Will be used by others. And the residents who say, well, no, that's my parking area. We'll then come back and apply for residential parking only on the side streets. And that's just a conundrum that we're creating in the future. It's not enough to stop this moving forward because I think this is actually a very good application. And I am so pleased to see the neighbourhood.

Adopt something that's actually twice as large, almost twice as large as would be expected in the area. But they're saying this is the appropriate place for this density. I'm quite supportive, although I think we're creating a parking issue down the road. Councillor Gardner. Thank you Mayor. The design is great. Um, but I'm also concerned about insufficient parking not only for cars, but for bikes. I think there's going to be problems in both going down the road, that it's insufficient. And we're going to get spillover in other areas. And, uh, so that is of concern. Uh, but given the location, the increased density is very supportable.

And, um, I note that the, again, that the burnside gorge calic supported. And I recall the creation of the burnsite gorge look area plans and how they had to do in the segments. And there was low participation rate of residents in that area because there were very few residents. And, um, and so that was, I think a consideration of the burnside gorge, uh, CALU group. And, uh, I know we're not supposed to consider the intent or perspective tenants in any proposal. However, I have a few of them call the housings right around me. And they're managed so well. So I'm very hopeful that the challenges that will come once this building is occupied will be met by the MOCOLA group itself. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Hammond. Thanks Mayor. I'm often reluctant to sport buildings that go beyond what our planning policies contemplate, but context matters. This site is in the core of the Mayfair Town Centre on the Douglas Street and rapid

transit corridor surrounded largely by commercial operations. It's not a, it's not a 22 - story tower being dropped into a low - density residential neighbourhood. It also provides 208 secured rental homes and active commercial space at street level for those reasons. I can support the additional height and density here. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Nope. I think you're seeing this likely bank supported by the majority, if not all council. I would just echo some of the positive comments just by noting that I do think that this is exactly the right application in the right place. And the interesting thing about this for me is that with all of the assets that have been identified by staff and council members, uh, it really is a building that's being designed for the future. And we don't very often see that quite so transparently, but I think when this is built, one hopes it will be built.

It's not up to council. Or the city to ensure the building. It is simply to permit it and encourage it and to apply our other policies to ensuring that it's as possible and easy as one can imagine. But in the meantime, this is a fairly inspirational design. And I think what it has providing for the community, uh, around the rentals, around the diversity, around the open space, you know, with others have said, it's quite remarkable. So I'm quite happy to support this. And I hope that it's an example for others in examining what's possible. And what is clearly going to be in the future a very dense corridor. So happy to support him. Not seeing any other comments. So all those in favor of the staff recommendation, anybody opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much, Staff, for that excellent presentation. And thank you to the applicant for being a little more visionary than sometimes we see. A moves us on to a number of

items of new business. All of them were originally on the consent agenda, but councillor Coleman has pulled a few for comments and questions. So we'll start with G1. That is the council member motion. A call to save critical provincial and federal rent supplement programs. This was proposed by Councillor Loton and seconded by myself. Councillor Coleman, you had said that you had some comments. Would you like Councillor Lauten to move and comment first? Sure. Very good. Councillor Loden? Go ahead. Why don't you present this move to 2 over to you? Sure. Thanks. And through you mayor. Red and supplements are the most cost effective. And easiest way to move people into housing from the street and also to prevent homelessness. And there's two really important streams for rent supplements that are at risk. So the supported rent supplement program runs through the province. It works in combination with the Canada British Columbia housing benefit. So it takes rent supplements from that. And uses. Add supports to

that to help people find pathways off the street. So what does that look like in reality? It's people moving into market rentals with rent supplements with supports attached to it. So it's an alternative for cases of lower acuity that don't actually need supportive housing that can stay in market rents with some level of support. And also the Canada British Columbia Housing Benefit supports people just purely that can't move into market renting because of financial reasons. So the shelter allowance, pardon me, the shelter allowance rate for people on income assistance or disability in British Columbia is 500 dollars a month is 1, 700 dollars. So there is a huge gap there. So that's what these rent supplements do. They make a lot of sense. They, and they help us again prevent homelessness and help to move people off the street. Additionally, um, the city has, it's going to be announced later this fall, but we have a positive transfer pilot program that's coming. And these rent

supplements are really going to be important to that. Um, if we don't have the rent supplements from the provincial and federal governments, then we won't be able to have the funding to move people along. So there is about a hundred people in support of housing right now that are stuck there just over financial reasons. They don't require the support anymore. And this, this project, the city led positive transfer program would work with light supports to help people maintain that housing, but the rent supplements are really key to making that, that program flourish and work, which could ultimately wind up in approximately a hundred new spaces for people who are currently experiencing homelessness because the idea is that people move from supportive housing into independent living from shelter into supportive housing. And then from the street into shelter. So it is a very important way to help move people off the street in Victoria. And this doesn't, it clearly, it's going to be life changing for

people experiencing homelessness. But this also supports first responders, police, bylaw, frontline, mental health and outreach workers and residents and businesses that are affected by unsheltered homelessness. So this is a huge benefit for our entire community. And these rent supplements are key to it. Thanks. Thank you very much. Um, I will just add, as the secondary, not something substantive to that because I concur with everything that's been said, uh, but you will note, of course, that this particular motion and a number of the other advocacy motions that will be considering today, uh, do specifically, uh, note particular, uh, individual as their premier and or various ministers given the current, uh, current suspension of the provincial government as a legislative body. I will take it upon, um, advice that these letters be sent to the positions rather than the individuals, uh, and will also follow up after the provincial election, uh, with whomever leave instructions. So remember what happens to be in the chair to then, uh,

secondly, reiterate the same letters to whoever becomes the identified holders of those particular positions so that the, um, ideas and recommendations of council are heard both in the general and in the specific term. Councillor Coleman. Thank you. Um, and I think the direction is absolutely correct. I'm not sure about the vehicle we're using. Earlier this year, I worked with some representatives from local co - ops. And they were trying to see an extension of the FC HI, which is the federal community housing initiative, which was set to expire in 27. Um, and we worked with local federal reps and actually asked if we could present to their government caucus meeting provincial caucus meeting in the similar way that you, your worship, presented to that caucus group on municipal initiatives for South Vancouver Island in June, I think. So ask that. In fact, that program, and it applies to rents ups for co - ops and not for profits has been extended by five years starting

in 2028. Uh, just recently. I know that the national association of cooperative housing is looking to try and make out a 10 year extension. And I don't think you're going to ever go to a government and say, make this permanent because governments change. But I do think that, uh, this is fine as it goes, but it's a letter to the upper end of the system. And I think going back to local MPs or MLAs as they change to say, can we actually make presentations at your local COS level makes more sense than perhaps a series, I'm sure that whoever is the premier and the prime minister as he is now get thousands of letters. And it just goes into a stack. And I think the local direction may be a better use for this. I support this, but I just think the other pillar that has to go with it is the local advocacy piece.

Thank you for that. And I would just note that, uh, journalism. If this is adopted or motions like this are adopted, it is the custom of the mayor's office to copy them to the local MPU or MLAs as seems appropriate. So I'll just make sure that happens. If this is a supportive councillor Thompson and then Councillor Kim. All right. Thanks Mayor. I'll be brief on this too. Uh, strongly support this. I've been meeting with downtown service providers for monthly for four years. And this regularly gets discussed how useful these are, um, to help improve the flow through the Affordable Housing and supportive housing systems, uh, and get people on their way. Uh, and it's far, far cheaper than building affordable housing, which costs. On average, 500, 000 dollars per suite. And we're not talking about granite countertops. We're talking about the cheapest possible builds that are legal. Um, thanks for pointing out the idea about the, um, who this needs to be addressed to. I

was going to make a motion to that effect. But I guess you're just going to write the letter properly with the understanding of the intent. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Councillor Kim. Thank you. Through the chair. A question to you actually. This letter that will be written. Will you be incorporating some of the points and commentary that council is making around the table. Great. Then I will add my two cents. Um, this also supports, uh, as director Rantucci taught me in a conversation, the regionalization of homelessness as well and allowing, um, folks who are experiencing homelessness in Victoria to then enter the private rental market throughout the region. Um, moreover, a sort of ancillary effect is we hear often about homeowners who cannot afford life in general in Canada, as it were. Um, due to fixed incomes, uh, rising cost of maintenance of their properties, so on and so forth. And I really do see this as a potential avenue for, um, increasing household revenue

and supporting these, um, these folks to hold onto their homes. And while also providing a roof over the heads of folks who need it the most. So I hope that you can manage to wiggle that into the letter somehow. Thank you. Do my best. Anyone else. Yes. Go ahead and count security. I'll just say very briefly that over at the, I strongly support this by the way over at the CRHC, we have been building deep subsidy housing like MADO on the green, which is coming. which is open now in James Bay. However, there's just absolutely massive demand for those deep subsidy homes. And one of the challenges, I'm not going to say the problem, but one of the challenges is that most of the deep subsidy units are quite small. And they're essentially little studios, which doesn't isn't suitable for everyone and certainly not for people who are in a family situation. So rent supplements are in a sense of kind of deep subsidie version of housing in market housing. But it does provide

more opportunities and different living arrangements such as one bedroom, two bedroom, et cetera. So that shouldn't be lost. I've actually, when I've done tours of some of our CRD buildings and see the DEAV subsidy units, they are really quite small. So that, that is something that we should keep in mind. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anyone else on this one? Once again, another comment. So it's been moved in 2nd. All those in favor. Does anyone want to pose. Is unanimous. Thank you very much for that. That takes us on to item G2, a council member motion with regard to commemorative signed recognising the 11th anniversary of the RS rebell Canadian legion. I understand that Councillor Coleman is in fact a member of the legion. We therefore properly has asked for this to be pulled. So he may recuse himself. I am not only a member of the legion. They came to me and asked advice on this. Very good. So two excellent reasons. So we

will note that Councillor Coleman is recusing himself to avoid the appearance of bias or conflict. Let's see departs. She has done. I'm happy to move this. Councillor Kim is seconding. I just very briefly, I think it's pretty self - explanatory. Uh, this is a very modest attempt to recognise the Legion's history. It is wildly successful in the sense that it has admics something that we did a few years ago, actually, um, I believe it was in the last council where we put similar commemorative medallions almost on a variety of poles along Shelburne Street to complement what's also done and along Shelbert in Santage. So this is specific to the 11th anniversary and two particular locations, one immediately around the perpatchy legion in one adjacent to the legislature on grounds that are owned by the city.

It's a very modest price, which Mr. Doyle has assured us is within the capacity of the existing budget of the engineering, um, department. And so. On the same one has any questions. Go ahead, Councillor Carter. Thank you. I think it's a, it's a great project. I just have a question, especially given the location being chosen around the centre taff. So was Legion branch 127 associated or kind of spoken with? Yes, they are. That's the, um, 127 is the provincial government employees legion. Uh, they have been consulted and they're very excited about it too. Okay. I just didn't know why they weren't included at all because they're just a few feet away from where they're going to be installed. They were part of the conversation, but they didn't express any desire to be named in the particular motion, but they have been part of it and they have approved it. Great. Thank you very much. Absolutely.

Yeah. They're quite excited actually. Uh, okay. Any other questions on this one. Oh, okay. All those in favor. Anybody opposed. That is unanimous. Councillor Coleman, you're welcome to return. Thank you very much. That takes us on to G3. This was the council member of motion in support in principle for a community health clinic and licensed state COR at ICA's downtown site. That was left on the consent agenda. And so that will return to a daytime council meeting in the near future. Likely no later than October the 8th. And that does take us on then to item G4. A further council member of motion with regard to making Victoria the most earthquake prepared city in North America. Council Dell, you've moved this. Would you like to move this again? You prepared this. Sure. Um, just before you go on, Councillor Cardona, you were seconding, wouldn't be second. Okay. Councillor Coleman pulled this for a question. But why don't we give councillors Dell and Caradona a moment

to speak if they should show choose. Sure. I'll just give this a brief introduction. I tended to be left on the consent agenda. Um, this has been coming to me from a couple of residents over the last couple of months. Particularly trigger by two absolutely major natural disasters that happened around the world recently. One was an earthquake in Venezuela in June, 2026. That, uh, a death tool of approximately over 6, 000 people and it's devastated. Some of the cities there. Of course, a recent possible earthquake into Paul and subsequent flooding and just. Re - raising the issue of natural disasters of what they're doing about it. I know in many ways Victoria is very prepared.

We have an incredible, uh, emergency services team who are just doing great work with a briefed council on that work. Uh, we're being well prepared. But I do think this term, we have not spent a lot of time other than those preps talking about earthquake safety and what we're doing as a council. And I can't necessarily look at people and say, we're doing absolutely everything possible and counsel is talking about this issue. And we are going to be prepared to not make the mistakes of what happened in Christchurch or in other areas. We have the time and luxury to be prepared. So what this motion does is very simple is just as staff for a public reporting on what we're doing, where we're prepared and sharing that information with the public. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Um, I've been the rep in James Bay where the concerns about, um, emergency access, uh, water lines, uh, shore erosion. And we've had Doug Clark

in there to talk about those issues and actually try to, um, clarify some of the misinformation that's existing out there. But I think part of it is a responsibility in our counsel to maybe do a better job on talking about what the, how prepared we are and what's available. The next part of it is says, okay, you know, in a perfect case scenario, what else should we be doing. Where should we be investing more? What else can we be doing? And I'll give it an example in California, some municipalities have programs that, that where the municipality works with homeowners to help bolt homes to the foundation, rebuild pony walls, uh, I think the opportunity to explore our grant programs for heritage buildings. We have a few small grants where we update heritage buildings. But I think the opportunities to explore that further. And I'd like to hear from staff on that. And then I think I'd like to start talking about the big picture questions

of where our highest risk buildings in the city. We're in one of them right now. The legislature is one of them. There's, there's many around the city. And what's our plan for those? Do we have a vision on, uh, perhaps rebuilding these buildings, perhaps, uh, moving elsewhere. Um, and I think as counsel, we probably need to spend a little bit more time, maybe this one, maybe the next on dealing with that hard information and maybe making more long - term plan so that we can say we've done everything possible to, to save lives and make Victoria prepared. And I think the goal of being the most prepared city in North America is ambitious school, but it's something that I think we should aim toward. So that's what this motion intends to kick off. Thank you very much. Councillor Cardonas, the secondary. Yeah. I think I'll just add briefly that the BC Building Code has come an incredibly long way in the last couple of decades

around seismic safety and every couple of years. It seems to get more and more stringent. It's not new buildings that worry me. It's existing buildings. And especially our heritage buildings that terrify me if there were to be something like an 8. 0 earthquake or even a 7. 5. And knowing the seismic history of this region going back to the great Pacific Earthquake of 1700 and moving forward, it's really only a matter of time. So I do think that there are opportunities for us to be supporting ways of making the city safer. This is something that councillor Del and I have been talking about for a while. I'm sorry took so long to get this motion before us. He and I have also had a debate about whether or not to add in fire safety on wildfire safety into this. And we decided not to scope it into this motion, but that is something that the city should circle back to. And as a CRD director,

I know, was last year, the year before the old man Lake fire. Was it 2024? Two years. 2024. Was a bit of a wake up call. We haven't historically had the kinds of wildfires on the South Island that you've had in the interior. It doesn't take a big imagination to imagine a scenario in which there is a lightning strike in say, um, I don't know. Maltolemi or Topaz or something like that. And now you're facing something like Lahaina faced. So, um, but for the, for the purposes of today, it's about earthquakes. We live in a subduction zone. It's only a matter of time. And we need to be doing more to prepare to keep people safe. So this is something that would pass to the next council, but I hope it becomes a priority on their shot plan. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Coleman. Thank you. Um, four points on this actually starts, I think.

We did some, um, seismic upgrading of city hall about 2015, if I'm not mistaken. So we are not one of the most endangered buildings in the city. That doesn't mean there isn't concern, but I think Councillor Madoff led that. And I think we were quite proud of it at the time. I would start the first point is if you want to understand this in the North American context, because this inspires us to be the best in North America, read Gregor Craiggies, a local author on borrowed time. Um, it puts it in very good perspective. And I, he didn't pay me for that plug. Um, the second, the second point is emergency management British Columbia has for a long time now, and it's been picked up by a number of municipalities given the 26 tips for household preparedness. Um, you're supposed to do one tip a week, a number of years ago, I actually costed it out with local sourcing household for Judith and me for

two people. Um, the cost is about locally about 756 dollars. So it becomes an issue of capacity financial capacity. If you can't do it once a week, then you do it once a month and then you prepare yourself over two years. I suspect because I did it a number of years ago, that cost has gone up. Perhaps dramatically. Um, but it's something that we need to think about in not only preparing ourself, if we're going to be the most prepared community in North America than we have to actually find ways to fund that for local citizenry. Um, I also think that I'm pleased that the fire chief is here because his staff have done some incredible work and they have worked with us in the past. The more we can do to support them, which also has a financial capacity impact for us, it would be a good thing. Um, the more we can have them deliver the neighborhood's programs lessons that they do, the

better we all offer will be. The final point I would make is we made a startling investment in emergency preparedness a number of years ago when we replaced the Johnson Street Bridge. Um, that was to allow capacity. One of the subtexts at the time was make sure that the fire department can actually cross the bridge if we have greater than a 7. 5 seismic issue. Because we may have lost the bridge. Going forward, um, there is a another compelling issue that will deal with the Johnson Street Bridge. We have embraced the notion of a more industrialized harbour. If we want to protect the bridge for its capacity to make us the most earthquake prepared city in North America, then we had better look at the funding needed to increase the fendering on the south side of the bridge. At the moment, the bridge is well protected on the north side, but we need to get into that. And that's a discussion that I know will

come forward. For the future council, I'm just signalling it now. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Goldman. Councillor Gardner. Thank you. And I'm going to add a bit to what Councillor Coleman said, because I agree totally. And I've been watching all of this for. About 20 years of what the city's been doing. The City has been doing a lot. Uh, and it has been priorly. We don't have to make it a priority. It has been one and it shows and has been mentioned as the staff member from the fire department goes from neighbour to neighbourhood and gives us presentation. They're wow presentations. And the reason they're wow is they aren't border plate. He actually targets it to the neighbourhood that he is presenting to because they all have each has their own unique geographical and build - up characters. And I think that's superb because I've now encouraged them to go to three different neighbourhoods. And I know the structures in the neighbourhoods are very different.

And so it's a land base. And I think it's just incredible how he with a sense of humor delivers his messages. And so the city is doing a lot. We know that. And something, I mean, the alluded to is all the different grants. There was a lot of houses, heritage ones and others that have been already seismic upgraded. And the question about that. And please remember as you upgrade anyone on anything through a grant process and it has been supplied through a lot of the city that someone else has to pay for it. So we have to always remember that. Now with this particular motion, um, and I'm glad that the bridges were mentioned because we also have the bay bridge that carries a lot of the utilities for our city to operate at any point in time. But, uh, something we also have to consider about it, if we're going to be the best, then we have to measure it. So you better set

some goals first is how we're going to be the best in the Canada or the world. And I don't think we're going to be doing that because earthquakes are rather random. And the level of earthquake rather random. I think we just have to keep doing what we've been doing. And that we frankly have been doing it very well. And, uh, I don't, I have no problems with the staff going through and making a list of everything that's already been done. This is forward looking, but we should look backwards at what has been done. So not what we're going to do because we've done a hell of a lot. Whoops, sorry. Whatever. Language, sorry. We've done an awful lot in this city over the last couple of decades. I know since I've been here. And by the way, a lot of this work with the street disruption has to do with this. Because getting our utilities underground and all of this, this is kind of looking

at all that too. So most of the works in the city are have incorporated seismic considerations into pretty well everything we do. So if we're actually going to try and be the best in the world or was it Canada, whatever it is, then someone better come up with some goals, but I don't think you're going to be able to. Our staff, no offence, are not specialists on seismic activity. And none of us are. And frankly, most of the seismic colleges and what have you. And even physicists, they can't tell you what to do because we don't know how it's going to hit every region when an earthquake hits. But we're doing a terrific job and making a list. Hopefully it won't take too much staff time. Uh, but I think continuing the program that's going on with a fire department going around to different areas.

And the way they deliver it is absolutely superb. And I think we should continue that. Thank you very much. Anybody else? I would just thank Councillor Coleman. I don't usually identify councillors, but I would thank him for mentioning the Johnson Street Bridge, one of the most important reasons for that was in fact to ensure that there was transport capacity for emergency vehicles between the two parts of Victoria. And I often will comment to people that, uh, if you are in a very large earthquake with the two places you hope to be or either the fire department, which is relatively impurposed to almost anything or the Johnson Street bridge. Anywhere else? I don't know. But are those two places? You're good. And that's a very important thing for folks to know. Also of course extending continuing kudos to the incredible preparation and prevention information that's shared by the fire department. It's, we expect a lot from our emergency response teams. And we get a lot. So

thank you. Please convey that to your staff. Uh, with that then, all those in favor. Anyone opposed? That is unanimous. That would take us to item G5. This would be the council member of motion with support for Victoria residents in lease hold buildings. That was left on the consent agenda. So that will return to us at a future daytime council meeting for final consideration. We do not have a requirement for any closed items today at committee. So I would look for a motion to adjourn. Thank you, Councillor Coleman. Seconded by Councillor Loton, all those in favor. Am I going opposed? Let's unanimous. Uh, that is good timing folks. Why don't we take our usual mid - morning break? It's 10 27. Let's try and resume for a daytime council meeting at 1040.