Transcript: Council (to follow COTW) - 2026/07/09

And welcome to the July 9th meeting of Victoria City Council. Our work today includes four sets of minutes, reports from one committee of the whole, two bylaws, one item of new business, and a couple of closed items. But of course, before we begin, we always take a moment to ground ourselves and our work and remind ourselves of how important it is for us to take a moment to express our gratitude to the two nations on whose territories our city sits in its entirety. The LaCongan nations of the Songhees and the Ecosepsum. We enjoy a very rich relationship with both nations. Partly because of the effort that we have put into do so to create and nurture that relationship over the last dozen or more years, but also because of the generosity of the two nations in being willing to work with us and help us learn together and plan and deliver different programs, projects, services, ideas, and visions for all of the people who live

in our city. When we think back to the accomplishments that we have created together with the two nations, they are many. And oftentimes when we begin to reflect on the years of a term, we think of all of those different accomplishments of the challenges that created them and of the Remarkable Relationships that allowed them to be resolved and continued. And we will do so in the coming months. But for today, we will simply express our thanks, as we always do in their language to say hi to Kasiem d'Aquilia, which is to say, thank you, but also to offer our respect and our acknowledgement of the relationship and the fact that we all continue to work together in hope for a better community for everyone who is here. IHKCM Nicolia. I have no further remarks to add today, and I'm not aware of any late items that need to be added to our agenda. So I would look first for a motion to approve the agenda

as published. Thanks, Councillor Coleman, seconded by Councillor Kim. Any discussion of the published agenda. Not seeing any of those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. I'm aware that there are a number of items that wish to be removed from the consent agenda, but I will read the proposed consent agent to judge us for the information of the public. As for the record, and I will remind folks that when things are, when items are placed and they consent agenda, it's because they've either been unanimous at committee or they engage with preliminary readings. That being said, proposed were item F1, the minutes from the Council to follow committee of November 9th, 2023, item F2, the minutes from the Council to follow Committee held May 28th, 2026.

Item F3, the minutes from the Council to Follow, meeting held on June 11th, item F4, the minutes from the evening Council meeting held on June 11th. Item G1AA, the Rezoning Application and Development Permit with variances, application. For 1908 Foul Bay Road, item G1AB, the recommendation from the cannabis room, application at 1545 Fort Street, item G1AD, the Council Member Motion with regard to advocating to the Province to restore better terms for Property Tax, deferral for seniors and others in need. And finally, item H1. The amendment bylaws for Off Street Mobility Regulations. As I mentioned, I'm aware that Council members would like to remove two items from that list. Item G1AB, the recommendations for the cannabis room at 1545 Fort Street, and item H1, the amendment bylaws for Off Street Mobility Regulations. So those two will be pulled off of the consent agenda, as is our convention, and I would then ask if anyone would like to remove anything else. Not seeing anything else. So go ahead

Councillor. Sorry, can we put H2 on there. H2 is not on the consent agenda. Are you proposing that it be added? Let me just see, I believe H2, if I'm not mistaken, is a motion to... Yes, unfortunately we can't do that, because it does revolve some explanation involves, some explanation from staff, because we are rescinding a third reading, changing the third reading, considering the second and third readings, et cetera. So generally speaking, when we have multiple issues like that, we allow staff to explain a little bit about why. And the opportunity for council to discuss that. So that's why it's not on there. So just noting that, any other issues you want to take off?

Nope. Okay. So I'm going to like to move the consent agenda. Councillor Coleman's moving. Out for him is seconding. Uh, all those in favor, anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much for that. Uh, we have next, the consideration of minutes, and as I mentioned, there were four sets of minutes proposed. Uh, items F1, F2, F3, and F4. All of those replaced on the consent agenda, and so I would note, just a reminder for the public that when they are placed on the consent agenda at Council, it is a final decision, and so those will not be returning to us again. So they are considered now adopted. That will take us on two reports from the June 25th Committee of the Whole. The first of those items, item G1AA, that's the rezoning application and development permit with variances application for 1908 Falbey Road. That was placed on the consent agenda. And so once again, that has been considered to be finally endorsed, and will

not return to Council. The next item is G1AB, that's the recommendation for the cannabis room at 1545 Fort Street. Uh, that was not unanimous at committee, and so I'm going to look for someone to move that recommendation. Answer Kim's moving. Councillor Dell is second day. Councillor Kim, any comments? Councillor Dell, any comments? Anyone else, any comments? Councillor Gardner, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I did not object to the recommendation for use of the venue for cannabis retail on June 25th. I'm influenced by the Global Survey of Research and Policy of the Legalization of Cannabis. The study titled International Cannabis Policies, and their association with cannabis use, cannabis use disorder, and other psychiatric disorders show the Canada's widespread commercialization of cannabis has led to increased hospital visits for psychosis, psychiatric disorders, and addictive use. Other countries that legalized cannabis, but gave a tidal regulatory regime that didn't involve widespread commercial villain, but haven't had the same problems. What is the unknown is the impact on

our youth and their future. While this report, though, does speak to it, and it's the first real evidence I have seen since the legalization. And on June 25th, we did not have that many objections from residents, but we did have from sums. And I recall when council years ago was considering the cannabis retail policy. The downtown residence association at the time compared the need for cannabis outlets to the number of pharmacies, suggesting the city shouldn't need more cannabis retail outlets than it did pharmacies. And I thought that was a very good guideline at the time. So I can't support this use recommendation. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you very much. Anyone else. Not seeing anywhere else on this one, so all those in favor. Councillor Dell, councillor Kim, Councillor Cardinal, Councillor Loughton, myself, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Hammond, and Councillor Thompson. And opposition, Councillor Gardner. Thank you for that, so that is adopted noting one person and opposition. That takes us on to item G1AC. This was with regard to the Victoria Senatch Amalgamation Referendum question. We like to move that, please. Thanks, Councillor Kim, seconded by... I guess I'll segend it, sure. Go ahead. Alright. Councillor Kim, any comments? I have no comments to offer either. Any other comments on this one? Councillor Carenot, go ahead.

Yeah, thanks, sorry to slow us down on this one, but if I recall correctly, this one did end up passing, but only by five to four. And there was some pretty intense, and I think thoughtful to beat, and then some thoughtful debate in the community subsequent to it. So I just wanted to pause us here and say, here's our opportunity for a sober second thought. If anyone wants to change their vote. And this, of course, would fail and would mean that it would not appear on the ballot, which I think for some people would be perceived as us renegging on a commitment. And I acknowledge that. But I think for other people would be seeing as a principled stance against what would end up as a kind of redundant and pointless amalgamation question. That would not actually result in anything. If it's a no, this issue dies for generation, if it's a yes, nobody really knows what happens. It's unclear who would do the subsequent

research. Would that be downloaded to us? Would the province taken on? They've showed no interest in doing so. I just think it creates a lot of ambiguity. And I think misleads voters. And actually my concern is that more people would probably be likely to vote no because they see it as pointless, or maybe they stay home, or maybe when they go to the ballot, they don't fill it out because they don't see the point. So for me, I want to hold a genuine referendum, a binding referendum or something that would be, if not binding close to binding. Um, whatever that means, because it's so impossible to say with binding actually means. In theory, a binding referendum would be the best. A temperature check, I don't seem really the point, and I don't understand what the follow - up would be. So I've been disappointed with the province about how they've handled this one, and I think it's disappointed a lot of people. So I think

it makes sense to just hold off and maybe hold a binding referendum in 2030, where people's voice will actually matter. So I don't know if I persuaded one of the five folks who voted positively on this last week, but this is my last ditch pitch to say, this is not the right way of doing this. And it's somewhat poor governance. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Colts are Coleman. Let me keep my political sobriety intact. Soberscond thought and all. Um. Are we all disappointed in the Province in not because they are the ones that control the notion of a binding referendum? Of course we're all disappointed. However, the process needs to move forward. The public deserved to be upset with this. Not being as indicative as we want it to be. But we need to also go out and work. If you believe that as municipalities grow, they become. In need of greater direction and greater coherence between the notions. I look forward to 50

years from now when I don't think there will be 13 municipalities in this region. Um, the process has to carry on. And the public, we have to convince to make their voices felt. So the province can read that. The way to do that is for us, for those who believe that amalgamation are coming together of, in this case, Sadnage and Victoria is the right direction for the long - term benefit of future generations. Then we need to go to and convince our publics to vote in that direction. And therefore, I think putting. I had one person say it's a milk toast question. Even at that, it can be indicative to the province that they should get on with the job. I will point out the frustration before we had a chamber of commerce, we had a board of trade. That worked with historic Provincial Governments to get on with a question of bringing municipalities together.

That's still the goal. I think we still need to work at it. And I understand the frustration of others, but I still think we need to put a question to the public this October. Thank you very much, Councillor Hammond. Well, I've been convinced I'm going to change my vote. Oh wait, you're not wanting my vote. Okay, sorry. I've already voted that way. Uh, I wasn't going to say anything, um, about this, but since you brought it up, already I can't get over the number of people who have asked me about this. And they have said to me, uh, isn't this a waste of time? And I said, well, that's up to you. Um, I think this is enormous waste of time. And I am more than happy to have, um, binding decision on this. And otherwise I think the Province is just dicking us around.

Um, so I'll continue to, um, say no, um, at the doors when I'm running, if I make it that far, to the election, I'll just be telling people, fill your boots. But, um, you know, it's just an enormous waste of time. Thank you Council Gardner. Thank you, Mayor. I didn't know this was going to come up again today. And I thank you for bringing it forward. I think one of the really upsetting things about the minister's letter was, uh, they missed the dimension of this missing data, which is the data that and the assessment that's to be done after a vote when you're looking at actual amalgamation. So by thrusting this forward, out of context, in the wrong way, I think it has really sent that the province, I mean, it is a kill letter that ministers sent to us. And I think that's important to realise. And they have, they have made that decision.

Because it was clear that data was available to the citizens of assembly. They read the data. They sought. They had a presented. The data that they needed for the decision they were to make. The transition data was, of course, not done because. It wasn't there yet. It wasn't supposed to be done until after a binding vote. So as I mentioned, I think this is a denial by the Provincial Government to their own process. And politically for some of the, I know, um, NTP members of the day when this was coming through in 2014 and 2018, they committed to following the process. And I'm very disappointed that it is not. I do not see what is before us. As forwarding the process. It just muddies it further. And, uh, trust has been broken. Thank you. Thank you and thank you to Councillor for bringing it forward again. Most welcome. Councillor Thompson. For making our pitches, I'll make my pitch for folks to change their votes too.

We all have different reasons. Um, I think it's very understandable to want adequate information about costs, impacts and transition. Uh, and also to do First Nations consultations before a binding referendum or any form of decision. And I would just point out that Alberta is getting into trouble for perhaps proceeding with a referendum without consultation of the First Nations. Um, I'd also just point out that it was, I think it is still a misleading question. Um, in the context of a municipal ballot municipal mayors being elected municipal councillors being elected to ask that question, I think will imply to the voters that this is a municipal decision. Um, and it isn't. It's entirely a provincial decision.

Uh, and I think that the question should have stated that. And I may have voted differently, if that were the case, uh, but it wasn't, uh, so I'll be, um, opposing this again. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Well, what the heck. Sure. One last time. This for me is very easy. We made a promise to the public. We said that if the citizens assembly made a recommendation, we would put a recommendation on the next available Civic ballot. They made a recommendation. The next available civic ballot is in October. I cannot imagine a Council making that commitment and not following through. The citizens assembly did what we told them to do. Which was, to be fair, also supported in that process by the province and by the District of Santage. So they did their work and they created an enormous amount of information.

On which they base their recommendations and all of that information is available to the public. The information that I think everyone would like to see about the details of transition would come after a recommendation from the public. And only if that recommendation is yes. If the recommendation is no, we need not spend the time, money and resources in evaluating what that transition might be. At least knowing at this table. We'll do that. On the issue of whether or not this has any influence over the province, and I agree, the province has pulled the plug on this being a last step. It would be hard to imagine any order of government. Who would reject or ignore.

The direction of its own voters. Should they declare a preference. I don't think we should. And I don't think they will. So clearly I'm going to support this motion. Okay. With that, all those in favor. Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim, Councillor Loton, myself and Councillor Count Counts for Coleman in opposition. Councillor Caridona, Councillor Hamilton. I'm going to make you Hamilton Councillor Gardner and Councillor Thompson. So I believe that does as it did previously past five to four. Very good. Uh, it is almost exactly noon and I am aware that the next item is going to generate some explanation, some questions. And I suggest some debate as well. So with apologies to our Legion of staff who are waiting patiently in the back of the anti - chamber, I'm going to call lunch at this point. And we'll return at one o'clock. And at that point we will begin with item H1. Just before I do that, actually, I can just clean up one item. And that

is G1B, which would usually be the report from today's Committee of the Whole. There were no items today at Community of the Whole that required same day consideration. So we need not deal with that. And as I say, we will return at one o'clock and begin with item H1. After doing everyone and welcome back to Victoria C Council's July 9th meeting of Council following Committee of the Whole, our daytime council meeting. Before we left on our lunch break, we had arrived at item H in our agenda. These are bylaws. There are two sets of them, but the first one up. Is in fact the amendment bylaw for Off Street Mobility Regulations. This wasn't on the consent agenda, but it was asked to be removed by several council members. And so I am going to check to you folks have a presentation or are you here just for questions you do? Very good. All right, then over to you, please do introduce your very large team

for Council and the public and then proceed when you're ready. Perfect. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Mike Angrove, Acting Manager of Planning and Regulatory Services. And I'm up here a little crowded today with Planner Chris Dudley and Planner, Dustin Bright to my left, both of whom is their first time before council today. And to my right, our transportation planners, Fred Billingham with the City and Dan Casey, our consultant from urban systems. We have a brief update presentation, after which we would be happy to answer any questions. So with that, I'll hand it over to Mr. Dudley. Welcome. Thank you very much for having us today. We're very excited to be bringing forward.

Please put your mic towards you so that we can hear you a little bit. Is that better? All right. Thank you very much for having us with you today. We're very excited to be bringing forward these amendments. So today we will briefly cover the Council direction staff received, review the new regulatory approach. Go over the focused stakeholder engagement results and introduce the amendments for the zoning regulation bylaw, zoning bylaw 2018, and the land use procedures bylaw. Mr. Dudley, I'm going to interrupt you and just ask you to pull your mic a little more closely to you as you are a very soft spoken, which we appreciate. But we'd like to hear everything you're saying. All right, thank you. For refresh on some of the terms we're discussing today, off - street mobility includes parking on private Property and transportation demand management measures are things that encourage more sustainable travel options like walking, cycling, and transit.

We'll likely be referring to those as TDM throughout. So a little shorthand. The proposed bylaws offer a range of measures to provide a suite of transportation options for residents, businesses, and visitors. You may remember that the previous presentation included work with staff from the transportation department regarding curbside management strategies. But today's presentation and draft bylaws apply specifically to off - street parking. Engineering staff are available to help with questions regarding the off - street parking bylaws, but on street and curbside policy work is ongoing and is not anticipated to be back before council until early 2027. To go over the Council Direction. In September 2025, Council Directed staff to bring forward amendments to the zoning and land use procedures bylaws. To conduct targeted stakeholder engagement and to show how feedback from the engagement influenced the bylaws. That engagement took place in late 2025 and directly informed the Bylaws before you today. So a bit of a reminder of why we're here. The updated bylaws respond

to changes in the mobility world that have occurred since 2018, the last time parking regulations were updated. The bylaw amendments implement new city policies and reflect changes in evolving travel patterns. This aligns with Council Direction to review parking every five years. A review cycle staff are seeking direction to continue to ensure regulations stay up to date and responsive to trends in the fast - moving world of mobility. Key changes to the bylaws include updates to the baseline parking rates built - in parking reductions by area and TDM, requiring TDM in some geographic areas, introducing cash in lieu of parking, and introducing optional TDM. Many of these are refinements to the bylaws that reflect the current negotiated process between the city and the development community. Making them into regulations brings needed clarity, flexibility, and predictability to the development process. Staff currently work with applicants to security DM when a parking reduction is applied for. But this negotiation is slow and results in Project Uncertainty. These changes

codify the requirements, the development community is already familiar with and will save time on permit processing. The next few slides are an overview of the geographic area updates. These areas reduce parking requirements in key locations and give clear expectations for TDM measures. They require or make optional car share, transit passes, and additional bicycle parking as TDM. In all instances, cash and lieu of parking is available. And together, these are the primary tools to pursue a path to zero parking. Visitor and accessible parking are required at the baseline supply rate in the proposed areas. And these new requirements only apply to new developments. Council directed staff to extend the downtown area to match that of the downtown core area plan, and this is extended area is shown in red on the map. In the downtown core area, there is no standard vehicle parking required, but all three TDM measures are required. In the industrial reserve areas, there is no standard vehicle parking required. And to offer

a correction on this slide, no TDM is required in the industrial reserve lines. In major mobility hubs or town centres, there is a 50 percent reduction. In the transit priority areas, which is a 200 metre catchment from the transit priority network, shown in blue on the map. And elsewhere in the city or other areas, the standard baseline parking supply rate is in effect, but there is now full flexibility of optional TDM and cash and lieu. This suite of options offers many paths to reach parking targets or zero - parked projects before pursuing a bespoke and negotiated parking variants. Much of what is included here is a response to feedback, staff heard through the engagement process and through permit applications. It adds certainty to the application process by clearly defining TDM requirements and streamlines the parking review by CODEFING the TDM process. As has been mentioned, the draft bylaws introduce optional TDM measures to reduce off - street parking through defined, standardized options with a set percentage reduction. These are available to all

existing buildings and proposed developments. All of these options are familiar to the development community as they are largely based on the requirements of recent and ongoing development projects. Cash and lieu is also being introduced. This is fully optional and is paid on a per parking space rate. It allows applicants to reduce parking requirements by contributing to a City fund that supports the development of parking, sorry, public barking and active transportation. And some other keynotes, as has been mentioned, the most significant update is formalizing what is already standard practice today regarding TDM, but put into clear regulations. As has been mentioned or affordable housing is exempt from baseline parking requirements. Developments are required to provide visitor accessible and bicycle parking. Other regulation updates are included to enhance EV charging, loading stalls, and Bicycle parking requirements. And the land use procedures bylaw is being updated to delegate variances to staff - related to these mobility regulations. I'll now pass you over to my colleague, Mr. Bright, for

a summary of the focused stakeholder engagement. Thank you, Mr. Dudley. I'm Aaron Council. Moving on to targeted engagement. Staff used multiple communication channels to inform the community and stakeholders about the proposed changes, including a dedicated engagement webpage, a dedicated email inbox, an update in the fall 2025 Connect newsletter and hand bills given to commercial loading permit applicants this past winter. Staff also invited industry partners and organisations to attend in - person and online engagement sessions from October to December 2025 to learn about their proposed changes and provide valued feedback. During that three - month period, the City held four in - person and 10 online engagement events with over 30 organisations participating. Participating organisations included Representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and the downtown business association. Affordable housing providers, arts organisations, development industry representatives, BC Transit, TDM providers and advocacy groups, and the City's own accessible advisory committee. Across those 14 engagement events, we heard general support for the overall proposed approach. For allowing market

- driven supply of standard parking in the downtown core area for affordable housing providers and for small - scale residential infill. And for making the application and variance process more flexible and streamlined. As for what concerns we heard, engagement participants express concerns about the proposed maximum parking regulations, potential impacts of reduced visitor parking requirements on clients and customers. How the proposed regulations would apply to changes of use within existing buildings and the costs associated with TDM measures, bicycle parking, EV charging requirements, and cash and lie of parking. Other feedback included support for the proposed TDM approach from BC Transit, capital bike and car share providers.

Concerns from downtown businesses that the development of existing private parking could have negative impacts on customer and employee parking. Concerns over the potential loss of on - street parking spaces and safety of CityRun parcades. And interest from some in the development community for additional TDM measure options, such as BikeShare and EVO CARSHARE. Details of all engagement feedback can of course be found in attachment T. Engagement, the Project Team and Project Consultants analyse and considered all feedback. And the following revisions were made. Firstly, maximum parking regulations were removed entirely from the proposed approach. Simplifying the regulation and providing greater flexibility. Secondly, the Revised Approach retains the existing higher visitor parking rates to address downtime business and arts community concerns. Thirdly, the approach now exempts permitted changes of use within existing buildings from providing additional mobility requirements.

Significantly easy in regulatory requirements for new businesses. The Revised Approach also removes parking and TDM requirements for small - scale residential infill developments. Except that when... Sorry. When parking is provided, the first stall shall be constructed to accessible standards. And lastly, the revised recommendations modestly increase oversized bicycle parking requirements, while also permitting Lyft - assisted stacked bike rack systems for cost and space efficiencies. Finally, a few other considerations for council. One, the recommendations before you include optional cash and lieu of TDM measures. This is limited to the Kashare vehicle and bicycle parking TDMs. To provide flexibility for development applicants and car shared vehicle placement. Second, per recent Council Direction, urban industrial lands properties would be exempt from standard vehicle parking requirements under this revised approach.

Third, while no additional or enhanced TDM paths to zero parking citywide are being proposed to here today, zero standard parking is achievable under the proposed approach in the downtown core area. The urban industrial lands reserve. And for small - scale residential infill of three to six units. As mobility options and observed trends evolve, additional TDM measures and the expansion of geographic area reductions will be considered. Next, the Councillor port before you includes a recommendation to direct staff to investigate options for encouraging public parking and new private developments downtown. This is in direct response to concerns from the downtown business community regarding the loss of parking.

And lastly, if council were to adopt these zoning bylaw amendments, a six - month transition period will be provided during which time existing regulations will still apply. This will give applicants time to become familiar with and prepare for the amended regulations. Applicants will also have the ability to opt - in sooner if they wish to do so. As for monitoring and review of the proposed changes, staff will monitor their implementation and impacts, and we'll report back to Council as needed or directed. This will include a report back to Council within five years or sooner on Changed Your Mobility Trends and needs within the city, and any proposed amendments to better meet those needs. In conclusion, Council's next steps would be to one, consider giving first and second reading so the two zoning bylaw amendments bylaws, rather, before council. Two, consider giving first, second, and third readings of the land use procedures amendment bylaw. And three, if those readings are given, either refer those amendment bylaws

for consideration at a public hearing, or elect a wave of public hearing. And with that, that concludes our presentation. Thank you, Mayor and Council, and we'd be happy to take your questions. Next, thank you. We'll let us first go to questions. We'll start with Councillor Caridona. Thank you, Mayor, and through the staff. Thank you for this presentation for all the work you've done on this important and complicated matter. I want to start by talking about the transportation demand management that's required that would be required in all developments. It's one of the pieces of feedback I gave when we talked about this whenever it was a year ago, was that we were still thinking about this in somewhat either or terms. Either you have a lot of TDM and lower parked building, or the parking and the TDMs are optional. In my reading of the bylaws, there is some basic TDM requirements, but in the staff presentation here, it sort of implies in some areas the

not. So can you clarify what is the baseline assumption for TDMs, even if you have a relatively high parked development? It was good to take that question. Mr. Angron. Leading here. So through the mayor, it depends on which geographic area you're Property is located in. So for the transit - oriented area, the downtown core, major mobility hubs, and transit priority areas. There are required TDMs. And depending on where you are, there's different tiers of how many required TDMs you need to provide such as transit passes and car share, and then moving out to the other area. There is no required TDM, but there is optional.

And there's also optional four. The whole city. Okay, so that's my question is, why did we make it optional? I mean, if our assumption is that, I mean, what accounts for a relatively high parking ratio these days is like 0. 75, 0. 8, maybe. 1, but we can't present that everyone in a new building is going to own an operated private vehicle, which can't presume that anymore. So my query is about why we're not requiring those buildings. Even the ones that are in some residential part of the city and have a relatively high parking ratio, but they're not required to do bike parking. Why? We'd like to take that. Mr. Billiam. Thank you through the mat. They would still be required to provide bike parking as standard. That's part of the schedule C standards. And then some of those areas that we, I think we identified them as other areas. They would essentially, they fall outside of a reasonable cashmere for, for instance, the transit

network. So it is likely the primary. TDM mode, like old sensitive transportation mode, just like to be by bike. And we have that bicycle parking as standard through schedule C. We're also seeing an expansion of the car share fleets across those areas as well. So they should be, we're hoping to have achieved that kind of build out of their car share fleets as well across those areas to provide them access to those. Okay, so if I've understood correctly, then when you say that TDM is not required, that's optional, mandatory TDM around bike parking. But you're talking about the next layer up of like car share.

But then in that sense, TDM is in fact required. So I'm not, it's maybe just a semantic issue here, but is TDM in fact required in all new development. Mr. Rengrove. Through the mayor, I think, yes, in terms of bike parking, that is required, but I think that has been a standard of the city for quite some time now. We do require that. Um, we don't necessarily consider it a TDM in our tables, but it is a way to, um, move people away from their cars. Um, so I think a standard practice is to include bicycle parking and then a specific TDM related to bicycle parking within our new parking regulations is to require more bicycle parking or provide more bicycle parking. Okay. Do you, through the mayor, do you see any risk with not requiring parking maximums. We would like to take that. Ah, yes, go ahead. Mr. Handy. Uh, through you, Matt, we very, very rarely, this is something we re - examined

and through the consultation with our key stakeholders. We rarely get over parked projects. Um, so I think the risk there is small. But another specific concern that was raised by, um, downtown, um, business organisations and business representatives was, if we put a maximum on parking, and let's say somebody's going to invest in developing and ground parquet, this would, um, inhibit the ability of that particular developer to maybe engage with, or look at opportunities, providing additional public parking. You know, so, you know, if somebody came along and said, okay, well, we're going to provide parking for our mixed use development. And then we want to provide some extra parking, which it's going to be run by robbins. And it's going to be available for the public.

And it's going to help businesses downtown and drag people into the city centre from outside the region. They would need a variance for that if we had a maximum, um, parking regulation. So we took that feedback. We looked at the risk and we thought that this was the best outcome. Thanks. That all makes sense to me. Um, moving on, I want to talk about the cash and lie question, which did get a lot of criticism during the engagement. And I also want to just daylight some of the conversations. I've been having with staff over the last couple of days because I've been trying to drill down onto this issue. So staff will know the answers to this. But for the advocation of the public and for the rest of the Council, so the way it works right now, if I've understood it correctly, is that it's optional to do some TDM. And that's great if you can do it. And if you can't, you have

the cash and lie option. You can send sort of quote unquote buy your way out of providing parking. Or there can be some combination between cash and lieu and TDM. Why is it that we cannot require TDM in the first instance? And then once you've satisfied all of that, then whatever's remaining, go to the cash and lieu. What is the barrier to that? Mr. Engel. Uh, through the mayor. So the way it's written in the local government act is once we write in Castian Liu into our bylaws, it just has to be provided as an option. We can't keep it behind something else. So the, it's the applicant's option, whether or not to use cash and lie, but we can't say it's only open once you provide your TDM. And what is the barrier? Thank you for that. What is the barrier to having a relatively expensive cash and lieu up to a certain amount?

And then beyond that witch, beyond its impossible to satisfy the requirements with TDM. That is, say once you've, once you've exhausted your TDM options, you've got the bike parking, you've got the moto, you got the bus passes. Why couldn't the cash and lie cost decrease at that time. So that we're not perversely punishing the people who are doing the right thing by doing all the TDMs. Mr. Angrove. Uh, so through the Mayor, specific instances in which we're allowed to use cash and lie. And that's one that we're not fully confident in that we're allowed to do. Specifically Cash and Luke can be, uh, have different rates based on uses, zones, geographic areas. But the local government act does not specifically say it could be used depending on how much TDM you provide. Okay. So for me personally, I would like to see some version of this go forward today, but would it be safe to say that there could be more work done over the

next six months or however to come up with some kind of policy solution. That is funneling people into TDM in the first instance. And then the cash and leave becomes more like the backup or after you've exhausted all of your TDM. Can you, is it possible to conceptualize that that is a solvable policy problem. The stranger. Through the mayor. Yes. I think that would be the way to go about it is, uh, allow this to proceed today. And then we can go back and discuss internally how that could be solved. Okay. Um, so I'll have more to say when it's on the floor. Okay. Very good. Other questions. Questions Councillor Coleman. Thank you. Um, and thank you for extensive work on this. I have a series of questions. The first, um, it was mentioned earlier that CAR free now. In Victoria. That means 75 percent do have cars or vehicles of some sort. Do we know what that number was the non - CAR use

20 years ago. In the City of Victoria? What's been the growth rate. Or 50 years ago. Through the mass. So the earliest statistics we have are back from 2011 where I think that's when the capital region district started doing their, um, travel to work, averaging destination survey data. Um, and we have, I don't have the exact number of calfre households from then available. Um, but the car ownership data, uh, so vehicle ownership per household in 2011 was 1. 05 vehicles per household. And in 2022, which is the most recent year we have data. It was, um, zero two. So it's remained fairly consistent at around one vehicle per household. Thank you. Um, part of the, I mean, my mother lived here for.

30 years or so. Never had a car. But her kids did. They lived out in other areas. Um, I suspect there's always been a significant population that haven't had vehicles. And so we can't hold out a percentage now and think that it's determinative of change. If I take a look at the multimodal share, that triangle. How has the, has there been growth in those areas? Because we know that, um, the transit use at the moment is about seven and a half to eight percent of all people moving. And their noble goal, I think by 2050 is to get to 15 percent Can you give me the gradations of use. And the change that we might project for the whole multimodal share, that triangle. Mr. Will.

Yeah, through the math. Thanks. Um, we have some, some mocha targets in go Victoria, the cities mobility strategy. I think some of those targets are, for instance, to, um, to double transit ridership. And from this, for the city itself, that was from a starting base of around 14t percent. We also have, um, goals to, obviously, provide better access to, um, the AAA cycling network. So it's within, um, I think it's 200 metres of every household and to provide it that way. Yeah. So we don't, I think transit is any actual writership target we have as a city. But the general goals in COVID - or to provide better access to car share vehicles and then to reduce kind of reliance on private vehicles. Okay. Thank you. Because what we're trying to deal with or understand is what will the use be and the need for parking or non parking 15, 25, 50 years from now.

Um. If I can move just quickly to cash in lieu. What do we have of value that we ascribe to, excuse me, a parking stone. Recognising it's an unfair question. It's a theoretical and there's a range of different responses. But Mr. Casey through the mayor. Yeah. It's a great question and a very difficult one to give a concrete answer on. I think we've done enough research to understand the very significant difference in costs between a surface parking stall as opposed to, say, a structured parking stall. We know that structured stalls can be 100, 000 dollars per stall and more. And so this cationally rate that's been brought forward at 35, 000 dollars per stall is not necessarily meant to reflect the cost of a structured stall or a surface stall. It's more about the, um, opportunity cost and introducing a level of flexibility. And well, and the reason I bring it up is quite often, we are presented with the argument that construction is more

expensive than it used to be. We need more units in town. It will be cheaper if we don't have to provide parking. We now crop off if we say the, you don't have to provide parking. We get 17, 500. The range between each parking stall is somewhere between surface lot and structured up to 100, 000. I don't think that our 17, 500 doesn't go to making the units cheaper. There's a gap that in there that we should be able to target and say, how do we do something that would. Project that for the next 10 years, the each apartment unit was 150 dollars cheaper a month. And I don't know if it sits in there.

And I, and I recognise it's very complex, but we need to have that discussion at some point. Do you have a question, Council? Are we having going to have that discussion. Is that part of your future planning for policy advice. Mr. Engrove. Through the mayor, uh, short answer is no. It's very difficult to try and capture that money. Um, we under the local government actor are restrained by what we can do with cash and low money. It has to go to very specific transportation based needs. Um, so then it would rely on the developer to provide those costs down to the tenants or to the future purchasers. And in order for us to regulate that, it would require housing agreements. I was generally have to get Council approvals. And it's not fully clear for even allowed to take those housing agreements for this sort of thing. Uh, so I think the idea would be that developers will get these cost savings. Uh, and when the

market is healthy, uh, developers are going to be competing against you at each other. And this allows them to, I mean, I don't undercut each other. And that's when the savings could be passed on. Mr. Andy. Yes, Mr. Hand. Thank you through you, Matt. I'll just add that, um, one of the commitments and actually directions from Council that came out of the previous report was recognising that, um, mobility regulations are somewhat more of a living document these days. And, um, the mobility world is quite dynamic. If we went back five or six years, I don't think we could have foreseen all of the changes that have occurred, you know, with, um, with the pandemic and some of these mobility changes that have happened, happened since we've made a commitment to report back within a minimum of five years with a review and update to the regulations and who knows what will happen in the policy environment or the mobility environment and that time. So, um,

some of these conversations that we're having today, um, like the point that's made may not be something that we can tackle now, legislatively. There may be some barriers, but it certainly can be something we can consider as part of future report bucks. Thank you for that. Um, we dealt not very long ago with an application on Academy close that was zero parking. And Council decided at the time to put a notice on title that purchasers and future purchasers would be given advanced warning that there was no parking. Have we considered doing that for future applications where we have zero parking. We'd like to take that.

Mr. Handy. Through the man, no, we haven't, it's not something we've contemplated. Thank you. Other questions. Councillor Gardner. Are we allowed only one time to speak since it's counsel. You have 10 minutes to ask questions and make your final comments. When the motions are on the floor, that's when you are limited to only one time to speak. Okay. So we can split our. Thank you. That wasn't clear. Okay. Um, thank you here presentation. And more so thank you for that report. It clarified a lot as to what the direction was. I'm going to go backwards with my last comment first because it has to do with the in Loop policy. And what worries me about it is the cash may appear sufficient. I'm not going to argue about the amounts. But it leaves the residential area receiving in a new development with a greater Off Street parking problem since you cannot spend it in that area. So how do we address that? That the, uh,

some of those other areas in that map are the ones who are going to be paying the price for it in that they're going to have more people using their street parking and you can't put, not you. The City can't put in a facility to come back to that. Cause the facility can't be on the street. I mean, when I read what you said was in the act, can someone explain that to me? We'd like to take that question. Go ahead, Mr. Casey. Yeah. It's a really good, uh, comment or question. I think, um, you're absolutely right the way that this has been brought forward is it would be a single reserve fund that would apply citywide. And so, you know, a site in a particular neighbourhood. There's no guarantee that necessarily the funds that are collected as cash and lead would be spent there.

So it does leave a bit of a potential gap there. I think the hope is funds that are collected are either contributed toward a reserve fund for the sake of providing off - street public parking in future or toward, um, sustainable transportation infrastructure. And especially on the transportation infrastructure side that the benefit that comes with those investments isn't necessarily localized in neighbourhoods specific that it's sort of more of a, whether it's supportive of transit, supportive of cycling, that it's, um, infrastructure that sort of, uh, results in more people choosing sustainable modes and fewer driving. And so that impact is less localized and more citywide. Not necessarily suggesting we go there, because I understand this has been challenging. But other communities have prescribed a whole series of reserve funds that are specific to certain neighbourhoods or certain parts of the city. So that's an avenue that has been done elsewhere. It'd have to sort of, uh, remind myself where that was, um, but it has been

done before to get at the exact point you're suggesting where it's the impacts are felt in one neighbourhood, but the investment's not necessarily made there. Thank you. We just did that this morning with park money. And so I find this really problematic. So I just wanted to make that clear that we do do that for some things. As I said, it was done this morning with park money. And now it's not going to be done for the people who are going to be bearing the cost of problematic parking on the street. So thank you for that. Um. I'm very concerned about the small scale development concept of no parking there. Because again, the cost will be on that particular block wherever there is a three to six story townhouse. And so some of it might be able to give or something else. But it's going to be exempted from any parking requirements. And I can't really support that. And I'm not too sure how you're

going to apply that. What I mean is will it apply to a 10 unit townhouse. What are we doing with all this. Who'd like to take that question. Mr. Dudley. Through the mayor, thank you for the question through the mayor. Thank you for the question. Um, would you like to just start off by highlighting that introducing, uh, these measures is providing a flexibility that we currently don't have in the regulations. So it's really about providing more optionality for those developments going in. Sort of anecdotally as well with staff. When we see these, um, three to six units scale developments, most of them are coming in with a minimum of parking as we have had quite extensive feedback from the community that the development community that they're not marketable. If they don't have parking spaces. So they can sit for quite a while. So there is the market is already making that decision for us in many ways. Um, of course, we will be monitoring the

rollout and, uh, I guess you can say adoption or opt in on these regulations as they're used. So if we are seeing that there is localized problems with not providing parking, we can always revisit that, uh, before the five year or at least in the five year term where we're monitoring these regulations and how the community is using them. Thank you. But like might be going on in that five years. Okay. Um, in consultation, which you've spoken about, you just have, uh, with your feedback and development industry. And the report stays that the engagement reflected the IAP2 consult for industry partners. Industry focus groups, including affordable housing providers. We also had correspondence from a cook street resident, uh, who described a petition with 150 resident signatories. Residents who found out about a provider having input because the provider's tenants were be given the opportunity of input. Whereas other residents were not being given any opportunity.

So while the residents suggest a few model changes, we're made to the petition. It was quite pleased with staff referring to them. My real issue is how many other residential areas the city were excluded from consultation. Okay. What have you speak to the extent of the public consultation. Yes, strangrove through the, maybe I'll start this second part of the consultation. I think we've considered the first part of the consultation to be through the other various policy documents that we have the COVID - Victoria, the newest OCP. This second phase of the consultation wasn't targeted phase. And so we did target specific groups. But more specifically, uh, there was information sent out in the Connect newsletter, which goes to every household in Victoria. And we did not have any comments received from that. Thank you. I don't doubt that at all. But yet we had targeted that certain type of, uh, residential, uh, Property owners were given special consideration invited to in - person meetings. Yet

the general population was not. And I think this is very worrisome. Um, go Victoria was how many years ago. Mr. Grego. When did we pass go, Victoria? Uh, through the mayor of 2018. Around there. We may have had some population change since then. On September 18th, there was a consultant. This is just one of the quotes. In consultant was to engage to produce report on the feasibility of a new parquet outside downtown. I believe the intent was for the North Edge. Has that report been done or consultant retained. Mr. William. Through the mat. No, that's, um, that's been going to be on a future, uh, budget year as a night. I'm on a future budget here. Pardon, sorry. It'll be in a future year as a budget title. Okay. So that'll be in your next, with before your next five year. Okay. Um, now this question relates to a bit what I've already said, which is the consultation. So I don't know how this is

going to apply and to whom, especially with the small ones. I'm a bit confused. Uh, we had one and it was, it changed. Uh, and it changed I think because we had it earlier on. It came to Council and it was a townhouse complex of, I think nine units that could be wrong. But with some parking on it. And of course this is before missing middle housing was approved and everything else. It was a very transitional one. So I get that. And I think it ended up with either 12 or 15 units and zero parking. So and yet we weren't notified of it. I. e.

Council and I don't think the neighbourhood was either because of the missing middle housing policy. So how will this apply to missing middle housing policy beyond the six units? I'm really quite confused. And so I think we'll be a lot of, uh, neighbours when the changes, real big changes that they don't get any notification. Mr. Angro, was this something you can answer. Um, through the mayor, uh, yeah, I guess if I'm trying to get at the question here, uh, but, uh, so through the regulations, if a developer can get their parking down to zero, there would be no notification, uh, unless there was like a development permit associated with it with other variances that would get mailed out. Um, but if someone met all the regulations, then there would be no notification. Thank you. If the tan unit counthouse and they don't want to put in parking or just the one compulsory one. So we say through missing middle. Would that be approved without any

kind of consultation or without any public hearing or anything. Just ran a girl? Uh, through their mayor, yes, if they, uh, got their parking down through TDMs or cash and lie, yes, it could be approved without consultation. Mr. Handy. Just through you, Matt, and that's not a change from the current status. If we received a development permit application with variances for parking, certain levels of variances can be delegated to stuff and they don't get public input. Thank you for that. Councillor. Okay. I think that may be it for now. Thank you. Very good. Councillor Loughton with questions. Thanks to you, Mayor. I just have one question in it. It pertains to attachment A and table three about the cash and lie for motor vehicle parking use and the prices of it. So it's the residential on a law comprising of 12 or fewer dwelling units is 17 five, but all other uses are 35, 000. So I was just thinking about a scenario where, you know, maybe there's a project that has 15 units

or 30 units and it wants to do something car free versus something with 130 units that might want to do that. And the price of that and how that could become cost prohibitive for those smaller projects. Was that taken into consideration with this number? Or how, how would something like that be dealt with if it makes it so that, um, those smaller projects have a really hard time. Meeting that number. You're strangro. Yes. So through the mayor, the idea would be for those projects to first use our TDM measures and get it as low as they could. And then if they could use the cash in lieu without breaking the bank, uh, it's great. If not, the variance process does still exist. So they could come forward to counsel with a variance. Oh, okay. So that would, so they would have to come to us.

Like at, or how does that work? Uh, so that, that would be a variance that's delegated to staff and a variance delegated to staff. Okay. And then what would the criteria be for that fire ants to be approved. Or Mr. Handy. Matt? I think it would just be a case that's made by the applicant. And it could be that they look to provide additional TDM measures. Or they could put in an argument forward, um, that, you know, the exceptional circumstances relating to the site which prohibits them from providing parking. And they could have a conversation with a SRAM financial feasibility. So there's a whole like raft of different reasons why people can kind of, an argument justifications that people can put forward for variants. Okay.

Thank you for that. That's it for me, mate. Well, there are questions. I'm ready to move it. Are there any other questions? Yes. Councillor Hammond, go ahead, Councillor Hammond. Just two that haven't been answered. Um, I almost exclusively use my e - bike for cycling. Are these considered oversized. Mr. Gillingham. Through the mate, an oversized bike would be more of a kind of bucket or cargo bike as part of the update to the standard requirements for bike parking. We're requiring that up to 50 percent minimum, which grievously was part of our, it would be a negotiated TDM measure. So that's one of those things that's now been baked into the baseline, uh, bicycle parking requirements.

Okay. Thanks. And so is that the 20 percent that is being proposed. Killing. Uh, no, I think. So that means the, um, the bike stalls are twice as wide. So instead of a 0. 45 store, it's a 0. 9 metre stall. And the length is longer as well rather than 1. 8 metres. It's 2. 4, I think, um, so it just allows those like space for those kind of long tail cargo bikes and bucket bikes and things like that. Okay. And just for me to be clear, then that's, that's what would be necessary to have 20 percent space for the space for those. Yeah. Through them, that's correct. Yeah. Okay. Now that when you're not including the e - bikes, like, cause I thought maybe mine sometimes it's difficult to get into the old stuff, right? Just to lock it. Um, then when, when you noted the other lower mainland, which had Vancouver, well, outside of that, um, what is it that we know different

that these other municipalities don't. I'm not saying we always have to follow something that everyone else is doing, but it seems like quite a bit more. Mr. Billingham. Through the mayor. Um, essentially we are seeing much higher rates of, or we've seen higher rates of, um, cargo bike oversized bikes being used. Um, we have the resource of the bike ballet downstairs, which indicates like we're getting kind of up to 40, 50 percent oversized cargo bikes being recorded in there. And there is a certain element there of, um, you know, the kind of like, uh, the chosen population, like if you have an oversized bike, it's more difficult to park. You want to look after it more and be more secure. So you're more likely to.

Torrey, if you have a bike, I just need this. Oversized. Okay. Um, so it's a little bit of a, we probably would see those higher rates of usage in the bike valet. But travelling around, people, uh, high numbers of oversized bikes around, around the city. Um, as part of the consultation, we spoke to Capitol Bike who are actually pushing for a higher figure and similar to what some of the conversation today has been. They made the point that we're, you know, these buildings are going to be standing for, you know, 100 years or so. So we need to, um, build for that future use and anticipate the kind of growth that we've seen over the past few years. Okay. Thanks. And perhaps my last question then is, did you, if we went to 20 percent, did you get much pushback from any developers or anyone in the building industry. Mr. William? Through the, not a great deal. We have kind of, uh, balanced that with

also, um, introducing stack parking, stack bicycle parking. So for regular bikes being able to double stack them, which again, used to require variance. And now that's permitted as standard for up to, I think is up to 30 percent of the required bike parking So the bit of a balance there of being able to provide the regular bike parking in a slightly reduced footprint and then having that extra additional space for the oversized bike parking. Great. Thanks very much. Thanks Mayor. Thank you very much. Any other questions. Once again, you know the questions. I believe Councillor Kitter, you'd like to move the recommendation? Yeah. For good is her a seconder. Councillor Thompson's second day. Go ahead, Councillor Kurt, on him. Um, thanks Mayor. Before getting into General Motivation, I do have one amendment. I'm going to make, um, I'll also signal now that I'll have, um, motion arising. And I'll show the amendment in just a second. But, um, at a high level that I think

it's really good. I think that the only really remaining problem is around cash and lieu and TDM. And to just sort of clarify my earlier comments about querying this with staff, the problem I'm trying to solve is imagine the falling scenario. You have two different developers. Developer A is not really committed to sustainable transportation, car light, car free living. They just want to save some money or not have to deal with parking. And they're not really thinking about the transportation needs of their resonance. And so they're probably going to try to buy their way out of it through cash and lie. So there's the, let's call them like less committed developer over there. And then developer B, which is a small but growing market is values driven. It's design intensive. They really care about their resonance. Shangri - Law Bike parking. There's the moto. There's the bus passes. I mean, there's all this like design intensive work to try to make sure that people are

getting around in a sustainable way. The challenge that I'm having with all this is that the local government act is like getting in the way of having really good policy as far as I can see. Cause as I understand it, what staff told me is that if cash and lie is in the mix, it has to always be in the mix. It's not legal for some reason. I don't get why the LGA says this, but it's essentially impossible for us to say, thou shalt maximize TDM first. And then if you can't get all the way there or if you've exhausted your options, then you can go to the cash and lie. As I understand it, it's basically not legal for us to say that. There might be some creative policy solution to that down the line that we can't come up with on the fly here. But right now that's sort of a barrier. So if we go back to my hypothetical example of the

A and the B. For the A developer who's not as committed, we want to, we don't want to make it super easy for them to buy their way out of doing the right thing, which is transportation demand management. I assume all of us want it, all of us want to have transportation demand management for lower nopark buildings. My concern though is that developer B is being somewhat unfairly taxed. For having done all the TDM work. They've exhausted them. Everything they can. And now we're charging them 35, 000 dollars. To not have something that they already don't want. They don't want to have parking. But we're charging them 35K. And that, I think, sends the wrong message. And it's essentially saying, Hey, look, value is driven developer. You're aligning with all of our sustainable goals, our climate goals, fewer cars on the road, less emissions, sustainable transportation. But we're going to tax you 35, 000 dollars per stall. That goes into this TDM reserve. That is

a bit unfair. I don't, I don't think it's possible to fully solve that right now. I think it requires more work. But what I would like to do is make this policy a little bit less problematic by reducing the cost. Of the cash and loop, not eliminating it, but bring it down a bit to try to find a happy balance so that we're still funneling people into TDM, which is going to be cheaper than buying their way out with these stalls, even if we reduce the cost. But not overly penalizing the values driven developer that's already doing the right thing. And it's like, well, what else am I supposed to do? And yes, the variance process, but a variance process is not a guarantee either.

Staff could say no. So I've sent my, my proposal to, to staff, which would essentially to bring down the cash and lie. Please wait until it's on the floor and you have a second for you to motivate. I will also remind you that this is council. So you may only speak once to this motion, including its amendment. And you are now down to less than four minutes. Okay. So this is the totality of your amendment is all of the bolded and struck through language. Okay. Just like everyone a chance to read it. And then I will look for a seconder. Before I look for a second, I'm going to ask staff, and I'm not sure to whom is would be directed. Does such an amendment have an impact on the next steps in considering these bylaws. Does it delay the process that you have anticipated by bringing this forward today?

My understanding is no. So we would, Council will give first readings today, uh, and then we would amend the bylaws and then Council could give second reading set a later date while still aiming to get this, uh, approved, uh, before a public hearing, sorry, uh, by the end of the month. Very good. Thank you. Is there a secondary for this amendment. Councillor Thompson, you're going to second the amendment. Yes, you may, absolutely. Can you turn on your mic, please? Yeah. By amending is the term used in both of those. And I'm wondering if that is actually by reducing. Cause I'm not sure what amending means.

Well, it would simply imply that it's changing from what it says now, right? From what we understood earlier, it was a hundred percent and this is suggesting it goes to 50. So that's what I, how I understand the language. Mr. Rengrow, is that how you understand the language? Uh, through the mayor, I think I see the Councillor's point. I think maybe at the end, it should say by reducing by 50 percent. In each of number two and number four. Yes. Yeah. It doesn't clarify. I think we, we all know it's meant to be reducing, but I think by reducing by field, Thompson. And that can also be added into number four as well. That does seem more clear. With that, Councillor Thompson, do you wish to second this amendment? Yes. Okay. Councillor Cardona on your amendment. Remembering your time constraint. Thank you. So the idea here is to bring it down by 50 percent. So the cost, but it's not as onerous. So the 35,

000 would go down to, uh, 17, five, I guess. What I originally wanted to do today was make it mandatory to do TDM in cases in which you have low or no parking. You should have to do TDM. And then if you can't get all the way there, you do the cash and loot. What I've come to learn is that the LGA makes that complicated. That said, I still think that the rationale of, of bringing down the cash and lieu now so that we're not driving up the cost of housing. You know, my understanding is that developers aren't just going to eat these costs. They're going to pass some straight along to the consumer. So a unit that was 650 is now 670 or 680, 000 dollars because we're essentially taxing these sorts of developments.

Um, but that said, I don't, until we solve this kind of thorny policy issue of how we funnel people into TDM. We also don't want to make this number too low. So that my, my example hypothetical developer A that's not as committed just as well, I'm just going to buy my way out of it. And then you've left resonance in the lurch and they don't have access to sustainable transportation. I don't think anybody wants that. So I'm trying to thread a really fine needle here. The motion rising that I'll have in a little while is about doing more work about how we funnel more people into TDM in the first instance. We're not going to solve that today. But I don't want to be driving up the cost of housing. So I mean, you know, if you take a 20 unit building that has no parking and they've done all the TDM, they possibly can.

They've got the moto. They've got the bike parking, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They can't, through our policies, get all the way down. They are forced to buy their way out of doing something they don't already want to do. So multiply, you know, multiply that by 35, 000. 10 units by 35. It's 350, 000 dollars. That gets passed straight onto the consumer. And I think in this affordability crisis, I don't know what the problem is we're solving there. That person, that hypothetical developer is already doing everything they can't. We're just making housing more expensive for people that don't want parking. And that small minority of people that don't want it. So I, I think it's a perverse incentive. So I'm trying to make this, this provision less problematic. Again, Program that you guys had come up with, I agree with this, just one piece of it. But I think it is problematic. So hopefully this passes under two minutes now. Okay. Hopefully this passes

and then the motion arising will give direction and do some additional work so that we can balance the requirement to do TDM with the cash and lie. But at least piece B would get done today in PCA would have to get done six or eight months from now. Thanks. Councillor Thompson is a secondary of the amendment. Anything on the amendment. Thanks Mary. I'll just ask staff to, if they could verify my colleague's, one of his points that he was making along the way here, uh, so we can't actually just require folks to do the TDM, uh, to the maximum amount and then add on the cash and lie. Is that correct? Seeing nodding from multiple staffs. Through the mayor of that, that's correct. At least not in a straightforward way that we have had the time to look into. Is there, is there any chance that between the first reading and second reading at a later date, you're going to be able to dig further

into that. Through the mayor, I would say no. And I think that's might be what the motion arising may be about. That's right. Anything else? Okay. On the amendment, Councillor Loughton. Yes. Through you, Mayor, how were the numbers chosen. Like why is it 35, 0175. Mr. Pesey. Through the mayor, it's a good question. There's not, that's not hard mathematics in that. We did do a scan of other sort of, um, urban type communities, uh, some from the lower mainland non city of Vancouver, but municipalities in the lower mainland. That was called a starting point. And there was a bit of a conversation around balancing both the benefit to the applicant in not having to build the parking relative to what we know cost to be.

And again, structure different than surface. Uh, as well as making sure we thought we were sort of hitting a balance in terms of this being, um, a tool that would be taken up in instances where a site is truly constrained, but not at a rate that it's so attractive to do so, uh, that as was talked about earlier that applicants would just sort of use this as a way to, um, essentially buy their way out of providing the parking. Okay. So you are, you've tried to find the balance. And just one more question, Mayor. So in the example that my colleague to the left brought up in the 20 unit, um, car free development, they get their TDM down. And then they're still left with having to buy out these spaces. Would that qualify for a variance. How would that work. Through the mayor, yes, they could apply for a variance in that case. And as Mr. Handy outlined previously, it would be up to

them to justify why they would get that variant. Why, they deserve that variance. Okay. I guess I'm a little bit stuck on that because it that would make it, um, it creates uncertainty for that developer. So is there any kind of criteria that they would be able to count on in order while applying for that variance. Do your standardized thresholds? Or is that something that's a negotiation. Mr. Johnston? Uh, thank you, Sue the mayor. Uh, so there's associated updates to the land use procedures bylaw to delegate parking variances to staff. And there are criteria in the land use procedures bylaw for meeting the threshold for delegation. So projects would need to demonstrate that they're meeting the design guidelines, the applicable design guidelines for that location, as well as, um, proving out that they've made all reasonable attempts to provide, uh, mobility options on, on site.

So it would be a, uh, I guess evaluated on a case - by - case basis as to whether they have, you know, met that threshold. And I believe you're referencing what's here before us at number five. Is that right? The readings to the land use procedure pilot. Yes, that's the correct. Okay. Okay. That's it for me. Thanks. Questions Councillor Hammond. I thought I saw your hand up. I don't know why I'm asking this so late in our mandate, but I can ask questions and then comment on the amendment later. Yeah. So, um, I guess I'm just not clear. Let's, let's say the 17, 500, I'm building something I'm doing the TDMs and let's say that's valued it up to 10, 000 dollars Does that mean I still pay the 17, 500 or do I get to pay the 7, 500 dollars. Mr. Angrove? Or does it not work anything like that. Through the mayor?

So the TDMs are a set rate. So if you do those TDMs, uh, you get that set reduction. If you wanted to then further reduce your other stalls that maybe still were outstanding and you exhausted all your TDM options, that's, you could consider your cash in lieu. Or you could also just cash and low the whole thing potentially. Okay. So that's where that's where the balance comes in around the cost of the cash and loo is we don't want to put it too low such that developers just ignore all the TDMs, uh, but we also don't necessarily want to put it super high such that, uh, these small developers are put out and can't make it work ever. Okay. Then if we reduce this as per this amendment, then that means it will be easier for people to not have to do the proper TDMs.

Strand group, what is the impact of this. In your view? Through the mayor, it starts to get easier. Yes. So yeah, as we, as we reduce the cash and lieu amount, it gets more attractive to not do the TDMs and do the cash and lie instead. Uh, so yeah, if we hit the cash and low amount too low, people will start ignoring the TDMs because the TDM's at that point might be more costly. Okay. Thank you very much. That answers my question. Any other questions on the amendment is the bold language in front of you. Not seeing any other questions. Councillor Dell is joining us by the way online as is Councillor Kim. And so we do have all of us here available for voting.

In favor of the amendment, please indicate. I'm just going to check online first. I've got yes from Councillor Dahl and Councillor Kim from Councillor Corridora from Councillor Loughton from Councillor Thompson in opposition. That would be Councillor. Good Lord. It's been too long a day. Thank you Councillor Coleman Councillor Hammond Councillor Gardner and myself. That being said, it is still five to four in favor. So the amendment stands. Councillor Cardona, you still have the floor on the main motion and I will warn you that you are under two minutes. I think maybe I'll save my time for the motion rising. Very good. Uh, Councillor Thompson, you were the secondary. Would you like to speak to the main motion. Um, I really don't have much to add apart from what staff have said in their report and what we've, what we've discussed already. You know, this is, this is part of updating, uh, our parking, the city has always evolved, has always changed. And it will continue

to change. Um, and this is, I think where we're at right now, uh, in terms of the, uh, of the off street parking and in five or 10 years, um, we may need to change it again. We probably will. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor. Anyone else on the main motion as amended. Councillor Pollman, would you like to speak? Yes. Now that I remember who you are, yes, go ahead. Thank you. The caution I have with this is as we drop parking restrictions, we create an economic externality which is parking on the street. And that's what we're trying to also address. I know this isn't about street parking, but that's where excess parking will go. And just three weeks ago, I think transit was in front of us saying, our roots have slowed down by 1. 7 minutes each because of some of the curb stuff. So as we go through this, I have a real concern that all we're doing is we're making this externality and

people will come in and say, well, yeah, I know this building doesn't, the unit I have doesn't have parking, but I have a vehicle. It's going to be out there somewhere. So we're going to have to, I don't know if that comes in the five year renewal, but that's the fear I have. With this. This is first readings and so on. So we have another chance to come back to this. But that's the concern that I have as we move forward with this. That doesn't mean we have to do parking the way we used to do it when we had parking minimums of building with 40 units was expected to have 60 parking stalls. Now we've gone to parking maximums and just two weeks ago we had an application on Cedar Hill that had 12 units in three buildings. And the parking maximum allowed them to have three parking stalls and they wanted 12. So there has to be some latitude for the applicant to

say this is the market I want to sell in and I need parking. So. That's just over her. It's discussion outside this. We're in a really sticky area. And that's the concern I have with this. We shouldn't be trying to make parking an externality when we know. There are 58, 400 vehicles licensed by ICBC in the city of Victoria. That's, that's a fairly high ratio. And that hasn't changed a lot. It's grown with the population. So we just need to think through that. I'll support this going forward just because it's a partial. It's coming back to us. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Coleman.

Anyone else. Take off the comments Councillor Logan. Wait, hang on Councillor Long. Yes, absolutely. You may can because you haven't spoken on the main motion. Spoke money then. Thanks to you mayor. I also agree that we are in a bit of a no - person's land here. I mean, we, we, I think that the TDM should come first, but we can't do that legislatively. So we're going to have to be really careful how we're finding the balance in the price tag on those, um, on those spots. So because this is first reading, I think staff can go back and think about this. It's going to come back to us again. You know, we're not, we're not adopting anything today. And I think that maybe one of the opportunities to try to make this work a little bit better is to have clear, um, guidelines around the variance. Variants to not, to not have to pay for the cash and loop piece so that it provides

those sort of lower, you know, developers that are doing smaller developments with a little more certainty that they can meet their TDM and then not have to. Pay out to get, um, a car free development, I think that's something that everybody can think about. But again, because we're at first reading, um, I can support this. Thank you very much. Councillor Gardner, do you wish the weigh in? Thank you. Uh, first of all, I was very pleased with several decisions made by staff as they can sell them with a development industry. And then for example, the idea of creating, uh, parking maximums was abandoned. So some of those things are really quite appreciated. And they're required parking for larger complexes is very reasonable. I appreciated that.

But what concerns me in this report is beyond the downtown, a lot of people won't know what this policy means to them. Doesn't tell them whether or not they're going to have, you know, permit parking on their streets where they're not, they're going to have our parking, like restricted hours or what. It's just not clear. So the general population has not really been informed. And again, I'm very worried about the consultation. Cause in consultation saying, you know, go Victoria, I don't even remember it from eight years ago. So general public has not been brought into this. It really hasn't been. And the contact newsletter doesn't do it either. And so I was very disappointed. I know my staff did accommodate quest for me to come to a couple of neighbourhoods for which I was liaison and presented, but it was information going to the residents more than real consultation going back. And I had even said, I hope that you'll come back with this before

you come to Council. But I knew through process, they could not. And I think that was unfortunate. But I really can't support this small scale developments of three to six townhouses, uh, not required to have sufficient off - street parking for the townhouse or complex residences. Because that is what the OCP has really, um, said we can have almost anywhere in the city without consultation. Is this six stories? And well, four stories and six stories. And so residents aren't going to have a voice than that. And I've just seen some already with some of these and it's going to cause havoc on these streets. We don't have to wait five years for the problem. It's there now when something pops up in the middle or the end of a block already. It's there. And so I'm just so disappointed that there has not been that kind of real consultation blocked by block. Because we're talking about people paying the impact, uh, and their needs not

being respected block by block. And so I was disappointed in that. What else did I have in here? And again, I know I mentioned before. Restance really weren't residents who live here. And it doesn't matter if they're tenants or homeowners. They weren't consulted. Unless they were tenants of a particular subclass of, of residential housing, my mind just can't figure out why that was done. Uh, why the bulk of the residents and residential complexes were not considered, uh, to be an importance to be actually consulted where some others were. I honestly don't understand how that occurred. So, um, I understand this will be going forward, but just because of the, those issues that I mentioned, which is a consultation, then I still don't know how the public feels about this until they read the papers and news articles online in the next few days. They, they won't know. And, uh, so, and again, since the OCP now has upzone everything pretty well, the four to six

stories. I just can't support this going forward. So thank you very much. Thank you. Uh, anyone else who has yet to speak on the main motion. I believe. Yes. Councillor Hammond go right hand. Thanks Mayor. In September, I supported a staff bringing back bylaw amendments. Doing focus engagement and collecting more information. And, um, that was the right process. As a matter of fact, I think I was the one who panicked about the contact going out and making sure it included this. But I also voted against several of the substantive items that are now reflected in these bylaws. I opposed expanding no minimum parking areas. I posed moving towards the phase removal of parking minimums across the city. I oppose creating broader pathways to very lower no parking developments without stronger safeguards. I also had concerns about shifting visitor accessible parking pressure onto the public curb.

Staff have made some useful changes. And I appreciate that. Removing parking maximums was the right move, keeping visitor parking requirements was also practical. I appreciate the engagement that led to some of the improvements. Although I certainly appreciate what my colleagues has said about, about this. Uh, but my core concerns still remain. Um, parking demand doesn't disappear because Council changes a bylaw. If we get this wrong, the pressure moves onto nearby streets, residents, small businesses, visitors, caregivers, tradespeople, and people with mobility needs. I'm not opposed to change and I'm not saying every new home or business has to be built around private cars. Our population is growing. Space is limited and transportation choices matter. But I don't think these bylaws have enough safeguards, enough neighbourhood led accountability or a fast enough public review, despite my vote in September, I think, waiting five years for review is too long. However, Council gave direction and staff followed that direction. But because I didn't support key parts of that

direction September, I can't support putting these changes into law today, even on first reading. So hence I'll be voting no. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you very much. Just checking with my colleagues online to see if either of them wish to speak. Nope. Got a big no. Uh, one question for you that arises from some of the language used in some of my colleagues comments. Do you have on your work plan an evaluation of on Street parking policy? And if so, when. Yes, that was one of the recommendations from when we came to Committee the whole Last September, um, so we've been, ongoing work, um, to do with that. Currently it's a lot of data and information gathering. So we've just completed the first round of data collection in James Bay to start our inventory of CO regulations across the city. So we have a real accurate idea of how many potential, um, the potential capacity of on street parking in all of our neighbourhoods. And we

have a priority list of other neighbourhoods to go to, um, now that James Bay's been completed, um, at the same time, the end of last month, um, postcards went out, uh, targeted postcards went out to actually random, um, addresses across the city to try and get a, to provide access to, uh, an engagement survey about people's on street parking experiences, um, and the results of that is to try and get a kind of representational idea of typical, um, experiences in different parts of the city. And that'll help again inform a new approach to parking in residential neighbourhoods. Um, the same consultants who understook that are also over the summer going to undertake some targeted, um, surveys in areas of particularly high parking demand that we're aware of, um, again, to get, uh, feedback from people visiting these areas, their reasons for travelling there, the most travel, how far they've come by at their experiences of parking and so on. Um, in those areas. Um, and

then the other side of it is also being, um, kind of, uh, consulting with other municipalities across BC who've also experienced in the same kind of parking pressures. It's a bit of a universal issue. And so we're kind of in the middle of it with a lot of other places. So, you know, the information gathering, the intention is to then use all this information to develop a new kind of approach, as I say, um, taken into account a lot of the issues that have been raised today in terms of, um, residential parking, um, the, the kind of potential for reducing off street supply, downloading that parking onto the street. And so having to better management, better regulate parking, also making sure we have space for, um, commercial loading, for accessible parking, for tradesmoon and contractors as well. And being sure that we can try and, you know, accommodate all these different competing needs at the curb. Um, in September, as I say, we, I think

we committed to coming back and presenting something in 2027, which is still, still the intention. But until then, the love work to be done before we have something that is worth sharing. Thank you, Mr. Kenny's indicating he'd liked a way in behind you. Thank you, Mayor. Um, and just to add a little bit to Mr. Billingham's response, which was very thorough about what it's to come, um, just last year, we've kind of done some analysis on emails received to the engineering department. We had about 900 emails just related to parking or loading or issues regarding curb use in the city. Um, and we respond to, you know, a couple hundred of those in terms of making changes. So while we're looking to future policy and how we address curse, we also respond, um, and prioritize, you know, issues as they're brought forward from the public.

So it really is while we try to set longer term and broad base policies, we're also responding in a very iterative way, um, every day. Great. Thank you for that. Very well. Everyone has spoken to the main motion. Yes, they have. And so I'm going now called a question. Nope. You cannot speak voice on the main motion because you already have. So that is in our procedures bylaw. Uh, so all those in favor of the amended motion. We're going to look first online Councillor Dowell and Councillor Kim are both in favor. Councillor Cardona. Councillor Loughton, myself, Councillor Coleman Councillor Thompson in opposition. Councillor Hammond and Councillor Gardner. Noting to, in opposition that is in various places, given multiple readings as described on the screen. And I believe Councillor Cardonia, you have a motion arising. Uh, yeah. And I sent it over to staff. Very good.

Just wait for that to come up. Shouldn't be a surprise. What it is. I wouldn't think so. Just pull it up there. That'd be right. Let's just take a moment to read it and then I'll ask for a second here. Is the seconder for that. Colter Loat in his second knee that Councillor Cardona on your motion rising. You have two minutes. Thanks very much. So just to make one thing crystal clear, I do not want a situation in which the derelict developer is buying their way out of doing the right thing. If that happens in the real world, it's a policy failure. None of us should want that. What we should want is to figure out how in these lower nopark developments to require TDM.

And then if we can do that, the question of cash and lie becomes somewhat redundant. Or irrelevant, frankly. And actually while I'm thinking of it, I mean, let me just clarify here that the problem with the local government act, as I understand it, the reason that we can't require TDM is because cash and lieu is involved in the mix. If we were in theory to remove cash and load, just get rid of cash and lose an option. Could we then require TDM. Mr. Rangrove. Uh, so through the bay to clarify, we can require TDM. I think the problem that's arising is when you try and combine them both in saying that, uh, in order to unlock cash and lie, you have to provide TDM first.

So I think, uh, to clarify, they both need to be separate. But what I'm saying is that if we were to just get rid of the idea of cash and lie, would that open up opportunities to make it clear and more authoritative in our requirements for TDM. From the reverse perspective, Mr. Angrove, could we just demand TDM and give no other option. Through the mayor, yes. Um, TDA, or Cashan Liu was introduced as an additional flexibility option for developers, but it could certainly be removed fully. Okay. So I'm certainly not going to direct that we do that, but as part of the research over the next few months on this, I would like you guys to, to consider that. I mean, maybe the cash and lieu is just getting in the way. And it's like a solution in search of a problem. Right. I mean, if, if the ultimate objective here from a policy standpoint is to require these buildings to have really great TDM,

maybe we should focus on that and solve that problem. And like the cash and loop can become a secondary consideration. Because if the local government act does complicate things so much, we don't want to end up in a perverse situation in which we're allowing people to buy their way out of doing the right thing. So I genuinely don't know what the answer is here. We either have to wrestle the local government act to the ground or ditch cash and lie or come up with something creative. You guys are all really smart. And I think that there is a policy solution here that gets us where we want to be as a city and gets a development community on site. Thank you Councillor Councillor Loat. And you seconded this. Thanks to you, Mayor. This is a really tough nut to crack. And I think you're all fully well aware of that. And it just gives a little bit more direction to think about this more to

see what we can do to try to solve this problem. Um, I'm not in favor of removing the cash in lieu. So I think it is important. And just, I'll just tell a quick anecdotal story. I have a friend who, um, was thinking about going car free, but instead, Oh, I would if there was a moto right outside my house, but it's not because it's on a residential street. I live in a MERB and there's a motor right outside my house. It's very easy for me. So the cash and Lou can help us, I think, get more, um, car shares just in different areas of the city. So I think that's really important. But at the same time, it's finding the balance of making sure that those TDMs are the priority and that people aren't sort of gaming the system, if you will, in terms of what we're trying to achieve. So all I'm happy to second this and just wish you luck in all

of your thinking around this. And thank you, Mr. Dudley and Mr. Bright. You did a great job. Yes, indeed. Anyone else on the motion rising. All right. All those in favor of the motion rising. Anybody you posed. That would appear to be unanimous. I believe that does resolve that matter. Thank you, gentlemen. Uh, lovely to meet you. Thank you for coming. And thank you for all the work that went into getting us to this point. Uh, we have been sitting for quite a long time. And so I'm going to suggest we take a short break before we conclude the last two items on our open agenda at Council. So let us return at 235. We are, as I mentioned earlier, at the daytime Council meeting.

We have moved to item H2. This is the update for the Zoning Bylaw 2018 and Rezoning Applications for 1905 and 1907 Fort Street at 1923 and 1929 Davy Street at the Development Permit with variances application pertaining to those same addresses. I believe staff you would like to remind us and provide us with some information about the various pieces we have before us, including why we're rescinding a third reading, why we're mending, et cetera, et cetera. So I'm Mr. Gordon, I'm going to turn that over to you to explain just what we're doing here. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor Council. My name is Jordi Gordon, senior planner with playing and development. Before Council today is consideration of two bylaws, as well as adoption of a development permit with variances. Just as a reminder, the rezoning proposal for the land, now known as 1933 Davie Street at the corner of Fort Street and Davy Street is to increase the density to permit the construction of a sick

story mixed - use residential rental building with 75 residential units and ground floor commercial. This amendment byla is up for consideration of final approval. However, prior to final approval, it is recommended that Council Racine Third Reading of the Bylaw and amend the bylaw before giving third reading and final approval of the amended bylaw. The amendments are administrative in nature and are necessary to reflect the consolidation of the subject property from what we're previously for lots into one. The appendix2 map also requires updating several properties have been added to this map through a separate rezoning process in the intervening time between third reading and consideration of final adoption of this amended bylaw. Also before council is consideration of introductory readings of the housing agreement bylaw to secure rental tenure of the rezoning application and this bylaw would be returned to council at a future meeting for final approval. Great, okay. And Mr. Gordon, just to clarify, the reason that we're needing to rescind is because there

are amendments required to what we originally gave third reading. Yes, that is correct. Those amendments specifically are to update the legal information related to the property, as well as that map for Zoning Bylat 2018. So there what you would consider, I believe you mentioned calling them administrative in nature. That is correct, through you. They do not change the intent of the bylaw, any of the uses of their permissions granted they're in. Very good, thank you very much for that. Let's go first to, if there are any questions, and I'm just going to caution everyone, the fact that we're looking at rescinding third reading first is going to limit what you're going to be able to ask about. Most of your questions I suspect will pertain to once we consider rescindment and then amendment, we will then go to third reading of what is actually supposed to be on the table. It's really at that point that you should be asking questions of clarifications. Is that

clear? Yes, Councillor Gregory, go ahead. Where's the map. It's attached to the file on the agenda, I believe. Can you bring the map up? Yes, please, thank you.

Is that the map you're requiring, Councillor? Well, I just want to know the changes on the map, because we rounded the problems with the whole OCP, a map boundaries. So Mr. Gordon, can you point out on this exactly the reference that we're actually considering. Through you, I don't think I could point out the specific properties, but they were added as a result of, I believe, of Bill 25 that updated several properties. I think we could pull those up if it was relevant. But I don't know them. At this moment. Very good. So as I suggested, I think what we could consider doing is speaking to the rescindment and then the amendment of the original bylaw.

And then when we get to the consideration of third reading of that amended bylaw weekend, then open the floor to general questions. Sufficient. Okay. So first I'm going to look for a motion to rescind zoning bylaw 2018 amendment, ByleU number 1926 - 001. Thanks, Councillor Coleman. SecondErby Consequera, Donna. Do you have anything to say about rescinding the matter, given what Mr. Gordon has shared. Not seeing any comments, all those in favor rescinding. Does anyone oppose. That is unanimous. With that then, we would propose then the amendment of that same amendment bylaw, number 19, number 26 - 001 with someone like to propose the amendment of that. Councillor Coleman, yes. And seconded by Councillor Thompson discussion on the amendment. Not seeing any discussion on that. It's all those in favor, anyone opposed. That is unanimous. So now we have the Proper zoning bylaw in front of us, and we are now considering third reading of that now revised and Proper Zoning bylaw. Does anyone wish to

ask any questions about that. We are now speaking to third reading, it was of the Properly amended Zoning bylaw Amendment bylaw number 26 - 01. This we've done number one. We've done number two, and now we're on number three. Thank you, Mayor. You have questions on that? Yeah, I'm still concerned I would hope that the community isn't surprised in any way, but any change of map. Because we had enough of that DOCP. Now I was hesitant to support this application when it came to Committee the Whole, and you will have significant impacts on the properties to the South. I voted for it only because the about to be approved OCP at the time, OCP 2050 would have a far greater negative impact on the existing residential homes. And I was hoping the map would clarify more, but I haven't really seen enough wheel detail of it. And so I just wanted to make that point.

Thank you. That's it, okay, great. Anyone else on third reading. Checking online. No. All those in favor of third reading. Anybody opposed. That is unanimous. We will go on to adoption of the Zoning bylaw, that very same bylaw. I like to move that, please, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Thompson, you're willing to second, yes. Coleman or Thompson, then you comments. Any other comments. Not seeing any other comments. I will just note that, um, Councillor Dell is not with us momentarily, just as he has another commitment. Um, but, uh, so we're avoiding on with eight people at Council. Although all those in favor of adoption. Anybody opposed. Councillor Kim, I'm presuming you're in favor. It's just a slight delay at my end watching it. Yes, very good, thank you. So that is unanimous. Thank you. That moves us on then to first, second, and third readings of the related housing agreement. Something like to move that, please. Councillor Thompson. And seconded by The Housing Agreement Rental Council, Caradona.

Any comments on the housing agreement Councillor Thompson, Councillor Cardona, I'm not seeing either any other comments. Not seeing any more, all those in favor. And you want to pose housing room at, nope, that's unanimous, thank you for that. And finally, the approval of the development permit with variances on the same file, councillor Thompson, would you move that Councillor Coleman? Are you seconding vote permit? Yes. Any comments from Thompson or Coleman, seeing none and the other comments. Seeing non - knowledge in favor, anyone opposed. That is also unanimous. Thank you for that. That deals with item H2. Thank you very much for the Gordon for walking us through that. That leaves us with one other item in our open calendar today. This is the new item new business, and this is item I - 1 at 749 Douglas Street. This is the Development Variance Permit for this. I believe this is related to a sign. Do we have any type of staff presentation on this, or

is this simply coming forward based on the materials attached to the agenda. Seeing any Staffo, Mr. Johnston, do you should speak to this at all? Nope. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I was just going to clarify we don't have a presentation on this. This is just final consideration of issuing the permit. Very good. Someone like to move this, please. Anybody? What do you want to move the sun? Thanks, Councillor Cardona. Anyone want to second the sign. Councillor Coleman, Councillor Cardinal, any comments. This is the Tela. This is the, not the Chalice sign. This is the, yeah, it is a Telesign, actually. Nope, Coaster Coleman. Anybody else?

Those are Hammond? Council for Gardner. Thanks. Am I too believed that this is what we're approving and what I voted for last time is 10 times the size of what would normally be allowed. Mr. Johnston, is that an information that you can clarify, or do we need to get a staff person here. Okay, I've got in front of me that is 4. 5 metres, and it's 45. 06 square metres. Yes, I believe that is correct. Okay. Yeah, I just thought, how did I miss that? Okay, thank you. So I walked by it the other day just two days ago, and after we got these correspondence from people, and that's when I went, yikes, because I saw exactly where they're putting it, because they're anticipating this as someone had mentioned, and they're putting this stuff up.

They've got pegs or whatever. And it's looking right at people's homes. And so I thought, oh, I obviously did not give this a lot of thought, and thank goodness for the people who wrote in. I somehow doubt because it was unanimous. I believe it was unanimous, that my vote will change anything. But I just suddenly, like, and the sign is just looking across the street. I mean, it's not sort of going out somewhere else, unless I, again, I walk past it, so I think I have a good idea of what it was. And I thought, that's just going to be right there staring at people.

And I thought I wouldn't want that for something that's so large. Thank you very much, Councillor Gardner. Thank you, Mayor. And we consider the cell of scientist at the May 21st Committee, the whole. At that meeting, Council was told that there had been considerable communications with the residents. Indeed, cooperation. And that has been verified by residents. But last week we received Communications from residents, which didn't paint such quite such a rosy picture. So reading from a submission received a week ago. I want to say that many of us are pleased with the changes made to the building before construction as a result of neighbourhood input.

I think we have a building to be proud of. I was not pleased to receive this variance request. We have all been through this before on signage. They agreed to the present signage at the time, and we agreed to the building with the changes made. So the writer goes on to suggest that the larger signage sign was not part of the agreement made with residents at that time. In her words, a cheap shot at all residents who worked so hard together to get results we were willing to go along with. For all my neighbours in the valley who worked on so diligently and so well together, this feels like a mighty slap in the face for all of us. So my questions, were staff members of where of this preemant to signage between the residents and tell us, or whoever presented on behalf of teles.

Mr. Johnston, I'm not sure if this is something you can answer or whether you need to have a different staff person. Attend. But clearly there are some questions with regard to any knowledge before Council agreed to either the sign or to the application of the telespilt itself. And I suspect it would be helpful if we had someone here who could actually answer some of these questions. Thank you, Mayor. We do have staff here who can help to answer questions on the current sign application. And I believe senior planner, Batanzo, maybe online who could provide some of the background on, you perhaps discussions around the signage at the time that the building was coming forward for approval, because it sounds like that might be what the writer is referring to. I suspect that's true. And I see Mr. Patenzo online. Mr. Patanza, could you give us a bit of a review on a recollection of where this started with regard to signs. Sure. Uh, thanks for

that. Through yourself, Mayor, the initial application came in, and I apologise, I can't remember the date, but, um, the signage that was proposed was in some respects considered with that initial application. And I recall Council requested that the signage, uh, facing the harbour was removed, um, and with only the signage, uh, facing north on Douglas Street to remain, um, at that time, um, the, the signage that was represented in the initial application is the same. That is what's being represented with this variance. Um, notably, I can't speak to what was shared with residents. I'm, I'm unaware of any of that information. But what I can speak to is that the signage proposed with the original building proposal is the same as the signage being proposed with this variance application. Thank you for that. That's very helpful. Thanks, Mr. Gardner. Yeah, thank you very much. And of course we received an email this morning of expressing a lot of the same concern, uh, about the sign

from a major hotel. Who's in the area who seemed not to know about it until just yesterday. So, um, I know I gave some advanced notice though. It's going to be asking some questions today. So I don't know how much you were able to gather. We also had a comic about the signage would even overpower the Empress in some way. Do we have any schematic showing the view from, shall we say, uh, scatter corner, pedestrian corner to, to see what the tell us looks like. Cause I know that TELUS, of course, is not on government. It's on Douglas. So, uh - huh. Mr. Danza, we have some of your colleagues are here in the room, uh, there are a number of them who are coming up to the table, I believe to share some images with us. Please go ahead. Thank you. Um, my name is Brady Shields, Chief Building and Plumbing Inspector. Um, I believe we have some images prepared. Showing. Just take a

second to pull them up. The coloured one probably is the best one. Yes, that's the one. So this is, um, an image that shows sort of the outline of the Empress in that orange colour with the Telus building in blue. Um, so you can see, if you look closely, the sign on the Douglas Street frontage is down behind the Empress. So not visible from the harbour. Okay. That's good to know. And so, and that's in proportion that tell a sign that settled behind their course. I believe so. Yes. Okay. That's, that's in there. Will the signs be dimmed in the evening. Through the mayor, I don't think there's been, uh, official discussion on that, but, um, and speaking with the applicant this morning, they have indicated that the science are fully dimmable and can be shut off. And they are willing to discuss and, um, open to that.

Mayor, I seek your, uh, assistance to alter the motion to put in, uh, that there would be dimming of the sign. I can't say what lumen level. I don't know what is shining at now and I don't know what, uh, would be a reasonable nighttime one, perhaps. Um, through the mayor, I did receive an email this morning from, um, the representative at Telus. And they were talking about a target of not exceeding. My apologies three foot candles above ambient light. Sorry, how much? I couldn't hear you. Uh, three point three foot candles. Okay. Um, but basically they were looking at the trying to mimic the neighbouring signs in the area and aiming to be just below. Them. So slightly dimmer than, than the existing signs such as the Marriott. Right. Okay. So it will be the horses gardeners. Excuse me. It's really understand your earlier question. Uh, I'm not prepared to entertain an amendment to this motion because this does in fact have reliance of

various thresholds for approval. I would entertain a motion arising that direct staff to work with Telus to minimize the light pollution based on their sign. Great. Now I finished asking my questions first. Yes. Thank you. Um, hang on, go to write that down. The 3. 3 foot candles. Is that day or night. I believe that would be night. I don't believe they're illuminated during the day. So they are, um, stainless steel perforated signs. So they're not, um, their channel letters. So they're sort of can letters. So it will be the light will be focused out the front. It won't be coming out in all directions.

So they're sort of shielded on the side. And then, um, they're not like a typical plastic sign panel. So it would be more of a diffused light just coming through the perforations on the middle. So it would be to be expected to be less bright or intense than just a white sign panel. No, I got the directional one from some work I didn't renovations in an office. Um, in the schematic you showed of the Empress, now the emphasis sign is higher than the one on the other side, is it not? Not the emphasize. I mean, the west facing, is that sign. This sign on the other, um. Angle of humble side? Yeah, it's going to be lower. Is it not or is it that height.

So that's the Douglas frontage there. So that one is at the correct height, I think around the second or third story. On the humble side, it is around the 11th floor. So that one is higher. This, yes, this one here. Okay. So this is Mary up here. Help me out. The height of the Marriott is adhere too. No, it is not on this one. And that's the empress to the right. Yes. Of course that's seen from another angle so it doesn't gotcha. Okay. That's my question. I'll have a motion arising there. Okay. Very good. Uh, anything else on the motion itself. Any questions rather? Not seeing any questions. Council Record on you move this Council County second to this. If anything you want to add.

No other questions or comments. Okay. Let's vote on this and then we'll look for a motion rising on this matter, all those in favor. Does anyone oppose. Councillor? You're a post Councillor Hamdi Councillor Guardian or opposed. Without noting that there are eight of us voting at this point, that is adopted. Councillor Gardner, do you have a motion arising. Yes. I'm showing the help of work. Go ahead. Whoops. Sorry. My mic wasn't on. Yes. Emotion arising along the lines that there'd be further discussions with the, uh, with CELUS to discuss. And whether or not it can be modified. If there's any. Council Direct staff. To consult with Telus and discuss options for minimizing light after dark.

How's that? Except I understand from what we've just heard, it's only going to be on at night after dark. Is that correct? Mr. Chiels. That is my understanding. Regardless of that understanding, I think that the intent of this is to ensure that there's minimized light disturbance when it's actually dark out. I don't expect there would be much disturbance during the day, even if they were on. So with that then, if that suits you, Councillor Goner, I'll look for a secondary. Thank you. Answer Coleman. Seconding. Anything you'd like to add to either Council Gardner or Coleman. Um, yes, thank you. And thank you to tell us for that beautiful building. But I hope that you, uh, will continue consulting with the neighbours nearby with the residents and the, uh, businesses who may be impacted by the like. I think a lot could be done if you have telesworked directly with them too. Besides staff having discussions.

And I would hope that, uh, that would be done. Cause I think we want to happy neighbourhood to go with this beautiful building. Thank you. Thank you just before I go to Councillor Coleman. I think that should say that the, um, the light from the sign after dark. Is what we did discuss earlier. Councillor Coleman, anything you'd like to add. Nope. Okay. Any other comments on the motion rising. Let's check online. Nope. Okay. All those in favor. Anybody opposed. That is anonymous. Thank you very much for that. And thank you very much for being here to clarify those questions. Uh, that does in fact resolve all of the items on our agenda at Council in open. We do have a couple of closed commanders to consider. So I would look to Mr. Kingsley, our clerk to remind us of the sections of the Community Charter that require or enable us to consider a matter enclosed.

Thank you, Mayor. The reasons proposed today to close the meeting are under section 91 F of the Community Charter regarding a law enforcement matter. Section 91, I regarding the receive advice. That is subject to solicitor client privilege and section 92b regarding the consideration of information. Received and held in confidence relating to negotiations with the municipality and another level of government. Thank you very much for that. For those reasons, may I have a motion to move into close, please? Thanks, Councillor Coleman, seconded by Councillor Griloten. Any discussion, all those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. I would just remind the public that although you would expect that we would have a regularly scheduled evening council meeting on the second Thursday of the month, which would be today. That has been rescheduled to July 23rd. So that is not this evening. And it will occur for your interest in two weeks. So we will see you in one week at 9 a. m. next week for

our next committee of the whole meeting. Folks, since we just did get up about a half an hour ago, why don't we just, uh, wait for a staff to flip us into closed, which we'll just take a couple of minutes. And we will proceed on with the rest of our agenda.