Transcript: Council (to follow COTW) - 2026/09/24

And welcome to the Victoria City Council Daytime Council meeting. It was Thursday, September 24th. Today we have for our consideration reports from three committees of the whole, five bylaws for preliminary readings or final adoption, and one short - term business license appeal. But before we begin, we always like to take a moment to ground ourselves and our work and our decision - making and acknowledgement and expression of gratitude to the two nations on whose territories our city sits in its entirety, the cosopsum nation, and the Songhees Nation of the La Quangan people. We enjoy and have nurtured a very rich relationship with the two nations, their leadership, and their members. And we appreciate their continuing generosity and willingness to work with us and to continue to nurture that relationship. It is a remarkable opportunity that we have explored over the last dozen or so years to encounter different moments of learning and different opportunities to work together, and hopefully to make decisions that encourage and

improve the lives of all of the people who live in this territory. Both nations have taken the time over these years to ensure that we have, as a city, and as many individuals within the city opportunities to work with and counter, learn, and simply be immersed in the decades and generations of learning that the nations have been so generous in offering and sharing. And so it is appropriate as become nearer to the end of our term to continue to express our gratitude and our acknowledgement of how much time, effort, generosity, and individual and collective offerings that the two nations continue to give to work with us and to help us work together. We'd like to say thank you in the language of the people, and that is, of course, the La Quongan language and the simplest term, which most people now know is simply to say hi to go or highchm or hydricyumniaquilia, all three of which are versions of, thank you in expressing gratitude

and respect. And so I would offer to whoever is listening or whoever's here, whichever of those makes sense to you, and that is to say hi, because the Mcwilia. I do not have any remarks to share today, nor am I aware of any late items that need to be added to the agenda. And so that takes us on to item D. This is the published agenda. Someone like to move the published agenda. Thank you, Councillor Coleman, seconded by Councillor Kerknown I. Any discussion of the published agenda. Not seeing any of those in favor. Anyone opposed. And is unanimous. There are four items proposed for the consent agenda, and I will note that these are proposed either because they are preliminary readings of bylaws. Or their items which were endorsed at committee unanimously. And so today for our consideration, our four items, as I mentioned, item F1AB, the noise bylaw review, item F1BC, a council member motion, finding approaches for the City of Victoria to further

respond to America's tradeware with Canada. Item G1, the Amendment Bylaw for Amedited Cost charges, and item G2, the Amendment Bylawlaw for Market Rental Building Revitalization Tax Exemption. Would anyone like to remove any of those Councillor Gardner? No, nothing else. You're all good. All right, so I'm like, move the consent agenda. Councillor Gardner is moving, Councillor Kim is seconding. All those in favor. And I want to pose, is unanimous. That takes us on, excuse me, two reports for the committees. The first one is from September the 3rd. Seems like a bit a ways to go. This is one item which was not unanimous, and that is item F1AA. This is the rezoning application and development variance permit application for 770 Pemberton Road. There were a number of councillors opposed to this at committee, and so that's why it's here for final consideration. We'd summon like to move that, please. Councillor Kim is moving. There is no seconder. Well, then I'll second, just for discussion. Sure. Council

Cardinal is 2nd, very good. Councillor Kim, any comments. Councillor Caradona, any comments? Anyone else have any comments. Nope, okay, all those in favor. We might it. You have comments. Sorry, I thought you were trying to vote. Go ahead. Please, Councillor Gardner. Thank you. Since we consider this proposal, we've received more correspondence, including from residents who live right on the complex. And I think the original owner who supported the Covenant and helped create it. And while council cannot bind future councils, we must respect commitments with the public through Covenants. The act of altering this covenant would be akin to Council approvals being written in pencil. Beyond legal considerations, this is a matter of trust. Of city and of council and the city. I cannot support this proposal. This Bible. Thank you very much, Councillor Loughton. Mr.

U, Mayor, I have also had conversations between committee in here, and particularly with the Victoria Heritage Foundation and the concerns about the covenant. And I believe I originally voted in favor of this, but today I will be opposing. Very good. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Not singing another comments, so all those in favor. Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim Council Cardona. Councillor Thompson, and myself, in opposition. Councillor Loughton, Councillor Coleman, councillor Hemmond, and Councillor Gardner. I believe that is five to four in favor, Staff, can you confirm that? Yes, that's correct. So that is adopted, not report from the Committee with the Hole. The next item from the September 3rd Committee of the Whole was on the consent agenda because it was previously carried unanimously. So that moves us on to item F1B. This is the Committee of the Whole report from September the 10th. Again, there are three items here, two of which were not unanimous, so we'll deal with those individually. The first one

is item F, 1BA. This is the rezoning application and development permit with variances application for the property at 617 - 635 Roten Street 620 - 3630 Courtney Street and 901 through 919 Gordon Street. Someone like to move that, please? Thanks, Councillor Caradona. It's for a seconder, Councillor Kim. Council Cardona, any comments? Councillor Kim, many comments. Any other comments. Councillor Gardner. No, you were first. Thank you. Thank you. We have since this was considered, we've also received a lot of correspondence from businesses downtown and nearby. And such as Magnolia and Franky's, et cetera. And I'm just going to put some headlines in that was given from one of these letters that we got. And the objections were, of course, building height and heritage character. They're very concerned about Old Town, a lot of businesses use Old Town. They went to Old Town for a reason, and they respect Old Town, and they think that this one, they believe that this one exceeds the limits of respect

to Old Town. They're very concerned about loss of public property parking capacity. And I think that has been said by many, many people. And they're also concerned with the developer engagement practices. And. So I don't want to read this whole paragraph because I wasn't involved in the conversation, but the conversation of consultation over the last few years was the developer was not appreciated by the nearby businesses. And. So the proposal, its height, and the degree to which it departs from the established planning framework intended to protect Old Town's character. For me, it's not supportable. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Hammond. Nope, not word.

No, I'm sorry. I thought I saw your hand go up. My apologies. Uh, anybody else on this one. Council Coleman, go ahead. It's a fascinating one. I support this application. Um, what's lost for a number of people, I think, is the fact that here we have a private landowner saying they have a function that they no longer want to do, because it's too costly to renew. Um, and that's with respect to the parking function downtown. If we wanted, if Council wanted to protect that, we could purchase the property and then carry on as a parcade and have to go through the renewal costs. That's not what is in front of us. We appreciate the fact that this was originally a parcade that was supposed to support the old Eaton Centre, as it then was. Um, that world has changed. Is there a parking impact? Absolutely.

There will be. But the property owner wants to renew this in a different way. The application has been put in front of us. And I think as much as it's divisive, and I understand that, I think the application was thoughtful, the architecture was actually very good. And it is not much different in height and density than the building right across the street, which was. A bun fight 12 years ago and is now seen as a vibrant part of downtown. So I think that this is part of the evolution. It's not about, um. Keeping the stasis in place, it's about allowing a development to come forward because a property owner says, I don't want to do that function anymore. I'm still supportive. Thank you very much.

Anybody else? I just will say that, uh, I supported this at committee. I will support it again today. For many of the reasons that previous speaker enunciated, but I do appreciate the reference to the bonfire 12 years ago. It was indeed quite a controversial decision when we approved the sovereign. But I think it's true to say that, um, since that time it has become, um, a very welcome portion of that area of town with all of its residents. And, uh, parking is something that the next council is going to have to address. And there is existing direction to staff to explore that. And hopefully that will come to fruition in some way. But meanwhile, this is private property owner wishes to do something different with their private property. And so this seems to be meeting all of our policies and regulations around residential. So there you go. I'll be supporting this again today. Anybody else.

Although in favor, sorry, Councillor Loughton, did you want to speak? Yeah, go ahead. Through you, Mayor. I'm hesitant to do this because I don't want to take us backwards. But I think some context around the rationale for the sovereign might help me right now. I've been really on the fence about this project. So how like, so, cause some of the arguments for 12 stories in Old Town was because we could, the comparison to the sovereign. So what were the concerns during the bunfight years ago? The Bonfi. Well, Councillor Coleman, I believe you were there at that time. Were you not? Yes, I think so. I think we both were. I think we both were. That's right. And so I would comment only that at the time, uh, as others have said in a variety of different applications in this term. Not that many years ago, a 12 story building seemed high. And certainly in the location of the current building, uh, that we're discussing as

well as the neighbour of the sovereign just down the road. It was controversial in the sense that it was probably one of the first plus 10 story buildings in that area of town. At the time, as I recall, one of the most compelling rationales were both a design and the number of units. And the fact that it did bring, uh, quite remarkable housing to that area. And that was seen as a benefit because there are more residents. It did have a unique design in the way that it dealt with its own parking. And it did have a significant amount of design attention paid to a look that would not mimic. That's not appropriate. Not mimic old town, but at least be complementary to it. And so for all of those reasons and many more, those are just ones I remember off the top of my head. It was in fact endorsed and was built. And I think as others have noted, uh, it has become

almost unnoticeable in the area. Although when it is noticed, it's often commented upon because of its design, which is quite interesting. And quite, I think, complementary, um, as we hoped it would be. So if you were asking a question about that decision, I think that's fair to say. That's how that was decided. And I suspect for me similar analyses would go towards the current application. Okay. Thank you for that. Councillor Coleman. Did you want to add anything? Um, just that it also split council. It wasn't a unanimous endorsation. Of the project, the sovereign. It was contentious. We heard lots of voices on both sides of the argument as we have done with this. But it's, it's now seen as part of our old town fabric.

Um, so I, because you live through some of these things, you recognise that sometimes this is what, uh, evolution looks like. And recognise the application in front of us. That we're now, it's brought back to us. Isn't the densest building in the precinct. It is not going to be the tallest, but it's close to it. It pushes the edge. And I understand people's concern. But I think that this is core revolution. Thank you. I appreciate that from our three UMA. I appreciate that. That's, that's helpful to have that historical background for me. Thank you. All right. It is before us. It has been moved in seconded. I believe. Yes, it has to happen. And we've been in second in. Yes. Mrs. Brooder has it had been moved in seconded. Yes. Good. Thank you. All those in favor. Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim, Councillor Cardona, Councillor Loughton, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Thompson in opposition. Councillor Hammond and Councillor Gardner. And it is the chairs in support as well.

So that I believe is 72. So that is adopted here at daytime council. That does take us on to item F1BB. This is the rezoning application and development permit with variances application for 114 Rockland Avenue. Someone like to move this one, please. Councillor Kim is moving. Throw a seconder. And I was so cured on his second ding Councillor Kim any comments. Consecured on any comments. Nope. Any other comments. Councillor Garner. I know I've said this last time. I'm going to repeat it. And well, this is something new. There is a multi ownership boutique near me. And it works well. 24 - 7 staff on site, parking. It is small, but it has a small and very great restaurant with outside patio. So it is supposedly what this one pretends to be, but it actually has public amenity to it. And amenity for, um, for the people who are staying there. And I think that, uh, it would have been a good model. But it is

not what's been done here. And this development's locking in many ways. Um, people aren't going to know whether it's. Hotel or residential and trust seed a lot of CORs coming in. And I see this as actually a workaround of policies of the city. And adding to this unpalatable workaround is a loss of amenity, as I mentioned. For the shift of a density from one to two, and we lose 144, 000 dollars. And this development might even be able to apply for part of that 84 million dollar, you know, give away, uh, to the in tax to the hotel industry as they expand. And, uh, I think this is a very, very disappointing project. And I believe the advisory panel was right when they said the proposed development does not sufficiently meet the design guidelines and should be declined. Thank you. Thank you very much. Council Cardona. Actually, I did want to make one comment, which is that I did receive a correspondence from the next

door neighbours of this proposed development, which is the midwifery business, uh, immediately to the west that chairs a border with this property. And they are enthusiastically supportive. They want to see this property developed. And in fact, they've already reached out to the developer to see if the possibility to partner on a food truck or some kind of activation and food for their clients and the folks that'll be coming there. So the immediate neighbours are enthusiastically supportive. Thanks Mayor. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Not seeing anyone else, all those in favor, Councillor Dela, Councillor Kim, Council Cardona, Councillor Loughton, myself. The Councillor Thompson. In opposition, Constant Coleman, Councillor Hammond and Councillor Gardner. Noting three in opposition. That is adopted. Item f1BC, the Council Member Motion with regard to finding approaches for the City of Victoria to further respond to America's trade work. Canada was placed on the consent agenda and just, um, just as I noted earlier, I think when something at daytime council is

placed on the consent agenda and adopted, that is its final consideration. So we will not see that again. That takes us on to a report from earlier today. Our September 24th Committee of the Holder was one item, which was time sensitive. That was the Council Member motion, item f1CA with regard to the commemorative signage, recognising the 100th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Legion in order to ensure that that is done prior to remember stay. That does need same day consideration today. So I will move that again. That's for a seconder. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Councillor Coleman, you do need to recuse your sub. Yes. Yes.

Thank you, your worship. Nothing has changed in the last hour. Right. I am still in perception of biases. I'm a member and worked on the advisory group that worked on this. Very good. Thank you for that. Sorry. I should remember that. Seeing our colleague depart, I will move this motion. Is there a second or councillor gardener seconding? Any discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor. Is anyone opposed? That is unanimous. Uh, Councillor Coleman, you can return. Thank you very much for that. So that has received final consideration. That moves us on to Bylaws. Uh, there were a couple of bylaws here that were left on consent. So I'll just read those for the record. Item G1, the amendment bylaw for amenity cost charges is here before us for first, second, and third readings as preliminary readings. Those were placed on the consent agenda. And they will return to us at a future daytime council meeting.

Item J2, the amendment bylaw for market rental building revitalization tax exemption. Also before us for first, second and third millimeter readings. So those were on the consent agenda and we'll return to us again for final consideration. Item G3 was withdrawn. And so that takes us on to item G4. And I believe Councillor Thompson, do you need to recuse yourself for this item? Yes, I do. Thank you very much, Mayor. I suppose potential perception of bias due to my, uh, location. Very good. So once Councillor Thompson departs, we will just read this into the record. I would note that this is, uh, so this is the Bylaw for 731, 735 781. Rich Madavenue. 728, 729 is 733 Laurentian place and 724 730 and 736 Madison street.

Uh, this would usually be on the consent agenda because it is preliminary readings. However, there is an update from staff. And so we wanted to not put this on consent so that we could hear that update and provide an opportunity for any questions on the update. Who's going to do this? Ms. Wayne, is this you? Thank you to the mayor. Charlotte way, manager neighbourhood development planning. I'll just refer to my colleague Mr. Carroll who's coming up to the microphone now who will provide a brief update for what's being considered before council. Perfect. Welcome. Please go ahead when you're ready. Good day, Mayor and Council. For the record. It's Patrick Carroll. Senior planner with development services. Under consideration today is first, second, and third reading of an amendment to the zoning bylaw 2018. For multiple addresses comprising the property at Glenlion Norfolk School. It's the entire campus and it's located in Gonzalez. You will note there's additional correspondence has been added. It was received during the public consultation process and

it is attached. The rezoning proposal is for redevelopment of the independent school, which proposes phased replacement. Of most of the existing buildings and construction of approximately 15, 000 square metres of institutional floor area, as well as approximately 16 ground oriented residential units. As noted in the update report, the applicant has met the sole condition attached to council's motion. And this was to strengthen heritage - related commitments. Uh, which would be established in the MDA. And brought about through subsequent phases. There are also updates since council's last considered this application. And I'll briefly go over them now. First, your council report indicated that it was proposed, um, from the applicant to create a comprehensive development zone.

And so this would be added to the older, the zoning regulation bylaw. However, during drafted and drafting and discussions with staff, it was determined that fully transitioning this site to the new zoning bylaw 2018 was both more efficient and effective and given all properties are eventually to be brought under the new bylaw over time. Second and more related to the content. The draft permits a density of 0. 67 to one floor space ratio. And I would note that your committee, the whole report, communicated the maximum density would be set at marginally less at 0. 65 floor space ratio. This change was to accommodate and anticipated increase in density when new buildings are constructed. And some of the existing buildings are yet to be removed. Uh, this is important to note that the school does intend to operate throughout all phases. And so this was part of making that possible without triggering a rezoning. Third, the conceptual design showed a maximum building height of 14. 85

metres. And now this was based on a conceptual design, of course. And this was for the larger school building. The applicant has proposed a change to their conceptual plans. So there is no change to what they're proposing at this time, but has requested an increase in permitted height to 18 metres. With discussions with staff concluded that the flexibility would be supported, uh, as long as the applicant agreed to. And they have to limiting the height to 11 metres along the properties edges. And only portions of the school buildings that are at least 19 metres from any property line, uh, would be permitted for that higher height. This would ensure the reduced heights where our maintained where they're near any type of, um, property boundary, which is really the surrounding land uses was the consideration. So if the application is approved today for third reading, staff will proceed with the development of the required master development agreement, which was outlined in your Committee the whole report.

Thank you. And it can take your questions at this time. Thank you very much, Mr. Carroll. Is there any questions? Council Caradona. I'm ready to move it. Hey, are there any questions before we go ahead Councillor Cardinals moving as your secondary councillor Kim? Council Cardone, any comments? Uh, I'll just comment briefly. Thank you for that update. For me, it doesn't substantially or materially change my support for it, but it's, but I appreciate that update. I will say that it's my pleasure to support this proposal. It will add some new housing to the Gonzalez neighbourhood. It will substantially redesign the school grounds and meet their ongoing long - term operational and educational needs. It should solve the drop off issue that we've heard a lot about, uh, by moving things over to Richmond. It'll add a lot of new trees and some incredible sustainability features. And I just want to again, compliment the proponents by doing such a good job of engagement. I think it was

a long and arduous process. Probably could have gone a bit quicker. But I think they did a really good job of building relative consensus in the neighbourhood and in the community. And so I appreciate those efforts. So I'm really happy to support this one moving forward. Thank you very much. Councillor Kim. Anything to add anybody else? Councillor Hammond. My apologies, Mary, you're a little fast. I just have a couple questions. Um, through you, is there any opportunity for a public hearing for these changes? Ms. Carroll. Through the mayor, thank you for that question. So I'll just refer to our land use procedures by law on the matter. Uh, so as you would note in your committee, the whole report, uh, the recommendation was for Council to, uh, WAV, the public hearing. And so this is the standard procedure, uh, since the latest amendments to our land use procedures bylaw. And so I will just kind of go in more detail as to what the land

use procedure is bylaw outlines is actually a simple yes or no would be, would be fine. Yes. Through the mayor. Yes. It is possible to hold a public hearing. Council does have that opportunity. It's only prohibited in the case where more than 50 percent of the floor area is residential, which is not the case in the application. And this issue was previously dealt with on issue of a public hearing. And it was not recommended by Council to go with the public hearing. Through to the mayor, that is correct. Okay. Thanks. What we adopted at committee prohibited at public hearing is. Right. Thank you. All right.

Um, my next question through you mayor is about the height. Can staff please confirm that the change from the previously contemplated, uh, 14. 85 metres to potentially 18 metres does not materially increase the impact on neighbouring homes given that the additional height must be at least 19 metres from any property line. Mr. Carroll. Through to the mayor apologies. Could you just repeat the question I must have missed. Can staff confirm that the change from the previously contemplated 14. 85 metres to potentially 18 metres does not materially increase the impact on neighbouring homes given that the additional height must be at least 19 metres from any property line. Through to the mayor, that is staff's assessment.

Um, looking at the conceptual plans and the fairly detailed rezoning book, uh, emphasize that the design priority, um, was to create fairly substantial setbacks around the properties perimeter, but also to maintain lower building heights closer to those property edges as well. So, um, in through the discussions with the applicant staff for confident that this maintains the design rationale, which is to keep higher heights and massing concentrated towards the core of the property. Thanks for that. On Madison Avenue, I understand that there will no longer be vehicle access to the school for Madison street, or sorry, Madison Street, not Madison Avenue. But does the plan also prevent Madison from becoming an informal parent drop off and pickup area? Or is that something the school will no longer will have to manage operationally? Ms. Carroll. Through to the mayor, there's nothing about this application or approval if it was to go forward that would create a parking change to the rules for parking along Madison. However, the

design I would emphasize that the design has been developed to highly disincentivize the use of Madison and to incentivize the use of Richmond and the primary, I would say amenity that they're proposing is a pretty substantial drop - off area along Richmond. So that would, uh, that would do that. Also the through block, uh, driveway or drive aisle is it does go through to the other side, but it does not come out on to Madison. So it pushes out on to Richardson. So, uh, we do feel that the design does discourage, but it's not, it's not preventing. Thanks. And so as you're saying not preventing, so closing the driveway is one thing, but I just want to make sure that we're not simply moving the traffic problem onto the street in front of the neighbouring homes. This is one of the things that I felt was really important for the neighbourhood when they brought this first to my attention. So I really want to make

sure that if the change is going to be made that people aren't circumventing it and, and ensuring for the school that they're going to really enforce the notion for their, um, their students and families that they use the drop off area where they're supposed to be. Mr. Carl, that wasn't a question, but you're welcome. Well, the first part was a question. Can we make sure that it's simply not just a traffic problem that would technically we've changed. But then suddenly the people for their convenience, uh, dropping them off at the other place where this was supposed to take care of this. Through to the mayor, I think I would defer to my colleagues in transportation who may be able to provide some information on the current status of parking and the rules related to Madison.

And that may be of assistance. Mr. Doyle, I see Mr. Kenny, but not as participant who is accessible at this moment. Do you happen to know. Meroral, Mr. Kenny just confirmed me. He is available to take that question. Okay. Thank you. Hello there, Mr. Kenny. Did you hear that question? Is there anything in this transportation or the MDA that will prevent being drop offs along medicine? What's your comment? Yeah. Um, thanks for the question. Yeah. Through the mayor, um, regarding the MDA, I think I'd say no. I think with any type of development, uh, we can't control what private citizens do related to the development.

We're working with the school and the proponent to provide the best situation that we believe to solve the current conditions that's already happening on the surrounding streets and working through the parking lot design and drop off circulation. Um, if we continue to see, um, problems or complaints from residence, these are issues that would come back to us as we currently deal with and respond to say on Madison and the surrounding streets regarding traffic to the school. Um, so through this, we believe that where we've landed is a good compromise and an improvement on the existing, um, but it is possible that certain, you know, parents or visitors will continue to use, uh, patterns that they've been using already today. And we will work with the community and prioritize that as necessary. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor.

And through you, Mr. Kenney, I greatly appreciate that. And I would hope that, first of all, I would hope that it would take care of this with the changes in the, um, in the parking patterns. And if not, I would hope also that staff would be responsive. And I'm not going to pretend to know your expertise on what would be the response to that. But that we should be responsive in this. Because if there's a lot of people are upset about what the changes are taking place, one of them should be that we can help them with transportation and parking. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else on this one? Oh, you're not sorry, sorry, sorry. I shouldn't have said thank you. One last question I believe. It's about construction given that this will be a phase redevelopment. What protections or processes will be in place to minimize construction impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood.

And will residents be given clear information about construction access, timing and the overall build out period. Ms. Carroll. Through to the mayor, thank you for that question. You will recall that when this was presented initially, and this has not changed as currently there is not an established phasing plan for this development, nor is there a received application for the first phase of development, nor do I have a timeline for that. I would note, however, that phasing and considerations about construction and interim conditions and matters of that nature are generally addressed through the master development agreement in a case such as this. So it is something that discussions are yet to unfold. And through you mayor, just perhaps, I can't ask for an assurance, but can we make sure that when any of these things do come into play that the school be very aware and considerate of the neighbourhood with any of these changes that are taking place with the construction that's happening so that

they can at least be alerted to what's going on. Thanks, Matt. Thanksgiving the fact that there are, I believe, representatives of the applicants in the audience. That they will have heard all of those comments. Any other questions or comments with this one? It is on the floor moved in second and I believe. All those in favor. Is anyone opposed? That is unanimous noting that Councillor Thompson is absent. Yeah, that's Councillor Thompson back. If you don't mind, should I be able to showed at him there. That takes us on then two item G5. This is an adoption of an amendment. Rather a regulation bylaw. This is the amendment bylaw for patio regulations amendment bylaw number five.

Number 26 - 073. So I'm going to like to move this, please. Thanks Councillor Coleman, second of my councillor Kim. Any comments, Coleman, or Kim? Nope. Any other comments on this. Not seeing any, all those in favor. And you want to pose. That is unanimous. Texas on to G6. This is the adoption of the Bylawlaw for the 2027 2028 permissive tax exemptions. I do not believe anyone needed to recuse them Sell for this when we did preliminary readings, but I'll just ask again. Does anyone need to recuse themselves on these? I don't think so. Someone like to move them, please. Councillor Gernot is moving. Councillor Coleman is seconding. Caradona or Coleman, any comments? Anyone else, any comments. All those in favor. Anybody opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you for that. Now, we come to something that we haven't done in some time. In fact, when I went back to my notes, I realised that we had not done one in 2026, which is amazing. And

so this is, in fact, a short - term rental business license appeal. This is, in fact, an opportunity for a council to sit as an adjudicating body. And so unusually, I'm going to read from a prepared script to ensure that the procedure is applied and adhered to appropriately. This is for the short - term rental business license appeal at unit 405 at 528 Pandora Avenue. Today we have one report before Council dealing with the appeal of the denial of a business license for short - term rentals. In April of 2020, Council approved the short - term rental business license appeal process policy as part of the evolution of the ongoing compliance monitoring with the City short - term rental regulations by - law. The Community Charter requires that anyone who's denied a business license has the right to appeal the licensed inspectors decision to counsel.

The City's policies, specific to short - term rental licences, establishes a written submission process for both the appellant, the operator of the short - term rental property, as well as the City's license inspector. Council has one report today, about one property for which a denial of the business license for the short - term rental has occurred. I will now ask the CD clerk to give a brief overview of the process for the public and for council. Streaking's leave. Thank you, Mayor. The process begins when an application for a business license is denied by license and spectre and writing and citing the reasons for the denial.

The applicant indicates in writing to the City cleric that they wish to appeal to license inspector's decision. The City cleric acknowledges the request and outlines the appeal process. The appellant submits their appeal, the license and spectral provides a written submission. The appellant is offered the opportunity to respond to the licensed inspector's submission. The City clerk repairs a cover report attaching the submissions and process information for council's consideration. And Council considers whether to uphold the license inspectors denial or overturn it. Thank you very much for that, Mr. Kingsley. And so council's role in this statutory process is to consider the facts as submitted in writing by both the appellant and the license inspector. Council members may ask questions of the clerk or the solicitor to clarify the process, but Council must reach its decision based only on the submission's attached to the cover report. Council by a majority vote must either uphold the denial of the business license. So to vote to support the license inspector's

decision or grant the appeal, which would have the effect of directing the license inspector to issue the license. So Council Members, I will ask you first, are there any process questions that you need or would like to ask before we proceed? Not seeing any process questions. So now I will ask Mr. Kingsley the clerk to introduce the appeal we are considering today. Thank you, Mayor. In this instance, the operator of a short - term rental unit at 405 - 528 Pandora Avenue was denied a principal resident operator license. And as exercise, the right under the Community Charter to have Council reconsider the matter. The submissions of both the operator and license inspector are attached to the report as noted, and we await Council's decision on the matter. Very well. Thank you very much. So now, um, by convention, we usually run the table to allow Council members to comment on the matter before us. If anyone wishes to do so, you're not required to, of

course. Uh, but you are welcome to do so. And then, um, any one of you may at any time in your comments move either option one or option two, or you may simply comment on the matter over to you. Council Thompson, anything to say. I'll just randomly start at this side of the room. Thank you. Uh, I don't have anything to add to the, uh, reports that we've seen. Um, this is one of those cases we've seen several of them. Where, um, the statement about how the property is going to use. There's an amount of evidence provided. There are some inconsistencies between those two things.

And, um, it's, it's a question of the, uh, the evidence about whether it's a principal residence or not, uh, the staff report provides some pretty clear evidence. I look forward to the comments if my colleagues. That's all for me. It's a wish to move a particular option at this time. Not at this moment. Councillor Gardner, anything to say? Councillor Hammond. Council Coleman. I'm conflicted on this one, I will admit. We set up systems. So they work at a grand level. And we always need to consider, um, usual context that happens to individuals as they run a foul of the systems we set up. Um, I recognise why we've set up the system this way, but I find there is. Some interesting evidence in the respondents letter in front of us.

And I. I look for some wisdom from the rest of the table because I would be open to an appeal, but I need to hear from others. Thank you. Councillor Dell, any comments. Um, I'd be ready to move a motion when the time comes. All right. Then we'll just hold that thought. And I'm just going to give everyone else a chance to speak first. Councillor Kim, anything to say? Nope. Consecura donut. Yeah. I was going to speak to him. If it doesn't, doesn't want the options after me on the floor in order to speak to it. Nope. You have an opportunity to speak. You can move emotion while you're speaking, but you don't need to in this particular instance. It's not the way it works.

Uh. - Colour is indicated that he is willing to move on one of the options when everyone else is after everyone else has had a chance to speak. Betty, you can speak after that's moved. Yeah. Okay. I'll wait then. Councillor loading any preliminary comments. Sorry. I was just caught off guard earlier. Through the chair, I beyond what was presented to us by the appellant, um, I was most compelled by, uh, the actual, um, the timestamps of, of the various selfies, this individual took. They are at what would otherwise be quite inconvenient times to leave a residence elsewhere. Come and take a selfie of yourself. Um, at 742 AM and then also take runs around the neighbourhood, um, after what seems like reasonable at work hours.

So it just, um, the evidence of like inhabiting the neighbourhood was I found compelling. Councillor Delay that you indicated that you would be willing to move motion? Yeah. I would move option one. Okay. Is there a second or four option one. Councillor Kim is seconding option one. Everyone has had a chance to speak, but you are welcome to speak again now that the optional is a floor. So Councillor Delson, you moved it. We'll start with you. Sure. Um, these are really tricky cases with a lot of evidence back and forth. And I do feel bad for our staff who are tasked with trying to figure out where these folks live. Um, I have reviewed the file. And I think what our policies don't acknowledge is that a lot of people in the city, young working people, seniors, other folks don't live traditional lifestyles where they're locked into one building seven days a week like I am. People live, they travel. They do have multiple residences.

This is a young fellow who works for a, not necessarily a power line company, but he works around the province, uh, he's been employed since 2017. We have a letter from his boss saying he shipped out to these various areas. And the telecommunications industry. And I think that's reality for how some people want to live their lives. I don't want to be locked down with kids and family and all that kind of stuff. And that's totally fine. And our policies should not punish that. And I recognise for staff that puts them in a hard position trying to uphold those. I think it's actually a problem with our policies that need to change. He's provided a significant amount of evidence that all basically convert confirms that at least on paper, this is a primary residence, um, from, from tax receipts to driver's licences, to insurance to every bill. And I understand that maybe, maybe he does primarily live at other spots as part of his job.

But this is the case he's making. And I think our policies need to be a bit flexible for that type of lifestyle. So I tend to sympathize with folks who are that who are living that way and allowing them to make some income off their house, well, while they're not there. There's a specific focus on long - term states. So at least folks are staying there for 30 days or 90 days, which is badly needed in the city. But the bulk of the evidence, uh, for me, I'm sympathetic to this. And I would grant the reconsideration. Thank you very much. Councillor Kim. Secondary. I need to add. Thanks to the chair. I would also add that this appellant seemed, um, genuinely regretful of missteps they had made in the past with licensing, um, technicalities. Um, and you don't express regret. If it was done intentionally.

So that was also quite compelling to me. Thank you. Anyone else on the option flirt Council Cardinal? Yeah. I think I'll support option one as well. I think that one of the pieces of evidence to suggest that it was not a principal residence was the insurance type. Which was listed as str, but the appellant I thought had a compelling explanation of why they use that insurance type. It was on the advice of an accountant. And I think it dated from a previous regulatory regime where, especially in this building STRs were quite common. I was also persuaded by the very large trove of documents attesting to it being their principal residence. Haven't seen that much evidence submitted before. And also the notion that this is the only residence that they own. Because in some of the other cases that we've looked at, someone owns a place in Duncan and they own a place here and it's, and it's sort of ambiguous about what their principal residence

is for this fill. This is the only place that they own. It's possible that they're doing some kind of rentals when they travel for work. But I, on balance and looking at all the evidence, I'm convinced that this is their principal residence and they just happen to live a fairly itinerant lifestyle related to their work. So I'm happy to grant the reconsideration. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Nope. All right. So item, go ahead, Councillor Carter. I remember the whole file. And again, we can't speak about what is not there. And I found there was missing evidence, which really quite worried me. And I realised staff can't always get, you know, all the evidence, especially if it doesn't really exist. And there were a couple of pieces really missing for me. Um, but at the same time, I recognise is what has been said is this is really tough and it's tough for staff to find the information. And, uh, remember this started from a

complaint from someone who lived there. And we've usually gotten a couple other pieces of information in a lot of the previous ones, which I can't mention because of course we didn't get it. So, um, I just wanted to say that and perhaps, um, we can look into that later. And I think that new council, whoever the new council isn't may be the same as this one. Maybe has to look once again at our policy to try and kind of smooth some things over. Thank you. Thank you very much. What else on the option on the floor? Not so you know what else? I just will remind counsel that because we are in council. And this is an appeal to council that this is a final decision. And so once we decide whatever we decide, this matter will be concluded. It will not be considered again.

So option one is on the floor. All those in favor. Councillor Dell, Councillor Lothen, concert Thompson, Councillor Gardner, Councillor Hammond, Councillor Coleman and myself. That is unanimous then. Option one, the Council will grant the reconsideration request of the appellant and direct the issuance of a short - term rental business license for the premises at 405 at 528 Pandora Avenue. That does conclude that manner. And so we now moved on to a closed meeting. Mr. Kingsley, will you please read or remind us of the sections of the Community Charter that either require or enable us to consider a meta enclosed? Certainly Mayor. The reasons proposed to close the meeting today are under Section 91C of the Community Charter regarding labour relations or other employee relations. Section 91f regarding law enforcement matter. Section 91G regarding litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality. It's actually 91i regarding the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege and Section 92B regarding the consideration of information received and

held in confidence relating to negotiations between the municipality and another level of government. Thank you very much for those reasons. May I have a motion to move into close. Thanks Councillor Coleman. Is there a Second Councillor Loughton? Any discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Um, just for the public, we do not have an evening council meeting this evening. So you will see us next here in open at 9 a. m. on October the 1st for our second to last Council meeting of this term. And I would suggest staff if we can move quickly into closed. We can deal with at least two of the three manners before we take our lunch break and then return after that. So as soon as you're ready, give us a heads up.