Council backed a non-binding Victoria–Saanich amalgamation question for October’s local election, but only by a 5–4 vote; opponents said it could mislead voters without a clear provincial follow-up. Council also advanced updated off-street parking rules, including a 50% reduction to the proposed cash-in-lieu charges, despite concerns about spillover parking on neighbourhood streets and limited public consultation. It approved the amended rezoning and permits for a six-storey, 75-unit rental building at 1933 Davie Street, and allowed large signs for the Telus Ocean building at 749 Douglas Street while directing staff to work with Telus to reduce light after dark. The open meeting then moved into closed session; the transcript does not capture what happened there.
Generated from the recording's captions and the official minutes.
Council approved the consent agenda unanimously. It included four sets of minutes, the 1908 Foul Bay Road rezoning and development permit, a motion to advocate for better provincial property-tax deferral terms for seniors and others in need, and other listed items. The Cannabis Room and off-street mobility bylaws were pulled from consent for separate debate. The chair explained that the 1908 Foul Bay Road item was now finally endorsed and would not return to Council.
Agreement
The consent agenda passed unanimously.
Council did not add the separate 1905 Fort Street bylaw item to consent because staff explanation and Council discussion were needed.
Routine and bundled: approve four sets of past Council minutes; advance the rezoning and development-permit process for 1908 Foul Bay Road, subject to listed plan, agreement and registration requirements; and ask the Province to review property-tax deferral terms for eligible low- and moderate-income homeowners, with the Mayor to send the request to the listed governments and organizations.
Official wording: That the following Consent Agenda items be approved:
Council considered support for The Cannabis Room’s application to the provincial Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch. A councillor opposing the recommendation cited research linking widespread cannabis commercialization with increased hospital visits for psychosis, psychiatric disorders and problematic use, and raised concerns about effects on young people. The recommendation passed, with one councillor opposed.
Disagreement
One councillor opposed supporting the application, citing concerns about commercialization and potential harms to young people; the recommendation was supported by the rest of Council.
Tell the provincial cannabis regulator that Council supports licensing The Cannabis Room at 1545 Fort Street. The recommendation cites the permitted storefront location, limited concerns about community impact, and notice sent to nearby residents and the neighbourhood association. The applicant would still need to comply with City bylaws and permits.
Official wording: That Council direct staff to advise the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch (LCRB):
The Council of the City of Victoria supports the application of The Cannabis Room at 1545 Fort Street to receive a provincial cannabis retail store license with the following comments:
a. Council recommends that the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch issue a license to The Cannabis Room at 1545 Fort Street.
b. Bylaw Services indicates the proposed cannabis retail store would have limited community impact. The Victoria Police Department did not raise any concerns about community impacts.
c. The reasons for a positive local government recommendation include that:
a. The location permits storefront cannabis retail.
b. Staff did not raise significant concerns about community impact due to the proposed storefront cannabis retailer at this location.
d. Residents’ views were solicited through a mail-out to property owners and occupiers within 100 meters of this address and to the relevant neighbourhood association. The City sent 347 notices, including the Rockland Neighbourhood Association.
2. That Council direct staff to advise the LCRB of Council’s recommendation subject to the applicant’s compliance with applicable City bylaws and permits.
Council reconsidered a proposal to put an amalgamation question on the October 2026 local-election ballot. The question asks voters whether they support Saanich and Victoria amalgamating, but the result would not itself merge the municipalities. Supporters said Council had promised to put the Citizens’ Assembly recommendation to voters and that a yes vote could encourage the province to continue the process. Opponents argued that the question was non-binding, unclear about what would follow, and could mislead voters into thinking amalgamation was a municipal decision. The motion passed 5–4.
Agreement
Councillors on both sides expressed frustration with the province’s handling of the process.
Councillors agreed that the ballot question would not itself settle the details or implementation of amalgamation.
Disagreement
Supporters, including the Mayor, said Council should honour its commitment to put the Citizens’ Assembly recommendation to voters and that a yes vote could press the province to act.
Opponents, including Councillor Caradonna, Councillor Hammond, Councillor Gardiner and Councillor Thompson, said the non-binding question lacked a clear follow-up, risked confusing voters, and should wait for fuller information and a meaningful provincial process.
Receive the amalgamation report, support putting a yes-or-no question about combining Victoria and Saanich on the 2026 election ballot, and maintain that the City will provide no additional public information beyond what is already available, except to note that the Citizens’ Assembly referendum is non-binding.
Official wording: That Council receive the Victoria-Saanich Amalgamation report for information.
1. That Council endorse the following question for the 2026 General Local Election Ballot: “Do you support Saanich and Victoria becoming one municipality?”
2. That Council confirm its position that, other than providing a ballot question, the City will not provide any information to the public beyond what has already been provided, with the exception of a statement that the referendum is non-binding, in the public domain, by the Citizens’ Assembly.
Staff presented updated rules for parking on private property. The changes set area-based parking requirements, expand options for transportation demand management (TDM)—measures such as transit passes, car share and bicycle parking—and introduce optional cash-in-lieu payments for parking spaces. Affordable housing would be exempt from baseline parking requirements; small residential infill of three to six units could proceed without required parking, with the first stall built to accessible standards if one is provided. Staff said the rules would apply to new developments, retain higher visitor-parking rates after business and arts groups raised concerns, and exempt permitted changes of use in existing buildings from new mobility requirements. A councillor’s amendment halving the proposed cash-in-lieu amounts passed 5–4; the amended bylaws then received the listed readings, with two councillors opposed. Council also directed staff to explore ways to put TDM ahead of cash-in-lieu as a route to reducing parking, and to monitor the policy. Staff said a six-month transition would follow adoption and that a review was expected within five years or sooner if directed.
Agreement
Council supported updating parking rules to reflect changing travel patterns and to make requirements clearer for new development.
Councillors who raised concerns agreed that the rules would need monitoring and that the city’s separate work on on-street parking would be important.
The direction to staff on monitoring cash-in-lieu and exploring ways to prioritize TDM passed unanimously.
Disagreement
Councillor Caradonna argued that the cash-in-lieu charge could penalize projects already providing TDM and increase housing costs; he proposed cutting the charge by 50%.
Councillor Hammond and Councillor Gardiner warned that fewer required off-street spaces could push parking onto nearby streets and said the safeguards, review timing and public consultation were inadequate.
Other councillors supported advancing the rules, while acknowledging that the balance between TDM and cash-in-lieu needed further work.
Amend the proposed off-street parking rules to cut the optional cash payment in place of required vehicle parking by half for residential uses. The motion also advances the related zoning and procedure changes and sends the zoning changes to a public hearing. Staff would look at ways to encourage private downtown developments to provide public parking, especially if existing public parking is displaced, and report back.
Official wording: That Council:
1. Give first and second readings to Zoning Bylaw 2018, Amendment Bylaw (No. 21), No. 26-022.
2. Revise Zoning Bylaw 2018, Amendment Bylaw (No. 21), No. 26-022 by amending the optional Cash-In-Lieu amount for Motor Vehicle Parking for all Residential uses by reducing by 50%.
3. Give first and second readings to Zoning Regulation Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw (No. 1363), No. 26-021.
4. Revise Zoning Regulation Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw (No. 1363), No. 26-021 by amending the optional Cash-In-Lieu amount for Motor Vehicle Parking for all Residential uses by reducing by 50%.
5. Give first, second and third readings to Land Use Procedures Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw (No. 23), No. 26-023.
6. Refer Zoning Bylaw 2018, Amendment Bylaw (No. 21), No 26-022 and Zoning Regulation Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw (No. 1363), No. 26-021 for consideration at a Public Hearing.
7. Direct staff to investigate options for encouraging public parking within private developments in the downtown, including where existing publicly accessible parking may be displaced by new development, and report back to Council with options and recommendations.
Advance the parking-rule changes with the revised cash-in-lieu amounts, refer the zoning changes to a public hearing, and have staff report on ways to encourage public parking in private downtown developments.
Official wording: That Council:
1. Give first readings to Zoning Bylaw 2018, Amendment Bylaw (No. 21), No. 26-022.
2. Revise Zoning Bylaw 2018, Amendment Bylaw (No. 21), No. 26-022 by amending the optional Cash-In-Lieu amount for Motor Vehicle Parking for all Residential uses by 50%.
3. Give first readings to Zoning Regulation Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw (No. 1363), No. 26-021.
4. Revise Zoning Regulation Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw (No. 1363), No. 26-021 by amending the optional Cash-In-Lieu amount for Motor Vehicle Parking for all Residential uses by 50%.
5. Give first, second and third readings to Land Use Procedures Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw (No. 23), No. 26-023.
6. Refer Zoning Bylaw 2018, Amendment Bylaw (No. 21), No 26-022 and Zoning Regulation Bylaw, Amendment Bylaw (No. 1363), No. 26-021 for consideration at a Public Hearing.
7. Direct staff to investigate options for encouraging public parking within private developments in the downtown, including where existing publicly accessible parking may be displaced by new development, and report back to Council with options and recommendations.
Have staff monitor the cash-in-lieu parking rules and look at ways to favour transportation-demand measures—such as reducing the need for driving—over paying cash instead of providing vehicle parking.
Official wording: Direct staff to monitor the cash in lieu of vehicle parking regulations and explore options to prioritize the use of transportation demand management measures over cash in lieu of vehicle parking.
H.2 Bylaws for 1905 Fort Street: Update for Zoning Bylaw 2018 and Rezoning Application No. 00859 for 1905 and 1907 Fort Street and 1923 and 1929 Davie Street and Development Permit with Variances Application No. 00248
Staff explained that the application is now for one consolidated property, 1933 Davie Street, and would allow a six-storey mixed-use rental building with 75 homes and ground-floor commercial space. Council rescinded the earlier third reading so it could correct the property’s legal description and update the bylaw map; staff said these were administrative changes that did not alter the project’s permitted uses. Council then amended and adopted the zoning bylaw, approved the housing-agreement bylaw to secure rental tenure, and approved the development permit with variances. All votes were unanimous. One councillor voiced concern that the map changes should not surprise nearby residents.
Agreement
Staff said the bylaw edits were administrative and did not change the development’s intent or permissions.
Council unanimously approved the amended zoning bylaw, housing agreement and development permit.
Disagreement
A councillor raised concern that the updated map should be clear to the community, particularly given past disputes about map boundaries; no councillor opposed the approvals.
Correct the zoning bylaw’s property description and replace its two maps with the versions in the report, reflecting the change to the property identified as 1933 Davie Street.
Official wording: 2. amend the Zoning Bylaw
a. in section 2, by deleting subsections a. to d. and replacing them with:
“1933 Davie Street PID 032-848-552, LOT A, SECTION 76, VICTORIA DISTRICT, PLAN EPP149211”
b. in section 4(b), by deleting the addresses and legal descriptions in the table and replacing it with: “1933 Davie Street LOT A, SECTION 76, VICTORIA DISTRICT, PLAN EPP149211”
c. by deleting the map at Appendix 1 and replacing it with the map at Appendix 1 of this report,
d. by deleting the map at Appendix 2 and replacing it with the map at Appendix 2 of this report;
Approve the development permit for the Fort and Davie Street project with exceptions allowing first-floor homes away from the flanking street, a taller building, a smaller rear setback, fewer vehicle parking spaces and no minimum landscaped area. The permit approval expires after two years if construction has not substantially started or the permit has not been issued.
Official wording: That Council authorize the issuance of Development Permit with Variances No. 00248 for 1905 and 1907 Fort Street and 1923 and 1929 Davie Street, in accordance with plans submitted to and date stamped by Planning and Development on October 23, 2025, subject to:
a. Proposed development meeting all City zoning bylaw requirements, except for the following variances:
i. permit residential uses on the first floor to be located elsewhere from the flanking street
ii. increase the building height from 14.00m to 20.88m
iii. reduce the rear (east) setback from 8.00m to 2.47m
iv. reduce vehicle parking from 73 stalls to 33 stalls
v. reduce minimum landscaped area from six percent to 0 percent
2. That:
a. the Development Permi with Variances lapses two years from the date of this resolution if construction is not substantially started within this timeframe; and
b. the approval of this Development Permit with Variances lapses two years from the date of this resolution if the DP is not issued within this timeframe.”
Council considered sign variances for the Telus Ocean building. Staff confirmed that the Douglas Street sign was part of the original building application and showed an image indicating it would sit behind the Empress from the harbour-side view. Councillor Gardiner questioned the sign’s size and its effect on nearby homes, and cited correspondence from residents and a nearby hotel that raised concerns about the sign and earlier neighbourhood discussions. The permit passed, with Councillor Hammond and Councillor Gardiner opposed. Council then unanimously directed staff to consult Telus on ways to reduce the sign’s light after dark.
Agreement
Council approved the sign variances despite concerns raised about the sign’s scale and its effect on nearby residents.
Council unanimously supported further consultation with Telus to minimize light from the sign after dark.
Disagreement
Councillor Gardiner and Councillor Hammond opposed issuing the permit; the other councillors present supported it.
Councillor Gardiner questioned whether the sign had been part of the neighbourhood discussions and raised concerns about its size, location and nighttime light.
Approve larger signs on the Humboldt and Douglas Street sides of 749 Douglas Street, including larger fascia and suspended signs and signs higher on the building than normally allowed. The permit approval expires after two years if construction has not substantially started or the permit has not been issued.
Official wording: That Council authorize the issuance of Development Variance Permit Application No. 00293 for 749 Douglas Street, in accordance with plans submitted to the Planning and Development department on December 3, 2025, subject to:
a. Proposed development meeting all City Sign Bylaw requirements, except for the following variances:
i. Increase the maximum fascia sign display area on the Humboldt Street frontage from 4.5m2 to 45.134m2
ii. Increase the maximum fascia sign display area for the Douglas Street frontage from 4.5m2 to 45.134m2
iii. Increase the cumulative sign allowance for the Humboldt Street frontage from 17.856m2 to 62.99m2 based on a 1 to 1 ratio
iv. Increase the cumulative sign allowance for the Douglas Street from 20.0m2 to 65.134m2 based on a 1 to 1 ratio
v. Allow fascia signage above the lowest sill of the second storey on the Humboldt Street frontage
vi. Allow fascia signage above the lowest sill of the second storey on the Douglas Street frontage
vii. Increase the maximum vertical dimension of a suspended sign from 300mm to 720mm
viii. Increase the maximum suspended sign display size from 0.55m2 to 1.656m2
2. That:
a. The Development Variance Permit lapses two years from the date of this resolution if construction is not substantially started within this timeframe; and
b. The approval of this Development Variance Permit lapses two years from the date of this resolution if the Development Variance Permit is not issued within this timeframe.
Council voted to exclude the public for a closed meeting on law enforcement, privileged legal advice and confidential intergovernmental negotiations. The transcript ends as the meeting is about to move into closed session, so it does not record any discussion or later decisions.
Close the meeting to the public to discuss the listed confidential matters involving law enforcement, privileged legal advice and confidential government negotiations.
Official wording: That Council convene a closed meeting that excludes the public under Section 90 of the Community Charter for the reason that the following agenda items deal with matters specified in Sections 90(1) and/or (2) of the Community Charter, namely:
Section 90(1) A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to or is one or more of the following:
Section 90(1)(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
Section 90(1)(i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose;
Section 90(2) A part of a council meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following:
Section 90(2)(b) the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the municipality and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party;