Transcript: Committee of the Whole - 2026/07/23

And welcome to the Thursday, July 23rd meeting of Victoria City Council's Committee of the Whole. Today we have for our consideration a presentation from and a conversation with our police chief. We have two staff reports and one Council Member Motion. But of course before we begin our work together, we always like to take a moment to ground ourselves in the recognition and expression of gratitude to the two nations on whose territories are City sits in its entirety. Those would be, of course, the nations of the La Quangan people, the Songhees Nation in the COSAPSON Nation. They have for so many decades, so many generations taken the time and thoughtfulness and commitment to steward these lands and the waters that surround them in a way which has reflected their history that many, many thousands of years of their history, but also the challenges that their people have faced and those who have come after have faced.

We continue to treasure and value the fact that they are so generous in their time with us currently, and that they continue to believe that the relationships that we have forged so far are valuable to all of us. And the richness of those relationships continue to be nurtured by all of those of us who have the opportunity to work together. We always want to say thank you and also to express that in the simplest of terms in the language of the LeQuangan people, which most people now know is Hydricas Yevnaquilia, to say thank you, and I express my honour and respect to those elders who are giving us the guidance that we all need, and also to anyone in the community who takes a moment each day to try and do something that will improve the life of someone else. We look to the elders of both nations to provide us with guidance, to provide us with history, to provide us with vision. And so

we say hi to Kasivnaquilia, do you all. Have no particular chairs remarks to add to the agenda this morning. I will note for you that Councillor Dell is just running a little bit late. We'll be joining us shortly, and Councillor Thompson is in fact joining us online. I will just note for those of you who are in the gallery that we expect the first item, which is the presentation from the police chief, to take some time. And so if you are here for a later item, which I suspect that you are, you are likely not going to be there for at least an hour, perhaps longer. Just in an effort to ensure that you have an ability to manage your time this morning. I'm not aware of any late items that need to be added to the agenda, so I would look for someone to move the published agenda. Thanks Councillor Coleman, seconded by Councillor Carey Donah. Any comments on the published agenda. Not seeing

any of those in favor. Oh, go ahead, please Council Gardin. I will be asking for an increase in time allotted for item G2. And the time committed accession of the time permitted. When we do that. When I get that. You can do that at that time, yes, so that we have the ability to discuss it as a single request on a single item. Partner couldn't hear you. I'm having a little trouble actually hearing Councillor Gardner. Is there some type of an echo in the chamber? I wonder if you could check that as a staff person. Because I think the significant echo with all of the microphones. Let's try that Council Gardner, do you want to try that again? Thank you. So we'll do that when we get to G2. Yes, correct. And I'll have time separate from my tan to raise that issue. Thank you very much. And how much time will that be? Well, we'll discuss the matter in the usual protocol so you

can make a motion to suspend the rules for that item. And we'll deal with that item separately. Yes. And how much time do I get to motivate for that motion. Of extended time? I would consider that a separate item, so you would have up to 10 minutes. Thank you very much. With that then, as a really discussion on the agenda as published. Not seeing any checking online. All those in favor, anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you for that. There was one item that is proposed for the consent agenda, and that is the Council Member Motion with regard to enforcement against derelict buildings neglected properties and vacant commercial space. Does anyone wish to add any items or to remove that one item? Not seeing any interest in doing that. So with someone like to move the consent agenda, please. Councillor Coleman and Councillor Lawton. All those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is also unanimous. That takes us on then to our presentation. And so we

would invite up, and I could see in the gallery the police chief. Feel free to bring anyone with you from your staff that you feel are helpful. We'll give you a minute to get settled. And then off you go. We will, as usual, allow you time to make your presentation as you like. Uh, we haven't seen you in a while, so we're expecting that it will be fairly fulsome. Uh, you can certainly introduce your colleagues when you get settled. And then once you finish your presentation, we'll open the floor for questions from council, but we'll let you go through your presentation in its entirety without interruption. And we'll save our questions for the app. Over to you. And welcome. Wonderful, thank you. Good morning, everyone.

Mayor Alto and Council members. It is wonderful to be here with you today, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to present. Today we will share updates across six key areas. Community safety, downtown safety, recruitment, HR, training, operational excellence, and public trust. But before I do that, it is my absolute pleasure to introduce our brand new Deputy Chief Natalie Hiltz, who was sworn in to the Victoria Police Department, uh, on Tuesday. Natalie comes to us with over 30 years of policing experience. She was formerly with the Peel Police Service. And in the last three years has been the deputy chief at the greater Sudbury Police Service where she oversaw the operations division. So we are absolutely thrilled to welcome Natalie on board and are really excited to take full advantage of the experience that she brings to the table. We also have WU Chief Jamie McCray, who I know you are all very familiar with. And I'm very grateful to have both of

them with me here today. The updates today are intended to provide counsel with a clear picture of our current operating environment. The progress underway at the department and how we continue to work to meet the evolving needs of the communities we serve. Following the presentation of course, I am more than pleased to answer any questions. Council may have. Could I have the next slide, please? Oh, I can do this. Yes, you can. There we go. Wonderful. Uh, I want to first turn to community safety and calls for service our members respond to every day. So far in 2026, Vic PD has responded to 27, 053 calls for service. And this is 8. 7 percent higher than this period last year. While calls for service data does not capture every aspect of police work as you all well know. It's an important measure of operational demand.

And the realities are frontline officers are encountering across our communities. While this increase certainly reflects growing demand, it also reflects our increased authorized strength and capacity to undertake proactive policing. With additional positions such as our foot patrol team, are officers are better able to identify challenges and focus on specific areas of community concern. Rather than responding only when incidents are reported to us. As a result, an increase in calls for service should not be interpreted solely as an increase in crime. It can also demonstrate a greater police presence. And increase in the willingness of the public to pick up the phone and call us, and more proactive interventions. And certainly with our foot patrol team, we are seeing that. And I'll talk about that a little later. The overall increase, unfortunately, is being driven primarily by social order calls. This is a very broad call type category that may include incidents such as a person who may be camping in a doorway of a business.

An individual who may be in mental health crisis or someone who's screaming and yelling on the sidewalk, for example. In fact, Vic PPD has responded to 9, 159 of these incidents alone this year. Once again, this is in part due to the proactive work that our foot patrol team is doing. And as I say, I'll talk a little bit about that later. But it's also a reflection of the complex societal issues that are plaguing communities across this province and country and that we're certainly facing in Victoria such as the toxic drug crisis and mental health challenges. And I'll spend some time talking about the toxicity of the illicit drug supply later. I want to emphasize that our response to social order issues is never enforcement alone. Our officers continue to work closely with island health, by - law services, BC housing, outreach teams, housing providers, shelters, and many, many other community partners to connect individuals with appropriate supports wherever possible. Enforcement remains one tool available

to us, but our goal is always to balance public safety with compassion, ensuring people are directed towards services and supports. Whenever it is safe and appropriate to do so. Uh, in other statistics, traffic related calls were up 3. 5 percent primarily related to hit and run incidents primarily in parking lots. We continue to partner with the integrated road safety unit to deploy targeted enforcement focusing on driving behaviours that create the greatest risks on our roads, including speeding, distracted driving, and impaired driving. And I hope particularly at the beginning of the year, you've seen some of those social media campaigns that we engaged in to try and educate the public with respect to safe driving habits.

We were very encouraged to see that property crime related incidents have fallen two percent so far this year. And this is year over year comparisons for the same period. And violent offences fell 5. 1 percent. So I'd like to talk a little bit about property crime trends, despite the drop of course this remains an important community safety focus for us. It affects residents and businesses directly and can have a significant impact on people's sense of safety. I just want to highlight one example of some of the work that we've been doing at Vic PD and talk very briefly about a common property offence in Victoria bicycle theft. An area where targeted enforcement, prevention and provincial funding and partnerships have really been producing, encouraging results. And this is a great blueprint of what works with respect to property crime. Bicycle theft has historically been a significant issue here in Victoria, as I know you all are well aware. In fact, at its peak in 2015, more

than 800 bikes were stolen in a single year. Through provincial C - step funding, which Vic PDE successfully applied for, we've been able to dedicate additional resources to identifying and targeting individuals involved in bicycle theft, recovering stolen bikes and disrupting the resale of stolen property. And we are seeing really positive results, um, from this focused approach. Between January and July of this year, 239 bicycle thefts were reported. This is down from 280 during the same period in 2025. A decrease of almost 15 percent. The July numbers are particularly encouraging. By bicycle thefts decline from 64 in July to 36 in July, sorry, 64 in July of 2025 to 36 in July of 2026. A decrease of approximately 44 percent. And our work is not limited to reducing theft. We're also recovering more stolen bikes and returning them to their rightful owners, helping to reduce the personal and financial impact on victims. While the more work to do these outcomes demonstrate the value of targeted enforcement

through provincial funding and coordinated initiatives, such as the repeat violent offender intervention initiative. And the brand new chronic property offending intervention initiative that Vic PPD is playing a significant role in. The province launched that initiative, um, in fact, I believe it was on the news this morning that they were announcing it. It's very similar to Revoy. It provides a coordinated response to repeat offending with a specific focus in this case on chronic property crime. It brings together police, crown, probation, correctional supervisors, um, community integration specialists, mental health representatives, and forensic psychiatric services. These partners all work collaboratively in a very focused effort to identify individuals who are require enhanced supervision, but also require enhanced resources and access to those resources. Vic PD is actively participating in the initiative and has identified individuals for consideration using the programs established criteria. And this model recognises that enforcement remains essential. But of course enforcement alone will not resolve chronic re - offending. Lasting results require that coordinated approach.

I now want to turn to the toxic drug crisis, and I know the discussion in this room with respect to this. It's an issue that continues to cause profound harm in our community. It's becoming increasingly complex. Being presence of metatomidine in the unregulated drug supply. And I know you've had a lot of discussion about this and contemplated the terrible impacts that this drug is having on the illicit drug supply. Metatomedine, as you know, is a powerful veterinary sedative that is not approved for human use. It was first identified by health Canada's drug analysis services in Ontario and Quebec in May of 2022. And first detected in BC in June of 2023. And then in Victoria, in July of 2024. Those were at relatively low numbers.

Since mid - 2024 detections have, unfortunately, increase significantly across BC. And by March, 2026, it now, um, it presented in approximately one third of presumed opioid samples that were submitted for drug checking across the province. So this is no longer being considered a bad batch. Public health officials have described metatomadine as part of a sustained change in the illicit opioid supply. And I know you're well aware of the impact that the substance has on overdoses. Um, they cause drug poisonings to be more prolonged and medically complex. And of course naloxone can reverse the opioid component of the poisoning, but it does not reverse the sedative effects of metatomidine. So a person can remain deeply sedated and require continued breathing support. Close monitoring and emergency medical care even after naloxone has been administered. Victoria is unfortunately experiencing trends consistent with what's being reported across the province.

Our frontline officers are seeing the effects of the changing drug supply firsthand and are increasingly called upon to provide immediate life - saving assistance. In May, Vic Petey's tactical emergency medical support, a medic team issued a department - wide reminder after noting a significant increase in the amount of naloxone being administered. Officers were reminded to check their naloxone supplies. And Irnloxone kits are all provided to our frontline members through funding from the province that was just recently confirmed. They have been recommended to request paramedics as soon as possible. Naloxone, of course, remains an important tool, but it's only one component of the response. Where metatomidine is involved individuals may require that extensive monitoring. And our officers are continuing to respond with CARE and urgency. However, policing is only one part of that response. And this sustained change in the drug supply requires a coordinated public health, medical community and government action. That's why I'm really pleased to share it with you that we recently launched

the track and trace program, which I'm going to speak about later in this presentation. But first, I'd like to talk a bit more about safety, but specifically downtown safety. And, um, I'll start with our foot patrol team. As you know, our dedicated foot patrol team, thanks to funding, uh, from the City of Victoria was established on January 13th of this year to provide a consistent visible police presence and respond directly to issues affecting the downtown core. We now have about six months of operational data. Covering the period from January 13th to July 18th. During that time, the foot patrol team responded to 1077 calls for service. This accounted for approximately four percent of all calls for VPD, sorry. During that same period. What's really important is free to understand how that work is being generated.

Half of those calls were incidents that the foot patrol team members encountered while they were out walking. In other words, they were identifying issues while actively patrolling the community rather than waiting to be dispatched to a call. The other half of those calls originated through e - com, so they would be people calling non - emerge or 911. They would go on to our patrol board and they were in the area close enough where they could be dispatched to those calls. These figures really demonstrate that the foot patrol team is doing more than just providing a visible presence. It's members are actively identifying concerns, responding to community needs and addressing issues as they escalate. The model combines proactive enforcement with responsive community policing while helping reduce the pressures on other frontline resources, which of course frees those resources up to attend to other matters. Although the team accounts for a relatively small portion of Vic PD's overall staffing, it's managing a meaningful share of calls

for service and addressing incidents that occur in areas where its members are deployed. Our foot patrol teams also continue to work very closely with outreach teams, healthcare providers, housing agencies, and other social service organisations to help divert individuals away from the criminal justice system whenever it is appropriate and safe to do so. Enforcement is, of course, only one tool available to us. And you'll hear me say this. A number of times today, but it is not the only one. Our approach remains balanced on accountability where required, while recognising that many of the complex issues we encounter, including mental health, addiction, and homelessness, require integrated, long - term solutions, delivered in partnership with others. Um, moving on to our bylaw team, we've seen significant growth in bylaw - related activity. As you know, you funded two dedicated police officers to work directly with City bylaw officers whose sole focus is responding to bylaw concerns, public order, and quality of life issues in the downtown core. Having

dedicated resources means that issues are identified, addressed, and documented more consistently than in previous years. And our crime reduction unit, another really important initiative that you agreed to fund for 2026. I want to talk about the implementation of this unit. That was approved in the 2026 budget. It consists of one sergeant and seven constables. And like the foot patrol team, it's funded entirely by the City of Victoria as an operational policing resource that was optional. And as such, these officers will be deployed exclusively within the City of Victoria and will not provide policing services in the township of a squamoy malt. The crime reduction unit will be established to address some of the most persistent public safety challenges are facing our downtown and surrounding neighbourhoods.

It's mandate as you well know is to target prolific property offenders through intelligence - led investigations and surveillance. And this will really, um, mesh well with the new provincial funding that's available through their chronic property offender program. They intend to disrupt street - level drug trafficking, address chronic retail theft - affecting local businesses and respond quickly to emerging crime hotspots. These positions will be staffed in the coming weeks and operational throughout the fall. Um, on to, I'd like to talk a little bit about recruitment, uh, human resources and training. One of our greatest priorities continues to be ensuring that Vic PPD has the people expertise and organisational capacity needed to meet the growing demands of policing in both Victoria and a squimault. Today, our authorized sworn strength is 284 police officers. We have over 82 civilian positions, 27 special municipal constables. 50 reserve constables in 77 volunteers. I'm really pleased to report that our recruitment efforts continue to produce strong results. For a number of

years, a challenge for police departments across this country have been actually getting recruite applicants through the door. I'm thrilled to report that at Vic PD. We have more applicants for the department than we have ever had in our history, which gives us a really rich number of people and diverse group of people to choose from when we're going through the recruiting process. In May, we welcomed 11 new recruit constables representing the largest recruit class in Vic PD's history. Earlier this year, we also introduced a temporary employee program established through a letter of understanding what the Victorious City police union, allowing recently retired certified police officers to return in frontline only roles to fixed term contracts.

We're also investing in the long - term future of policing by launching a refreshed recruiting campaign and continuing to strengthen our leadership pipeline. Of course, once we have the positions funded and we recruit the right people, we need to train them. That's one reasons why securing our very own South Island police academy was so critical. This is perhaps one of the largest accomplishments that we achieved this past year at Vic PD. We successfully applied for and received clearance from the province earlier this year to stand up a police academy. And the first class starts September 14th. Vic PD is the host agency. We submitted the proposal to the province. And we will be training recruits right out of our headquarters at 850 Caledonia. Our first class will be 16 Wikipedia recruits. In addition to recruits from other South Island police agencies. This is such an important step for policing on the South Island. It's more cost effective. It provides the opportunity for us to hire

people. We may not have otherwise been able to hire. It provides some equity to our hiring. For example, we have people who simply could not have left the island for three months at a time to go to the JIBC for training. Perhaps they were a single mom. Perhaps they were someone who was caring for elderly parents. Those are people who, for whom the door to policing was closed because of that inability to leave the island for months at a time. We are now able to take advantage of offering people who are in that position. The ability to stay on the island for their recruit training.

Go home to their families every night. But there's also the added benefit of being able to be embedded in and develop relationships with our community partners right from day one. We're now well positioned to address years of staffing challenges we've experienced at Vic PD with the right funding support, the right hiring, and the right training. Where we intend to put through the class in September of 16, another one in January of 16. And then those numbers will naturally taper off over the next number of years. So I'd like to talk a little bit about operational excellence and give you an update on the resource allocation review. Operational Excellence. To me, means continually examining how we work and ensuring our resources are aligned with the changing needs of our organisation and the communities we serve. One of our key efficiency initiatives is the resource allocation review, a comprehensive organisation - wide assessment of how Vic PD deploys its people and resources. Through this review, we're taking

a deep dive into deployment levels, calls for service, data, civilian positions, and organisational gaps where processes could be streamlined or resourced. Use resources used more effectively. You've heard me talk about wanting to make sure we have the right police officers in the right place at the right time. This work will help us identify opportunities to improve service delivery, strengthen operational capacity, and ensure the right resources are assigned to the right functions. It will also allow me to come to you during budget time with data - driven information that will support any request Vic PD is making moving forward. This review encompasses the entire organisation and is expected to be completed in September. It's findings will help guide evidence - based decisions about VicPD staffing and future resource needs. My commitment to Council was to take a balanced and responsible approach to our budget request year over year, while developing a long - term funding strategy that provides greater predictability for council, our organisation, and the

community's reserve. The resource allocation review is fundamental to that commitment. It will provide the information we need to identify efficiencies, understand organisational gaps, and establish a sustainable, multi - year plan for VicPD staffing and resource requirements. Rather than addressing pressures through significant one - time requests, our goal is to present counsel with a clear and measured path forward, one that balances operational needs with fiscal responsibility. Another project that we are incredibly proud of that launched this year is track and trace. And VicPD is the lead police agency for the province with respect to this. Earlier this year, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solister General launched this program with Vic PDE, as I said, serving as the lead agency. Through this initiative, drug samples are sent to a specialized laboratory at the University of British Columbia for detailed analysis that will provide information almost in real time via a dashboard that will be available to police across the province. It's testing helps us identify emerging

contaminants, understand what substances are present, and monitor how the illicit drug supply is changing over time. Metatomadine demonstrates why this capability is so important. If track and trace had been operating at that time, regular local testing may have allowed us to identify metatomidines presence and growing prevalence in victorious sooner. Earlier identification could have supported faster warnings to police, paramedics, healthcare providers, and community partners. Allowing frontline responders to adapt their practices and prepare for changing overdose presentations. That is precisely the gap this program is designed to address. Moving us from reacting to changes in the drug supply to identifying and responding to them earlier. Over time, the intelligence generated may also help investigators identify patterns, establish connections between samples, and better target individuals and criminal networks responsible for producing and distributing toxic drugs. For example, we will be able to see if the drugs that we're seizing on the streets of Victoria are chemically identical to those that are showing up in the downtown East Side

of Vancouver, or in Prince George, or in Kamloops. Eventually, hopefully across the country. It's almost like watching the advent of DNA develop. We've been working very closely with our partners across the country with crown council. And of course, on the health side of the house to fully utilise the results of the track and trace project on a number of different fronts. TRAC and trace really brings public safety and health together. And you may have seen our media announcement out at UBC earlier in the year, with both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Public Safety. As the toxic drug supply continues to evolve, our response must evolve with it. And this program is going to give us the evidence needed to respond earlier, more strategically, and more effectively. I'd now like to talk about public trust. One of the most important initiatives we undertook this year was one of the largest public engagement efforts Vic PPD has completed in recent years. As we developed

a new strategic plan that we'll be released in the coming months and began planning for the 2027 budget, we wanted to ensure our priorities were informed not only by operational data, but by the voices of the people we serve every day. To accomplish this, we engaged our communities, the business sector, and our own employees through a comprehensive consultation process. Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of this engagement was that the themes were remarkably consistent, regardless of who we spoke to. Whether it was residents, businesses or our own employees for priorities emerged. First, visitability matters. People want to see officers in their neighbourhoods, downtown, and in commercial areas. Second, demand is increasing. Everyone recognises that policing has become more complex, particularly around mental health, substance use, repeat offending, property crime and street disorder. Third, community safety requires partnership. There's widespread recognition that police cannot solve these issues alone. Finally, communication builds trust. Residents and businesses want to better understand what we're doing, why we're doing it, and

the outcomes were achieving. This year, Vic PD implemented a new communication strategy focused on four QUE principles. Being more proactive in communicating with our communities, providing timely, transparent and accurate information. Educating the public about policing public safety and crime prevention, and humanizing policing by telling the stories of the dedicated people who serve our communities every day. This shift reflects our commitment to building public trusts through transparency, accessibility, and meaningful engagement. The results today have been significant. A few notable numbers. Our Vic PPD Facebook page has generated 11. 3 million views. This year so far alone. Our social media content has generated more than 5. 4 million views this year. Across Victoria Facebook, a squamot Facebook and Instagram platforms. We've welcomed over 8, 000 new followers since the beginning of the year. These results demonstrate that when we communicate proactively share timely information and engage our communities, people engage, strong communities are more than simply sharing information. They are a very, very important part of building

trust. They're important to improving transparency and connecting VicPD to the community's reserve. I think I'll leave it at that for now, because I know I'm well over half an hour, and I'm more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much, Chief. Very informative. Uh, there are no recommendations here, so this is an opportunity for council to ask questions and make any comments say like. We would do function under our usual time limits. So we'll look to who'd like to start the conversation. Sorry, thanks, Anthony Chair, to the TM. Thank you for being here, and welcome to the team, Deputy Chief Hiltz. Welcome to Victoria and to the service. I have a few questions. Do eventually want to ask a question about SD61 and what happened with the trustees, but maybe come back to that in a minute. I want to start by talking about short - term rentals of all things. And, um, and some conversations I've been having with

the group called DOTA, DCOTA, which I think stands for the downtown Condo owners and tenants association, something like that. In any case, it's the folks who live in condos downtown. And they have been dealing with pretty serious criminality in SDRs. And in fact, they sent me an image that I was going to put up on the screen. If we could do that. I think all of us were aware that there's noncompliance going on in short - term rentals. And obviously a lot of that falls to us under bylaw services. But I was unaware until I met with these folks recently that there's pretty serious human and sex trafficking and other crime rackets going on in STRs. So this is an image that was shared with me and that I had consent to share. Um, essentially people have been renting STRs and using them for traffic.

And this message was delivered to every single person who lived in the condo, which is like 200 people. They all got a message under their door. Uh, inviting them to be involved in trafficking. And, uh, the folks who live in that building were just horrified. And so I've been having meetings with them. They did report this to police. So I just wanted to get a sense. Do you know what may have come of this or similar issues? Is this on your radar. What can be done in terms of enforcement to get on top of this issue and make sure that downtown resonance are feeling safe in their own buildings? Chief. Thank you for that. I'm not, uh, familiar with this particular investigation, which I would be unlikely to comment on in any event. However, what I can tell you is that human trafficking is absolutely at the top of our radar of that Vic PD.

It is something that I have been engaged in for many years in terms of advocacy around, um, judicial reform. Um, but also, um, to broaden awareness about the, um, devastating impact of human trafficking. These are very, very difficult investigations, um, for a whole host of reasons. Um, we work very closely with crown council when we are investigating these matters. Um, because there are just so many challenges around, um, around investigating them and ensuring that we have enough evidence to take two crown, um, sure charge approval. So absolutely it's at the top of our radar, um, it's something that we have significant concerns of. Of course, the advent of events like FIFA, um, increase our concern for human trafficking, um, anytime we have any major events, um, that impacts the numbers of people we believe are engaged in human trafficking. Um, we have, uh, in our major crime unit, we have an emperor of people who I would consider, um, uh, experts, but also, in our

sex crimes unit, um, with respect to these types of offences. We also have our integrated ice unit that touches on these offences as well. Because in my experience, um, the thread that we typically pull in the beginning is often online. And that's sort of where our investigations often start. Um, so we will continue to do everything we can to investigate matters of human trafficking. And I will certainly follow up on this particular investigation, um, to see what the status of it is at this time. That'd be great. And I think it might be good for the CRO to connect with this, with this decoder group.

Absolutely. They represent five buildings. It's kind of some of the main downtown condo buildings in these issues are happening in all those buildings. Moving on to second question, we can take this down. Uh, is about noise cameras. And there was a fellow who came in to speak to us at an opportunity for public comment. It's now been a couple of months ago. When we do evening council. And, uh, talked about the noise around his home, especially late at night, oftentimes motorcycles, but not always an inquired with us about what more can be done around noise enforcement. And what are the barriers or opportunities around potentially noise enforcement cameras? How does that work? Does that require provincial authority? Anything you can tell us about noise enforcement and noise enforcement cameras. Thank you. So, uh, through the chair, I cannot, um, uh, speak intelligently with respect to noise enforcement cameras because I am not overly familiar with them to be frank. Um, however, that's something we can

certainly take away and look at unless one of the deputies has more insight into those. Um, so I apologise, but, uh, as I say, I can certainly go away and do some research on that. Um, with respect to noise complaints, we respond to noise complaints as, uh, come in to through ecom. Um, there's also a bylaw component, uh, with respect to noise complaints. I don't have the data in front of me in terms of whether or not those types of complaints have increased in 2026, but we can certainly take a look at that. But what I can tell you is that, uh, in my experience a typical noise complaint, uh, would be, uh, our members attend, it is definitely going to be a low priority call in terms of, um, you know, we have priority one calls, which are somebody is being injured or property is being damaged immediate all the way down to priority four calls. And a noise complaint, unless they're, we're extenuating

circumstances would typically be a priority for call. And we know that our members are typically out on the road going from call to call to call. So, um, unfortunately, I think that, um, people may experience a time delay, uh, if we are responding to a noise complained. However, what that would look like is our members typically would respond investigate the source of the noise and then simply speak to the person who's generating the noise and ask them to, uh, to tone that down. They do have the option of writing a bylaw ticket in a case like that, depending on the circumstances. Um, but I could certainly look into the data to see if we've had an increase in those types of calls. Thanks. And I think maybe it's even beyond the data. I think it's, it's more of a question about jurisdiction or what kind of provincial approvals might be needed for, for some kind of a pilot. I mean, these things have been used

in other cities. I mean, Paris very famously now has a lot of them. And it's apparently had a really good impact. I mean, obviously the big difference between a noise complaint from say Phillips or Riftlandia where it's a stationary event. You can go down with the decimal machine versus someone ripping by your house in a motorcycle and they're gone. I mean, I think the average person's not going to phone police about that because it's, it's five seconds, but it wakes them up at one in the morning, whatever it is. So if the little bit of research that could be done on that, just that would be great. Thank you. Um, last one is the SD61 issue. So I've been out talking to residents and this issue has come up several times. And so I'm in effect asking it on behalf of the public. Noting first of all that when that whole drama unfolded, you were not the chief at the time. So I'm aware that

you inherited a mess, which we're all familiar with inheriting messes. That's just how it goes in public service. Um, there's certainly a perception on the part of the public that there was a kind of pressure campaign that occurred. The president of the GVTA referred to it as politicking. Um, certainly not going to read out these texts because I think we can all agree that it was an embarrassing episode for all of us, including the city. But two part question to you, which is what's your impression of what happened? What's your interpretation of what happened and what went wrong. And second of all, and moving forward, what can be done to ensure that this kind of politicking or whatever you want to call it doesn't occur in the future. Irrespective of whatever wedge issue happens to be the issue of the day. How can we ensure that this doesn't happen again? Thank you. Through the chair, I have to, um, uh, uh, just say that the

matter with respect to the text messages has been referred to the office of the police complaint commissioner and is currently under investigation. So I'm unable to comment on that. And I would be reticent to provide my opinion with respect to what happened at a time that I was not here, particularly with that investigation underway. What I can say is that, um, I fully and entirely support the notion of school liaison officers being in our schools. Um, I had an extensive amount of experience with this when I was at the Bank of Replice Department when our school lead is on program, uh, was discontinued by the school board. I participated in significant advocacy around, um, uh, working to keep them in schools prior to that decision was made. And then when the school board made the decision to bring schoolies and officers back into schools, I did a lot of work around reimagining what that program would look like to ensure that we addressed a number

of the concerns that were raised. When the school is, and officers were removed from schools in the first place. Because I think to not do so would have been short sighted in that, um, we want to make sure that we have a long - term sustainable program. And, um, not one that is being brought in and cut and brought in and cut. Each time the change on the school board. So, um, we went to great efforts in Vancouver to address the issues that were and the concerns that were raised before the program was cut. So for example, um, you know, we changed the uniforms of the members, uh, we changed the footprint of their force options, um, they went into unmarked vehicles. We spent a lot of time consulting with a number of different partners to try and reimagine what that program would look like.

And so I guess the reason I explained that is because my philosophy on this is that if there's widespread concern about, uh, particular program that police are engaged in, we want to listen to those concerns and adjust where it's appropriate and necessary. And, um, I don't know enough about the history here with respect to our schoolies on officers, but what I can tell you is the program that is in place now is really exceptional. And we have had outstanding feedback from, um, the schools, from community, from parents, from students, um, I will, uh, I unequivocally support them remaining in schools. But unfortunately, I'm not in a position to comment extensively with respect to what happened before I landed here. And certainly not able to comment with respect to the recent matter because of it being under investigation with the OPCC. I think that's the track.

I respect and accept that you can't comment on what happened in the past, but I do think it's fair to ask the question of what the force would do in the future. I mean, I was hoping to actually not have a conversation on PLOs because I think there is a conversation we had on that topic. But today I'm interested in what happened procedurally. So my question is, what can be done in the future to ensure that this, these sorts of whatever you want to call it, a pressure campaign, politicking doesn't happen again, whether it's around PLOs or whatever the wedge issue of the day happens to be, chief. To the chair, I think you're making the assumption that I do believe there was a pressure campaign or something nefarious that went on. And, um, that is not my position at this time based on what I know, which is limited because I was not here.

So, um, you know, it's impossible for me to comment, to answer your question. Um, given that. Okay. All right. I'll leave it there then. All right. Uh, Councillor Thompson, you're up next followed by Councillor Loughton and Councillor Hammond. Councillor Thompson. Thanks Mayor. Uh, thanks Chief for being with us today and for all the information of a number of different questions, um, largely about data. First one, I think you mentioned at the beginning, uh, responses to calls for service was up eight percent or was it calls for service that's up eight percent. I wasn't clear through the chair that calls for service. We're up 8. 7 percent twenty five for, um, this period of the year.

As far as we are into 2026. So January to July. Councillor. Okay. Thanks. Thanks for the clarification there. Um, and then, uh, do you, so that's calls for service. Do you also track responses to calls for service. Chief. Through the chair. So calls for service. Get a response. Oh, okay. All of them. Okay. Uh, let's see. Members of the public. Okay. Yeah. Um, I've spoken with a number of members of the public who really want to know what all is the data that Vic PD is collecting. And I know that you spoke to this a little bit, um, maybe about a third of the way through, uh, but they, they actually want, you know, numbers metrics, uh, trends not only on enforcement, but also on the incidence, uh, if possible, um, and, and they have brought up things like, uh, violent crimes, open drug use, uh, that sort of thing. So, um, I know that you may not have every single number, uh, with you

today, uh, but are you able to indicate, um, whether there is a place, uh, on the website that is comprehensive about the data you collect. I know that there is a place where you've got some data, but is that the total sum of the data that the police have on that website. Chief. Thank you through the chair. So we do have a community dashboard on our website. We collect all sorts of statistical information at Vic PD. And one of the things that you will see with the resource allocation review is an overview of a lot of that statistical information. In fact, howard Tran has gathered statistical information that I don't believe has ever been collated at Vic PD. And I'm really looking forward to presenting that, uh, when it's complete, it is not finished at this time, but, um, I've had a chance, of course, to get updates as he's gone. And the, really, um, interesting information in there around not just calls for service,

but response times, um, the type of calls, the priority of calls, um, he is really done a lot of data analysis around pieces of information that I don't believe have been analysed in the past at Vic PD. So I'm really looking forward to presenting that to Council when it's finished. In terms of our community dashboard, we are in the process of, uh, revamping our entire website for VIC PD. And we've already made some changes. But one of the things on my list to address is indeed that community dashboard. In fact, I was looking at it last night. And there is quite a lot of room for improvement. Um, we have been going at lightning speed at VECPD in the last 10 months. And have had a lot of things on the laundry list. Um, this is one of them. And, uh, we, um, revamping those, uh, those dashboards in the coming months. Um, it's just going to take a bit more time. What I can

tell you is year over year for 2025 to 2026. So January to July. We had, uh, a decrease in our property related offences of 2. 4 percent. We had, as I mentioned earlier, our traffic offences went up 3. 5 percent crimes reduced by 5. 1 percent. In total, um, when you looked at all of our crime categories, we had an increase of overall crime categories of 8. 7 percent. But most of that is driven by an increase in calls related to social disorder. Uh, which were up significantly year over year. And those are matters that you actually referred to Councillor Thompson, like street disorder matters, open drug use, um, people who are, um, in mental health crisis. These are the incidents that often have nothing to do with criminality. They're not about arresting someone. Um, they're about those, uh, dealing with those social disorder challenges that, um, we see in our community. And, um, those, those have increased dramatically. Now for context, and this is

one of the reasons why I talked about our foot patrol team, they had, there were responsible for, for four percent of that increase. And half of those calls were generated by themselves walking on our streets and coming across incidents that they dealt with, um, immediately. So they weren't actually calls for service that came through ecom. So on one hand, that results in an increase in calls for service because they generate a call when they come across something. But on the other hand, it's a really good indicator of the work that they're doing and the impact that they're having. Another thing too, that I believe is happening here in Victoria is that businesses are starting to call us again more frequently. So we have been spreading the word. I have had countless meetings with business organisations, individual business owners, the chamber, um, the, um, the VIA in groups and individuals. And one of the things I had been telling them is please call, please call when

you have the front window of your business smashed out, for example. And many, many of them have told me that they had indeed stopped calling. So that will partly also be responsible for that increase. Um, however, it's also a demonstration of the work that we have out of us. Councillor. Okay. Thanks for that. Um, so it sounds like the more data coming on the dashboard and more data coming from the work that Howard Tran is doing. I will pass that along. Um, uh, wanted to ask about hotspots. So, uh, there are, you know, a number of hotspots in the city, uh, there's the Pandora 900 block. There's Johnson Street 800 block, et cetera. I don't want to try to address all of those today. I just wanted to ask about some of the changes in the hot spots. So the Johnson Street 800 block, I am perceiving less, but I could be wrong. Uh, Pandora 800 and 1, 000 blocks. I'm perceiving more. This is

what I'm hearing. Um, are those accurate and are there other changes to hotspots that, um, your members are noting. Chief. Through the chair, thank you for that question. So I actually do have the 2025 numbers for both a 900 block of Pandora and the 800 block of Johnson. Um, unfortunately, because it can be a bit tricky pulling this data only because, um, you have to define the area very carefully. And so I don't have the 2026 data. But for 2025, the 900 block of Pandora accounted for 1, 671 calls for service. The 800 block of Johnson accounted for 1, 419. That total of 3, 090 accounted for about almost 6 percent of all calls for service despite being a tiny, tiny percentage of the geographical area Victoria. This is not news to anyone here. But what I will endeavour to do is go back. And although I could obviously only do up, uh, you know, the first six months of 2026, but to compare those

numbers because I can tell you that anecdotally, our members are reporting back that they are seeing improvements in both of those areas. Um, that they're seeing less tense, less street disorder. There is still a lot of work to be done. There is no question. But absolutely, uh, I'm hearing from all different facets of not only the organisation, but from community as well, that, um, they're incremental improvements, um, and like I say, we still have a lot of work to do. I think getting our crime reduction unit out on the streets and deployed is going to be very helpful. But we have seen, um, an improvement as a result of having those foot patrol units out on the ground. And, uh, I'm happy to gather that data for 2026, Councillor and get that back to you, um, in short order. Because I would be very, very surprised. We'll have to extrapolate the data, obviously, for the balance of the year. Um, which could be problematic if

we are seeing those, those improvements. It will be literally a month over month analysis. But, um, we are seeing improvements, um, it's going to take time and it continued sustained effort. Not obviously just by police, but by all of our partners, um, but I'm hearing anecdotally that there have been visible improvements. Okay. Thanks very much for that. Um, and I'm going to ask a question. I think I know the answer to. And I'm sure you do, uh, when, when we're dealing with calls for service, that is probably a reflection of not only what's happening on the street, but also the number of people who are calling and you averted to that when you, when you said more people are calling who didn't used to call in. Is there any data available or even possible on what's actually happening on the streets as opposed to what's being called in. In addition to the sort of anecdotal member impression. To the chair, that's a great question. And

one, I would love to know the answer to. Um, I would also love to know, uh, I'd love to see the data around, um, you know, how many people were not calling when they ought to have and how many people are now calling when they ought to. However, that's just, as you know, a very, very difficult, um, estimate. It's a difficult, difficult information to gather and estimates are sort of the very best you're going to get. And I'm not sure how reliable they are. So that's a really difficult question to answer other than anecdotally. And as I say, our members and, you know, I hear from the public every single week. Our members are seeing improvements. They are, um, they are, uh, I guess slow, I guess it depends on what it's all relative. But there have been incremental improvements month over month, um, over the last number of months that we are very, very encouraged by, um, I just don't want to, I can't

underscore how we really can't take our foot off the gas and, and how much more work there is to do. But I think we should always also celebrate the fact that we are seeing, um, some improvements. Councillor. Okay. Thanks very much for that. Um, uh, you'll be hearing from a at least one member of the public who emailed me during your comments that they're going to want more data. So, um, I'll, I'll leave that there for that conversation to happen. Thanks very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Council Loughton, you're up next. Good morning everyone. And through you mayor. Um, I also want to welcome Deputy Chief Hiltz to Victoria. It's great to have you here. And I want to thank Chief Wilson for the presentation. And hello to Deputy Chief McRAY as well.

Um, I'm going to start with something that, um, came to my attention this week. It was at the recent police board meeting around the quarter to 2026 financial report. And it was noted that salaries and benefits are five percent underspending for the auxiliary and special municipal councils constables that are offsetting that for the same reason. And I also noted that over time is 22 percent over TARK over target to the backfill of these vacancy. So I was just wondering, could you give us an explanation of that and, and secondly, how is that affecting the overall strength? Is that, um, part of the reason why, um, the crime reduction unit hasn't been stood up yet or is that related? And then how is it affecting operations on the ground. Chief. Thank you. Through the chair, that's an excellent question. Um, we are, and it's one of the very reasons why the resource allocation review is going to be so critical. The data that comes out of that because it's looking at all of that. But

the reality is, um, we have an authorized strength of 284 positions. We have 82. 5 civilian positions and approximately 10 percent of our established positions are not filled. Um, So this equates to about 29 positions. This includes the eight crime reduction unit spots, but it does not include the six secanments that we have that are unfilled, but are fully funded. So you can see we have a lot of capacity in terms of hiring and filling those positions. And of course the, um, challenge with that is your overtime tends to go up through the roof. So this is why the securing of positions from this council in particular for 2026 was so critical. That's the first step. The second step is can we hire that many people? And indeed we have more applicants to the department than we've ever had. The third, absolutely critical piece of that puzzle is the South Island Police Academy. Because we were always very limited in the number of police officers

we could train at the JIBC because we would only get historically six or seven seeds. So, um, we now have this recipe in place to address those vacancies. Unfortunately, it takes time. That training is nine months. Um, but those factors and then overlay the resource allocation review on top of it. That is all, um, a recipe for being able to provide long - term data - driven information to this council about what VicPD's needs truly are to drive down that overtime number, to fill those vacancies, um, and to ensure that we are finding efficiencies, but also being realistic in terms of what our needs are.

So, um, you know, we're really looking forward to this all coming together. It takes time, as I say, um, and I'm looking forward to coming back to Council for budget 2027 and talking more about that. Yeah. Those were my next notes here is that it, and it was, it was also about the resource allocation review and how important that is going to be for whoever is sitting at this table in 2027. Chief, would you mind, or through you mayor, so what is the projected way that you might be able to get closer to these hiring targets in 2026? I know you touched on it in your report because we do have recruits that are going to that South Island police academy. I wrote the numbers down. 16, 16. So how, how is that all going to, to play into, um, filling these vacancies? Chief. Through the chair, thank you. So we have six recruits that just graduated in the last two weeks. We have another

11 that are going through the justice institute of BC that will graduate in coming months. And then we'll have 16 starting in September and another 16 starting in January. Now these are exceptional numbers. We are not going to have 32 recruits going through in a six month period, typically moving forward. But this is all in an effort to take advantage of the fact that we have the funding in large part thanks to this council that we have the training capacity. And the pilot project for the South Island Police Academy is only two years. So we want to make sure we take full advantage of that.

Um, and demonstrate the value of that resource and that, uh, being able to host the Academy here. One of the silver linings about the Academy is that, um, it's a cost saver. We don't have the final numbers in. I look forward to talking to that, to you more about that at budget 2027. But just to give you an idea, we were spending 22, 000 dollars a month on housing alone for our recruits to go to the JIBC in US MiNSTER. Extraordinary costs. On top of that, my primary focus with respect to this project was not a cost saving, um, endeavour, to be honest. It was more about the equity piece. Being able to hire those people who can't leave the island, but would, would perhaps make exceptional police officers. Um, so, you know, there's a silver lining to it as well in that there have been some cost savings. Um, aside from all of the other, uh, really positive benefits. So that's our plan to

fill those positions and we're really excited about getting to a position where for the first time, certainly in years, if not in decades. Vic PD will be able to be at its authorized strength. Great. I really hope that that pilot. Proves effective because clearly that's really required. So thank you for all that information. My, just the third thing on this for me is that it does concern me at the current state of the mental health of the officers currently deployed. Like that over time must be tough on them. Could you please comment on that and just let us know how many accommodated offers are currently on mental health or health or leave over injury. Through the chair. Thank you. So and thank you for your concern. I share that concern. In fact, we've just revamped our psychological services at Vic PD to ensure that, uh, getting our members what they need. You know, Vic PD is full of exceptional people, but they are exposed to

exceptional circumstances in our communities as well. And we want to make sure that we are supporting them, um, when they go through some of those difficult experiences, but also, um, the overtime is a great example of one of the pressures that our members are feeling. Um, particularly out on the front line, on the road. So one of the things we've done is we've reduced our vacancies in patrol to four. So that still four vacancies is not ideal. But we have moved things around internally to make sure that our priority for filling vacancies has been on the front line. Um, because we recognise that our members are going from call to call to call. Another thing we've done in terms of the overtime is as you well know, uh, we made a very deliberate and months long effort to withdraw our resources from the, uh, weekly protests that was happening, that happens here in the City of Victoria. That has proved to be, um, a very

positive decision. We had a significant number of resources that was dedicated to that every week. And our members were clearly telling us we are exhausted. You can imagine for events like Canada Day, the pride parade. We have a massive number of police officers who are out and about, um, and that's all in addition to their regular duties for the most part. Um, so we are very alive to the fact that member wellness is a real concern in our current climate. And we are taking steps to try and address that. Um, in terms of the number of members who are off, maybe I'll, uh, pass it over to Deputy McRAY. It looks like he has that data. I don't have it right in front of me, but it looks like he does. That'd be the McRae.

Thank you. And through the chair, uh, I will preface this with the number varies literally by the day. So, um, this was as of about one month ago, uh, we had 19 officers who were, uh, either working in an accommodated role so that this doesn't mean they're often gone completely. Or in some cases off and not with, uh, not working with the department. So, uh, we, I think working out it as a percentage that would be something like six or seven percent just going off the top of my head, which would be well in line with what we would expect to see. And most police agencies across the country as the chief has pointed out trying to reduce over time to trying to reduce that stress on our members is essential. And thank you for raising at Councillor because it's something we talk about and think about all the time. Yeah. It does concern me.

And I, with the resource allocation review, it's going to be a really important, um, part of that. Because this perception that police can solve the community safety and wellbeing issues is really hard on officers, I think. That's my, my perception of that. And all the lack of social services that falls on the plate of the police department is just fundamentally unfair. So chief, I'm absolutely with you on how the different systems need to come together island health, BC housing, all the community services. And I'm just wondering, um, can you comment on how that collective work is happening? Or are we going to have to, um, wait until 2027 to talk or not, I can't assume that I'm going to be here, but in 2027, when these budget issues come up, will council have to wait until that time? Or is there this kind of collective action of the systems working together happening now. Chief. Chair, great question. And that is something that we are doing

literally on a daily basis. So I'll give an example. Uh, we saw this dramatic increase in overdoses, um, as a result of metatomadine. And we've seen this real dramatic change in the way people are responding to naloxone. So just yesterday, our team at Vic PDE met with a number of different health providers through ILENT health, but also with our departmental doctor, Dr. V. They sat down and this is with nurses, doctors, from ILILENTH street nurses, outreach teams, um, there was a representative from the harbour. And they all sat down and talked about how we can all work together to, um, respond more effectively to those overdose situations. That's just one example. And that just happened, it was either yesterday or the day before. I've lost track of my days. But, um, you know, and that was that Vic PD and everybody came together and online and had a large discussion about what some of our constraints were with respect to how much naloxone were administering

at any given time. Um, you know, the impact of, um, Victoria Fire withdrawing from attending overdoses and how that's impacted our members. Um, this is just one example of us working with our partners. And we do that work every day. Um, you know, I routinely meet with, um, Kathy McNeil from Island Health. I meet with community partners on a weekly basis, uh, throughout Victoria. And we are constantly coming together and saying, how can we more effectively work together? Whether that's with restorative justice Victoria, whether it's with staff at the harbour, um, like I say, whether it's with island health, um, MCFD, you name it, housing, BC Housing. We are constantly working together and sitting at collaborative tables to try and figure out how we can together address some of these really, really wicked problems that we're seeing in community. And I can't stress, and in fact, now that I think about the sitting right here, I can't stress how often I'm engaged in conversations that

have absolutely nothing to do with throwing people in jail or arresting people, but have to do with all of these other challenges that our members are facing on a daily basis as they're out there doing their job. Yeah. Through you, Merit. It's something that's frustrating to me as well, because I want to see more resources go upstream, but I understand that that is also a process. Right. We need to move from where we are to where we want to be. So I'm happy to hear that all of these conversations amongst the systems are happening and you're working together. And thank you for answering my questions about the, um, the five percent underspent because that helps me to understand this takes time. So there was a lot of money levied towards the police department for 2026.

Very substantial portion of the tax lift. And we want to make sure that money is utilised. But I understand now that this takes time. And again, the South Island, um, Academy is going to really help with that. Um, just one final question about, um, Vic PD withdrawing from VimQ, the Vancouver Island integrated major crime unit. I think other people may have questions about this as well. But I think my number one question is now what happens to the current, um, homicide investigations that are with VIMQ that are victorious. Chief. Through the chair, thank you for that question. So we did indeed make the decision after months and months of discussion and deliberation and analysis to withdraw from the Vancouver Island integrated major crime unit. We have, um, a number of people who are embedded in that unit, but it is not a sakhanment, like for example, CFSU or Ursu. We actually pay the salaries and benefits of the people who are there. So, uh, you

know, the reality is that, um, there was a number of considerations that went into this decision. Um, and ultimately it comes down to recognising that our homicide rate has been dropping, uh, over many, many years. Um, we average over the last 10 years somewhere between one and two homicides a year. We have a significant investment of resources with VIMQ. And we are now in a position where we have the skills, abilities, um, the resources to handle those homicide investigations ourselves. I myself am, I'm an accredited team commander, um, so I'm very, very familiar with what it takes to do these investigations and even the costs associated with doing so. We intend to bring those members back to Vic PD. And there are five civilians, or sorry, five sworn members and one civilian member. So it's a significant investment. And when the next homicide comes in, which hopefully is way, way often the future, if ever, um, we will be well prepared to, to deal with

that and to investigate that and to investigate it properly. In terms of the files that are with VIMQ right now, that is going to be a discussion and a process with VIMQ to determine what files will stay with them and what, if any files will come back to the VICPD. Um, there's a number of considerations with respect to that. Where the file is, how old it is, whether the suspect identified or a person of interest identified, um, whether it's going, if it's going through the court process, for example, um, there's all sorts of considerations, including the physical transfer of that file, um, you know, they use a platform that Vic PD doesn't use for example for their disclosure and for their, um, file management. So we'll be looking at all of those, um, those factors.

However, what I can tell you is that regardless of the outcome of that, I know with certainty that Vic PD will be able to, uh, maintain, um, continue investigating homicides, um, as necessary. And as I say, we have the skills, abilities and people to be able to do that. And we are incredibly grateful for the relationship we've had with VimQ. We have an excellent relationship with ERCMP. I spoke to Deputy Commissioner McDonald yesterday as recently as yesterday. And we have an outstanding relationship with URCMP. We are very, very grateful for the relationship that we've had with them and with VimQ. And we will continue to work collaboratively with them. This was a Vic PD decision.

And it was made in the best interests of the communities of Victorian Esquimalt. Okay. Thank you for that. Um, that's it for me just a couple of little housekeeping details for me. I did take notes here, but is it possible for us to get a copy of your presentation. Through the chair, absolutely. I'm happy to provide you with a copy of my presentation and my speaking notes a few of them. That would be great. And also I'd like to reach out to you to do a ride along. Can we do that before the end of this term? I think I'm overdue just wondering how long that would take to set up. Through the chair, we would welcome you out on a ride along. You might even want to consider walking with a foot patrol unit.

And, uh, we can set that up relatively quickly. Okay. Great. And the spirit of collaboration. I think that would be a really prudent thing to do. Thank you for your service to all of you. Thank you. I have councillors five more speakers and it is convention that we would take a break actually a few minutes ago. So I'm going to suggest that we do that now. Uh, and that we return at 1033. So we'll just try and take 10 minutes. And then as I mentioned, uh, we have five additional speakers, I suspect we'll encounter at least another 30 to 45 minutes on this topic. And so we will proceed as expeditiously as Council Desires. So let's take a short break and we'll be back at 1033.

Thank you so much, Chair. I just want to clarify, I got a note from the fire chief just to clarify my comments with respect to overdose calls. He just clarified with me that, of course, overdose calls, span a variety of acuity classifications. And although they do not respond to low acuity overdose calls any longer, they still respond to high acudi overdose calls. So I misspoke by saying that they no longer respond to any overdose calls. And I want to apologise for that. And just correct the record that it's just those low acuity overdose calls that the fire department no longer goes to. Thank you very much for that, Chief. Much appreciated Councillor Hammond. You're up next. Thanks, Mayor. I think I just have one question.

And in fact, I know it's not an easy answer. So I sent the chief, my question a couple days ago. And at the break, she acknowledged that she had received it. And so I'll just go through it. It got a bit of a preamble if you can manage with that. I know that, especially from the information that we were talking about this morning, that there has been improvements in some areas and some by statistics, others by anecdotes. Although you talk about the disorder, um, as increasing when other issues of crime are down below. We get, as councillors, we get these emails on a regular basis.

And we get them from often, um, the same people who, whether it's the 800 block of Pandora or the thousand block a Pandora or 800 of Johnson or in other areas in which my heart just sinks when they show us the pictures and they explain how horrendous the disruption is. And so what they say is that police and bylaw turn up. And if the opportunity to disperse people, they do. And then they just come back. And as a matter of fact, there was something that I just took a little bit from a resident this morning. He says, I've been very disappointed to see all the tents and campers who have chosen to make the 1000 block their home for the summer. Although police and bylaw staff come by to remove the tents in their inhabitants, I always know that the campers were returning a day or so. This situation seems like a game of cat and mouse and residents are just left watching and shaking

their heads. We have owned our apartment for almost 10 years, and it is unimaginable to us that this situation has been allowed to continue following the unusual COVID years. As an elderly woman, 79 years old, and, uh, with an almost 80 year old husband with dementia, this neighbourhood is a very challenging place to live. And I know that the other elderly ladies in my building feel the same. She also said, reading the city's comments about the first year's results for the community safety, make me laugh and then angry. Obviously, they don't live in my community. So with that, and again, I know it's, you know it's not an easy answer, but the amount of times that I have to respond saying, I'm sorry. You know, I wish it were better. What can we do to go beyond this situation as she says cat and mouse and people use other terms where those who are able to enforce our laws and help people, but to disperse

them from the disorder. How could we do it so it's not just this one hour or maybe half a day or a day at the longest and everything just goes back to abnormal. It wouldn't want to call it normal. Chief. Through the chair, thank you Councillor for the question. It is a very large question. Um, and it's certainly not one that I is pleased chief alone can necessarily respond to. But I can tell you from my perspective, my thoughts, uh, on your, your comments and your question. The first is that, um, I've said repeatedly and I'll continue to say, we have to all work together.

Um, this is not just a pleasing matter. It's not just a city matter. It's not just a housing matter. It's not just a health matter. It really requires everyone to be at the table to think about what those long - term solutions are going to be. It's very, uh, I share the frustration that you're expresses because I hear that from my members. My members are saying, you know, we ask people to move along. We ask them to pack up their belongings. We supervise them while they do that. Um, and then they go around the block and they sit somewhere else or they come back within a few hours and how frustrating that is. I think that speaks to the need for a place for people to go. Um, they need a place to go for treatment, for supports, for individually responsive housing. And to the need for positive flow capacity so that people can go from street to shelter to supportive housing to independent living

without getting stopped at any one of those stages. I think that's absolutely critical. Um, you know, so I can't tell you what I think the solution is, but I can say that we share that frustration. I hear that from my members every day, um, you know, it's, it feels at times a bit futile in terms of where do people go when we ask them to leave. Having said that. Um, you know, their work is also one of enforcement, which they are engaged in, which is an important component of this. But it is only one piece of the puzzle. And I think that would be my major takeaway from your question is that, you know, we really have to consider, um, uh, all hands - on deck approach for dealing with these wicked challenges because it's not going to be solved by one service provider alone.

It's certainly not going to be solved by the police alone. We all have a significant role to play, but we have to be, uh, rowing in the same direction and playing the same game. And, um, I think that's probably my, my biggest, um, piece of comment or my biggest comment with respect to your question. Thanks Mayor. If I could just have one follow up, I don't mean to catch you when I say this, but do you think I can tell these people who call us and emails that there's hope. Ahead. Chief. Through the chair, I think there is absolutely hope. I think the work that we've done in the past year is a demonstration of that very thing. Um, now is not the time for us to take our foot off the gas. Now is the time for us to double down, um, to, uh, increase our, uh, our work towards helping people get on a better path. And, um, you know, I think expecting

to see immediate, significant results in a number of months is a bit naive. These things take time. These, these challenges and these social issues took a long time to develop. And I think they're going to take a long time for us to address. But, um, do we have hope? Absolutely. I do. That's reassuring. Councillor Gardner, you're up next. And please turn your mic on. I apologise for delay. I was typing some of the answers because one of that question more or less overlapped one of mine. So first welcome, uh, to new deputy chief health. And welcome to, uh, Deputy Chief McRAY and yourself. So thank you very much for coming once again to speak to us. The update is most welcome. And I was pleased to see the decreases and theft and some of the other, um, issues and the effectiveness of the foot patrol. It's very important. And I've also been very impressed over the years of the meaningful service that you do of the public. They surpassed so many, um,

surveys that I've seen elsewhere. Skully Azone officers, thank you again for speaking on that. It is still very contentious in the Council, I believe. The letter of support from this council was forwarded with a five to four vote. So now my questions, uh, if I can get my computer going here. With the profile evic PD, many people may be interested in your plans for the years ahead. And so could you please describe for the public the opportunities for the public to attend board meetings or other VIC PD meetings. Chief. Thank you for the question through the chair. So, uh, we actually had discussion, uh, recently with respect to board meetings, the members of the public are always welcome to attend 850 caledonia to participate in our board meetings. And in fact, we had a member of the public attend our last board meeting. Um, but in addition to that, I'm hoping that everyone has noticed over the last number of months, we have been live

streaming our board meetings in an effort to ensure that people have immediate access to what's happening in those meetings and can clearly see and hear what's actually going on. I know there's a bit of a history here at Vic PD of us not being able to facilitate that. There were some problems with some of the technology. And we've resolved those problems moving forward. So I hope everybody has the opportunity to watch those board meetings live, uh, or after the fact, but certainly the chance to attend in person is always there. And, uh, people are very welcome to do that. That's great. And when is the next board meeting. The next board meeting is actually not until September. It's the third Tuesday in September. Um, August is the, uh, in August, historically no board meeting for Vic PD for the Victoria SQUAMO police board. Okay. Whoops.

So the next board meeting is on the. September 15th. September. 15th. Thank you. Now my next question was really somewhat answered. It was similar to the one that Councillor Mohamed asked you. Now, we could go, I stated that for residents, another five to 10 years is not something they can accept when they've been living with it for so many years. The residents in the condominiums and other residential housing around it. And of course, uh, that may be the rest of their lives, especially for seniors. And for those on the streets, they may not live another five to 10 years. And, um, so we also heard from last week from staff that really the number of people sheltering on the street in the parks has not noticeably decreased. So do you see a time really within my lifetime even that there won't be so many no zones for our residents. Chief. Through the chair, my understanding was that there actually had been a decrease and the

number of people who were sheltering in parks, for example, um, but perhaps I mistaken. I'm sorry Councillor Gardner, I'm going to need to ask you to repeat your question. Okay. Okay. Just that do you see a time when these streets and parks will not be no go zones for so many of our residents who live here. And that's not just a problem with just downtown, but we get a lot of, you know, comments and emails from people, uh, throughout the city when in some encounters land right in front of them. Do you see a time in my lifetime at least. Through the chair? Councillor Gardner, I do believe there had been a decrease in that number, which I think is moving in the right direction and certainly speaks to the accessibility of those spaces for everyone in community. Yeah. Yeah. Because I think something we heard also from staff last week was of course that people in the support of housing, which also, um, the

select ones of support of housing permit illicit drug use. And they come out in the day and joined the others. And so that number of totally in the city is increasing. We now have 1. 6 to 1. 8 percent of the population. That are either in support of housing that permits solicit drug use or on the streets and parks, which is not, of course, you're doing, but that is a real concern, I think, to all of us. Now this is a tricky one for you. Now you gave a wonderful answer to Councillor Lauten on staffing and training. How many officers are you actually light now.

Through the chair, our authorized strength is 284. And approximately 10 percent of our established positions are not filled. So there are not filled. However, this answer becomes very complex very quickly because we have members who are at the Academy who are not operational. No, I got that. We have members who are off on WCBs. We have light duties members. We have accommodated members and Def Eating McCray spoke to those numbers earlier. So how many officers are dedicated to a squamold. Chief. I'm going to defer to Deputy McRAY on this 24. I believe it 24 is the number. So what years end, if a squamblet is not part of Vic PD, would Vic PD then be in full complement. Through the chair councillor I can't answer that question without, um, some more analysis of the numbers.

Okay. Thank you. I just raised that because I think that's important to realise because the squamol agreement is ending. Now. I took some note when you spoke to us last time or time before. When you made that you said the proportion of Victoria had a very high level of those suffering from addictions and with mental health challenges who are on our streets through in our parks and perhaps in support of housing. Now the numbers provided by staff over the past months suggest that we would have, as I mentioned, 1. 6 to 1. 8 percent of the current population in that state. And that they were, I had asked them to compare the proportion of Victoria with other like - sized cities. And you had mentioned, of course, the Vancouver situation. Is there any actual database you know that actually has this kind of information. At this time. Chief. Through the chair, Councillor Gardner, I think what I refer to as when I first started here

and I still do believe this, uh, that anecdotally there appears to be a disproportionate challenge with people who are, um, uh. Disproportionate challenge with street disorder here in Victoria, partly because Victoria is so small, because the population is so small, but really because it's physically a very small city, along with a whole number of other issues. Um, so I think that's what you're referring to. Um, there are, of course, all sorts of, um, pointed time studies and population analysis and homeless counts that can be relied on for that type of data from what I gather. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Cause our point in time of course is regional, not the city. And so that's part of the whole problem. Okay. So I assume then there is no database that you know of of any kind. I'm just trying to shorten the work of our own staff.

There probably isn't, right? So through the chair, Councillor Garner, I can't answer that. I don't know if the device. And thank you very much, Chief Wilson. I'm going to be short today. And please really our thanks to your officers civilian staff volunteers and to your board. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councillor Kim. You're up next. Um, through the chair, thank you. And, um, yeah, nice to see you. Um, first I just wanted to ask the police chief to comment on any trends in the crime severity index. I threw the chair. Thank you for that question. The crime spirite index numbers came out yesterday. So I did have a chance to look at them briefly.

And certainly the crime severity index for Victoria has increased. The crime severity index, I'll just try and find the numbers here. Um, has gone up, let's see. The overall CSI increase from 152. 17 in 2024 to 161. 18 in 2025. Of course, any increase in the crime severity index or any statistical analysis with respect to crime in Victoria is of concern for me. However, those are 2025 numbers to start with. So we get the data a bit late. But also I think it's really important for everyone to understand how the crime's ferrity index works. Um, it measures both the volume and the seriousness of police reported crimes, which is really separate from how we traditionally look at crime rates where we look at one individual incident at a time. Each offence type is weighted and calculated by multiplying the incarceration rate for that offence by the average prison sentence length that's handed down for it.

So the most serious crimes have the highest index. For example, homicides that surround a weight of 7, 000, just over 7, 000 mischief is 22. So every reported incident is multiplied by its weight and the results are summed. Divided by the population. And standardized. And there are three different versions. There's the overall version. There's the violent and then the nonviolent crime severity index. So it's the small denominator core city effect. That really impacts Victoria's, uh, crime severity index. It's not a sign that Victoria is uniquely dangerous. The index divides a weighted crime by the roughly 90 to 100, 000 people who live in the city.

But of course the city is the downtown service centre for a region of well over 400, 000 people. So crime generated by commuters, visitors, uh, the fact that we have an entertainment district. And they're regionally concentrated population and including our street population that lands in the numerator while the denominator still stays small. Um, one of the things that I looked into when I first got here to Victoria was why the heck is our crime severity index. So hi. And that's why. Because our population is so relatively low. So the denominator is low. However, we have all of this core city phenomena, including the fact that we're the regions downtown core, um, that we carry more calls for service. All of these things that I've been speaking about, um, with respect to even budget 2026, um, there's more social disorder, higher needs population, this surrounding suburban municipalities. And, um, we have the highest urban density in the region. The largest number of liquor seats. The majority

of multi - unit temporary housing. And of course, where the provincial capital. So I looked at those numbers and was disappointed to see that our CSI has gone up. But I'm also, I also, I think the context is really, really important. So thank you for asking that. Thank you for that context. Uh, just a total aside question before I get to the back to the ones I have written. Do you folks on the, um, force now have to do like statistical methodology classes because this is, no, but seriously, like I think it's a part of the public communication that you're trying to do. And this is the, um, in - depth breakdown of the crime severity index. I've heard in my last couple of years here. Through the chair, thank you for that comment. Um, you may have noticed that last year I got myself in hot water over some crime statistics. And so we have made efforts to make sure that we are on

point with our stats. And our numbers, um, so that I don't get it wrong. Um, and we still have a lot of work to do. And our public dashboard is a great example of that. We really want to revamp that. But a lot of this flows from the work that Howard Tran is doing with resource allocation review. I think you will be very, very pleased to see the in - depth data analysis that he is doing. Everything, like I say, from not just calls to service and all the traditional policing measures, but how long does it take our officers to respond to calls? How long does it take them to respond to priority? One, two, three, four calls. What is acceptable in terms of if we add extra resources that the amount of time you can expect those numbers to drop. Um, there's all sorts of data analysis that he's doing that I'm really excited to bring to this council because I think you'll find

it very, very interesting. But yes, we have been making a concerted effort to make sure that we have our data house in order. So thank you for acknowledging that. Oh, I'm glad you raised the resource allocation review. Cause my next question is specifically on the methodology. It's, it's being, um, brought to us as something that we should look forward to. There's going to be information. My concern is that my little troglodyte brain won't be able to understand the methodology and thus the points you're trying to make. So, um, it's cool that there's this process, but how will the process itself be demystified for folks like myself to make sure that what you are trying to communicate is coming across. And then we can also ask intelligent questions back. Chief. Through the chair, that is such a great question because one of our concerns in the department is always making sure that we are communicating with our partners, with the public in a way that is

digestible and can be understood. Um, one of the things that we do all the time is trying to make sure that we're not talking and please speak, for example, because we tend to do that in acronyms and things that are unique to policing. That does not help the public understand what it is we do, how we do it, why we're doing it. And so it's interesting you raise that. It's a conversation that Howard Tran and I had just a few weeks ago because I was reading through his report, his preliminary report. And I was getting very confused myself about pieces of it that got really, really heavy on the data. And I said to him, one of our biggest objectives is to make sure not that this is done and it's done right. That's all very, very important. It's critical that we're consulting internally, that we're looking at the data. But how are we going to translate that in such a way that it is

digestible to our partners in the communities? And so we are very alive to that. And we want to make sure that you have enough detail so that you are informed. But not so much detail that's granular in nature that it's overwhelming and it becomes at some point it becomes, um, unusable. So we will be working very hard to ensure that what we bring you is something that is reasonable and digestible. The second part of the question, however, is then where is an avenue for questions to come back. On things like methodology. Through the chairs. So one of the things I would suggest is that when the resource allocation review is completed, if you are interested, I would be happy to come, uh, with Howard trans so that we can have a fusoom discussion about it.

But I would also suggest that, um, that the report is released to you prior to that so that you have a chance to review it, read it and prepare questions for that. Right. Thank you for the homework. Um, my last question is, um, based on a conversation I had very recently about, uh, folks who, um, might be apprehended by, um, members of the force and then detained. And are ultimately let back go because the crown isn't pressing charges or we're waiting for them. And so what, what, what is the point? What is the challenge that you are facing with that system? And what is the challenge that you feel the city is facing and what next? Steve. Through the chair, another great question. So we're engaged in, um, advocacy at the national level with respect to bail reform, for example. Um, I'm very, very engaged with the Canadian Association of Chiesa Police. Our chair, I chair our drug advisory committee for the country. Um, so

there's all of that going on behind the scenes. But in terms of how that translates into, um, what's happening here in Victoria. That is exactly why it is so critical that we are all working together for solutions. Because in the serious matters, I have, uh, no concern about our members arresting an individual, taking them before crown council, seeking and obtaining charge approval and moving through the system. But so much of what our members are doing with do not necessarily doesn't necessarily meet that threshold or great example is, um, simple possession of illicit drugs. Um, we have all sorts of guidelines from crown. We have embedded in our control drugs and substances act that we are absolutely required to look at every alternative to introducing somebody to the criminal justice system and requesting charges with respect to simple possession. Do we have a problem with people smoking drugs on the streets in Victoria? Yes, we do.

Is the solution to arrest them and take them to jail? No, it is not. Um, there's, there's options for police to address that type of behaviour through arrest through diversion, through, um, alternative options. Um, but the reality is that has become a social challenge that's everyone's, um, challenge to address. And it's, it comes back to that need for us to all work together. Thank you for your thoughtfulness. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Coleman. Thank you. Thank you. And through you, um, my thanks to the chief for being here and the two deputies. Always appreciated. And personal thanks to the chief. There have been three incidents just recently that I've sent emails on, on community issues.

And they've been, uh, responded to immediately. And they're all works in process. But I appreciate it. Um, the first question. We talk about your 284. Authorized strength number. And there's some people who are on long - term visibility. There's a number of different components that come to it. The trauma with that is we assume that 284 is the target number. Is that actually the number of officers we need to properly look after both municipalities. We can talk about division later. What's the number that we're actually targeting. Please. Through the chair, that's a great question. And that's why the resource allocation review is so critical because that's exactly what it's going to tell us. I believe that, uh, you're going to see, well, I know in the report, you are going to see places where we can have efficiencies. You may have to some decisions to make around what you want from your police service. Are those priority one response times that he sets out acceptable?

Would you like them? Are you okay with him being a bit higher? Or are you, would you prefer them to be a bit lower, for example? And you are also going to get a really good sense of where we need extra support. And all three of those things will be illuminated for through the resource allocation review. And it's one of the reasons why I'm really reticent to make any significant resourcing decisions right now. Because I have made a commitment to this council and certainly to the township as well, that we will make data - driven decisions. And that's what the RAR is going to give us. Thank you for that. Let me push a bit, if I could. How many officers of the authorized strength are on the retirement bubble. Keith? Through the chair, that's a great question. But interestingly, we kind of have the opposite problem right now. Um, we have a very, very junior police force. So one of the things though, that we have, uh, that's been really successful, not

in terms of grand numbers, but in terms of the people we've been able to bring back is that letter of understanding we have with the union to allow retired, qualified police officers to come back on contract. And they go straight to the front line. There's no other option. So they are working patrol. We have three of those members thus far. We have another one that's close to completion. But they bring incredible wealth and knowledge to the front line when we have such a junior, um, reality in policing at Vic PD, and particularly in patrol, because of course that's where everybody starts. So I'm not as concerned about the people who are on the retirement bubble as I am making sure those junior members, um, are getting what they need in terms of mentorship, training, um, and, uh, working with people who have more experience than they do. Thank you for that. So then the 16 that we have coming into the fall accreditation in the

16 again, coming in the spring are not too deal with retirement. They're actually about expanding the police force. Chief. Uh, Deputy McCray, do you have any, uh, insight on the retirement numbers? Cause I'm not up to speed on that right now. Definitely. Thank you through you, chair. In 2026, our retirement numbers were actually a little bit lower than what we would have projected. Generally speaking, we are predicting between 10 and 12 retirements per year, uh, for the kind of last number of years as well as the next few years. Um, we are, however, in 2026, we were actually lower than that. I think we only had eight retirements, thus far in 2026, which is a little bit low for us. Um, I expect we will be back into the numbers closer to 10 to 12, uh, in the kind of the first quarter of 2027.

So when you look at the number that we need to replace, there's a number of positions as we've discussed here today that are vacant already. So there's a number of positions that are in seconded positions. So those need to be replaced. And then of course, the number of retirements. So it's no one thing. It's really a grouping of those three things together that will ultimately those particular resources that are being brought on board will then end up replacing. Okay. Thank you for that. Um, so I wonder it would be helpful for me perhaps for others as we go through the assessments, could we get a graph of authorized strength by division. So I think, uh, the traffic we've talked about in the past and historically we used to have 10 officers in that. I think they're down to three or four. Um, so as we move forward for our deliberations over budget, it would be really helpful to say, this is where there are gaps.

This is where, and it goes back to the notion that we shouldn't be looking at 284 as the number. It's going to be higher. We may split with a spine molt. We may not. I don't know what's going to happen with that. But we're trying to resource you properly. So, uh, certainly during the 2027 budget discussions, there will be a presentation with respect to where resources are allocated. Um, we tend to keep that at a pretty high level in terms of the public. Um, only for operational reasons. Um, however, we can get you that higher level, um, information. However, I think really the key to all of this is the resource allocation review because all of that data will be included in that report. And I think you'll find that there's information in there that will absolutely assist your assessment with respect to what our needs are. Thank you. So as we go through that resource allocation, uh, it was referenced earlier about district 61.

Where does missed play into that. Chief? Through the chair, I'm going to defer to, uh, Deputy McRAY on this one. Empty. Thank you through your chair. As you know, VIC PD as well as all of the other lower mainland or lower Vancouver island police agencies participate in missed. As far as the resource allocation review, I don't anticipate or expect any changes relating to missed. I will say, I think they have had again, and you've heard this, I think, in the past some challenges retaining their councillor that works directly with MIST and the funding specifically to that. But that doesn't impact the commitment from the South Island Police Agencies for having the police officer as part of missed. Thank you. And thank you for your support of missed and that Councillor, because I think they do an outstanding work in a proactive sense not allowing young people to get diverted into an area. We might not like them being involved in. The last question I have

is, um, predicated on an incident that happened last week in the ravine, just behind the burnside gorge community centre. And it was fortunately a rainy day because there was a fire, um, lots of smoke. And the police response was very quick. But the other responders had a difficult time finding. Access to the area. And it's a borderline. So we were told by one of the adjacent neighbours workers that, no, we can't respond to that because it's not in, in our municipality. How do we deal with those borderline issues, um, particularly when it could be crisis mode. So it's how you work with other police forces, but it's also the CRD, it's other parks and rec departments, all that stuff. How is that done? So through the chair, I can't speak for other agencies or other departments, but what I can say is from a policing perspective, that is seamless. We frequently work with our partners who, you know, as you know, we've got this patchwork

of fleecing on the South Island. And it's nothing new. We constantly work with our partners very closely. We have a radio channel that can be patched. In fact, we took advantage of that just in a critical incident last week. Um, so I can tell you that from a policing perspective, much like what it sounds like your experience was with respect to this incident. Um, we move in, we deal with the issue. And then we sort out the jurisdictional, um, uh, responsibility around that. And for policing, it is very clear. Like we have jurisdictional boundaries where we're responsible for and other agencies have their boundaries, that they're responsible for. But, uh, the reality is we work very, very closely together. In fact, I would say on the South Island, we work more closely together here than in any other area that I've, uh, had the pleasure of working in throughout my almost 30 years of service.

Thank you very much for that. And again, it's not just that ravine area. It also applies to traffic interdiction with people who have problems using, uh, auditory assists to get through traffic area on those border streets that are perhaps one municipality and another or different police forces. So as long as that work can still be done seamlessly, the public will be safer. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor. Councillor Dell. Thank you so much for being here to y'all. Um, through the mayor, just a couple of quick questions for me. I've been working with the downtown business community and restaurants a little bit about the downtown foot patrol team. And the questions around a route and timing. And I was wondering if you could just clarify what time those officers are starting. Are they trying to follow a route or that is responding to ad hoc calls? Um, I think the, uh, folks looking for a bit of assurance of when they will see these

people and what they can expect. And I'm not, I'm not hearing that. They're getting that right now. So would you be able to talk about that a little bit? Chief. Through the chair. So, um, what I can tell you about the foot patrol unit is that they have staggered start times week over week. So they have one week of a particular start time, a second week of the next start time and the third week. And then they rotate. And they do that so that they're covering all sorts of different times of the day. I'm a bit reluctant to, um, publicly talk about what those start time and end times are just from an operational perspective.

But I can tell you that their Monday to Friday. And they are often, you know, they'll start at some points early in the morning. And then there will be other weeks where they're out on the road later at night. Um, we do that intentionally because we don't want to have a routine, um, that, that everybody can get to understand and know. And I understand the downside of that for businesses, for example. But I can't tell you that the schedule was determined to make sure that some weeks they are available before businesses open so that they can facilitate assisting those businesses if they have somebody who's sleeping in the doorway, for example, um, they, you know, they'll walk around the downtown core especially and sort of check those businesses before they open. But then the other circumstances, um, where in the evenings, um, they are available as well, uh, for a variety of reasons. We also have, um, as you well know, and this council supported

so strongly last year, the C - step funding, um, with your infusion of assistance with that funding. So provincial C - step funding. That facilitates additional foot patrols throughout the downtown core. And so there and their hours are very diswell. And we do that very purposely to make sure that, um, at different times of the day and different times of the week. And that C - step, um, those C - step patrols are often, um, dedicated to weekends, um, simply because we want to make sure we have seven days of coverage with foot patrol. So, um, does that answer your question, councillor? Yeah, that does.

Thank you so much. Um, through the chair follow - up question. So are you able to share then how many offices are out at any given time when the shifts are happening? I've definitely seen groups of two walking. Although I spend a lot of time downtown and also don't see, don't see many at all, probably because I'm just not in the right areas, but is the goal? Like how many would you officers would you want to ideally have walking downtown, walking the beat in pairs. On an average given day? Is it is two enough for you? Are there more than that? And what would you like to see? Chief. Through the chair, so I'm reluctant to talk about the numbers, our deployment numbers in this city. But what I can tell you specific to the foot patrol unit, um, is that, uh, there are certainly more than two out at any given time, particularly with C - step as well. Um, the team is, uh,

eight people. And they are, um, they are deployed throughout their shift. And that's in addition to the C - step foot patrol members that you would see out and about as well. And quite frankly, it's in addition to our patrol members. Um, we often have patrol members who will choose to get out and walk on foot. Depending on what the call load looks like and their area of responsibility as opposed to getting in a car. And that is not unusual. So there may be days when you, and then of course we have our two bylaw dedicated as officers as well. So there is no time in this city where I would expect there are only two police officers out walking on foot. I don't want to give an exact number, but I can tell you it's, it's certainly many more than that. Councillor deal. Okay.

Thank you so much. I'm just jumping around quickly here. Um, can you just talk quickly about the late night team and how the late night team has been working? Is that still going? Has there been any trends at the beginning of our term when you weren't here the late night team was a really kind of hot topic essentially. Uh, it was a big push from Vic Vic Beauty to fund the late night team. I believe we have permanent funding for it now. I haven't heard much about it all. So what's going on with that team and is are there any trends. I guess also speaking to one of the trends we see also is that people aren't drinking anymore. Our bar owners are coming to us and venues going, what's happening? No one's buying alcohol, which is a big difference probably when many, os were young in alcohol was out of control. So can you talk about the late night team to sub, give us

an update? So through the chair, maybe I'll just address the alcohol piece first. And then I'd like to turn it over to Deputy McRAY with respect to late night team. Um, one of the things that I found really interesting participating in Canada day celebrations is that all of my members were telling me about how Canada Day used to be a real dust up here in Victoria many, many years ago pre COVID. And we've actually reduced our deployment numbers on Canada day. And I was asking questions about that. Obviously. Why are we deploying so many fewer members now don't get me wrong. There's still a massive number of members who are out on Canada day. Um, but relatively speaking, it used to be apparently almost the entire uniform officers in the department were deployed on Canada Day. In fact, I had an inspector who told me she's never had a candidate day off and she's worked for Vic PD for well over two and a half

decades. So when we were out on Canada day, uh, Deputy MUCRA and I were both out on, on foot for the day and for the, through the evening. And we noticed it was such a fabulous family friendly affair. We had almost no incidents at Vic PD. Um, and I think it's as a product of people simply not drinking to the extent that they used to. So we've really noticed that as well, which has been really quite lovely. But I'll pass it over to Deputy McCray to speak about late night. Thank you through your chair. Great question. Uh, late night task force has been something that, as you know, we've discussed a lot here in this room. Uh, and remains, and I want to be clear an essential part of our deployment. Without going into the exact generally speaking our late night task force throughout two days a week, uh, two nights a week during FIFA, there were some times where we found great value in

having them particularly for those 9 PM games. So those later start games that, um, uh, generated some audience and a number of people in restaurants and bars that maybe wouldn't have been there that late in the evening. Uh, on a normal day. We continue to see an advantage from those because while we overall, maybe there is less people drinking. We do know that nightclubs and bars still tend to be very busy. And those late hours. It is something that we continue to, uh, observe. It's continue to see. And having that presence and that intervention before things go sideways is really the goal of the late night task force. And we continue to have great benefit from that. And I wouldn't look to change that or adjust that at this point in time. Okay. Thank you.

Two more quick areas to jump around with, I would like to ask how much a community survey is costing Vic PD. I think it's a great survey, but I will tell you my own perspective is that from being here for four years, it comes back with the same information as we support Vic PDA. We want to see more Vic PD. To me, it's the same as a survey from say the fire department of, of course, we want the fire department to reduce fires or from my schools, like teach my kids. I don't need to get in the details. So you guys know you're the professionals.

You have a wide range of expertise. You know what needs to be done in the city. You know every year it's the same thing. More visibility tackling crime. So I'm wondering why the money is spent on it and how much is spent on that, uh, that survey. And if you, if you think it's necessary, knowing it keeps coming back with the same amount, same thing. Chief. Thank you for the question through the chair. We actually took a different approach to the community survey this year. Um, and I'm wondering if I could put direct or parton on this spot. To come and speak to it. And she could give you some details because it was administered through our community engagement team. And she was overseeing that.

We may not have the exact numbers for you, Councillor Dell. However, director PANTEN could talk a little bit about what we did this year with respect to the community survey. Thank you, Chaport through the chair. Um, thank you for the question. So this year we spent 8, 000 dollars on our community survey, which is which was a significant reduction to what we spent previously. Um, typically we've done a direct mail approach. And that cost anywhere between 15 and 17, 000 dollars. So we did partner with research and company and I'm happy to provide some of those results. Uh, we also changed some of the questions that we asked the community. And I'm also happy to provide those to you as well. Okay. That's great. I mean, 8, 000 dollars actually, that sounds reasonable. Sorry. I thought it was a lot more than that. Um, knowing just how much this costs. So my very last question is how many officers exactly was pulled from the Vancouver

Island integrated, um, major crime unit. And is there a risk that that unit might collapse without Victoria in that unit? Chief. Through the chair, thank you for the question. So there were five sworn members and one civilian member who have been, and they, to be clear, they haven't been pulled. We've given notice as required under the MOU, um, to the signatories, uh, FORMQ, including the RCMP, that we intend to withdraw from VIMQ. Under the MOU, it's a required 30 days. However, understanding that these are complex investigations that those members are engaged in files that are very, very high priority. I proposed a date of October 1st, um, to bring them back to, uh, Vic PD with an understanding that even that may need to be discussed. And I entirely understand the need to be flexible and reasonable. But I'm not familiar with exactly what they're working on. So we'll have to sort that out. So it's five sworn resources and one civilian. And, uh, speaking

to Deputy Commissioner McDonald, I don't have any, um, belief that VimQ is under any threat of folding. It's not for me to speak to that. However, through our conversations, I certainly did not get the sense that there was any, um, dramatic concern about Vic PD's decision to withdraw. It simply means that they are not responsible for taking homicides that occur in Victorian a squimault. So of course it lightens their load. And they can focus on homicides in other jurisdictions that they're responsible for. Councillor. Uh, okay. Thank you so much for all this questions. I'll leave it there, but I appreciate you coming in and also welcome to the for the new Deputy's for coming to Victoria. We're definitely very happy to have you here. And I'd love to learn more about you at some point in the future. Thanks. Thank you very much. Uh, everyone has had a fairly fulsome opportunity to ask questions. Thank you for your patience. Councillor Kim is indicated that she

has one follow - up question. As does Councillor Loton. Um, thank you. Through the chair, uh, there was a question posed about the accessibility of the board meetings. And in real time, I've had two people reply back to me digitally saying last night's board meeting. Yeah. So I just, just flagging that and can you speak to that so that we can clear the air. Thank you. Chief. Through the chair. Thank you so much for raising that because you reminded me that last night they had technical challenges that we do not anticipate will happen on a regular basis. Um, we have insured that, uh, we have the right resources in place to live stream the meetings moving forward last night was such an anomaly. And it was so ironic because we had this wholesome discussion about wanting to make sure that those meetings, uh, we're live streamed that the public had access. Um, and, uh, unfortunately last night was just a technical, um, sorry, it was

Tuesday night actually was, uh, they had some significant technical problems, but we do not anticipate that being an issue moving forward. But thank you for raising it so I could clarify that. Was it? Councillor Loughton. You have one follow - up question. Yeah. Thanks to you, Mayor. It's actually just a comment about the numbers. Of people sheltering. So I just wanted to note that, uh, last week we had an update on the community safety and wellbeing planned. So the sheltering, the numbers of shelters and parks have gone down. Uh, we have housed 75 people using our relocation coordinator. And the retention rates are very high.

I don't have the actual numbers for that. But that's also a really important note. So I just wanted to add that to this conversation. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you very much. Any other final question. I think we've kept you long enough. Yes, Councillor Gardner, one last time. Thank you very much for your presentation and regarding statistics and operational performance system is what you've got in play and which is wonderful. And I just don't want you consuming too much funding trying to educate everybody else. I think it's going to be very, did you really do, you should be again trying to make some of the language simple for people, but it's really not your duty to educate us on stats courses. So I just wanted to say, please don't expend too much on that. But I understand that when you come back with your study, that would be a great time right then to explain a lot.

Um, but thank you very much. And I think that study you're doing will be most useful. Cause operational performance systems, which is really what you're talking about so you can get your targets and you can have everything. And the weighted data, that's very routine. And I'm so glad that you are actually taking a very, very, uh, mathematical, uh, statistical approach to it. That's the only way to come back just the anecdotal. And so I very much appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you very much. I didn't do the last thoughts. Many questions have been asked of you. I actually have only one. Uh, the impact withdrawal from BIMQ. Does that mean that in an exceptional circumstance that you would not respond to your colleagues and other jurisdictions should they need our help. Through you, Mayor, absolutely not. There's, we would always step up to help our colleagues, um, when there is a significant public safety concern.

And we will continue to work with VimQ and enjoy the strong collaborative relationship we've had with them and with the RCMP moving forward. This decision was strictly in the best interest of Victorian Esquimalt for Vic PD. It was not about lack of, um, uh, fantastic relationship that we've had with VimQ or any sort of dissatisfaction with the service that they provided over the years. The reality is there was a number of factors that were under consideration, including our homicide rate. And when you consider that we have one to two homicides on average a year. And five sworn resources and one civilian resource dedicated to that.

You know, that really played a factor. You have asked me to consider efficiencies at Vic PDE. And that is exactly what I'm doing. So difficult decision for sure. And not one that everybody is thrilled about. Um, however, I can tell you that it's the right decision for Vic PD and for the communities of Victoria and Desquimal. Thank you for that. I asked you that obviously purposefully, because I wanted to make sure that the message was clear that the relationships that you have built with the various services around the South Island, while they may have been in the past coordinated by a particular agreement, they in no way represent the commitment that I know all the services have to one another should an emergency arise. So I think it's important for people to realise that VimHube may not any longer or soon. Be part of the Vic PD family, but the need for the collaboration obviously will continue. Welcome. Deputy Hiltz. Thank you, Deputy McRae, for

your continuing years of service. We know how critical they are and your experiences untold. I'm much appreciated all that you bring to the table. Thank you, Chief, as well. Uh, there is perhaps no better. Recognition of the enormous depth of the Vic PD. And this review sitting there. And the fact that you who spent the last two and a half hours with us showing a little bit, just a little bit of what that is by taking the time to explain to the public who ultimately are paying for your services and benefiting from them. Is really important and extremely valued. We thank you for your time and look forward to the next opportunity, which I think we will make sure is a little sooner than perhaps the gap that existed since the last time you were here. Good luck. Thank you for your service and we'll talk with you all soon. Thank you so much everyone.

With that, we will move on to the first of our two staff reports. This is item G1 on our agenda. That's right. Uh, this is a report back on strategies and resources to require cooling, uh, in Victoria's rental buildings. This is a verbal report back. I understand from his husband and various staff members. So we'll let you all get settled. And, uh, and then over to you to make your presentation and we'll go to questions depending upon what your presentation can taint. And please do remind us of your colleagues just so that we don't error and our recognition. Good morning, Mayor Alto and Council. I am Andrea Hudson, the assistant director of Citywide Planning. With me today, uh, is Ross Howard, our manager of housing, sitting next to me. And at the far end of the table, we have Chris Moore, our senior energy specialist. So, uh, Council, we are here today in response to direction that you gave us at the May 28th Council meeting where you

asked us to explore tools available to the city to adopt a bylaw or to modify an existing bylaw that requires existing rental units to have cooling equipment or that prevents at least one room of the unit from exceeding 26 degrees Celsius. You also asked us to liaise with the City of New Westminster to understand how their bylaw works. And you also asked us to write a letter to the Minister of Housing to request clarification and confirmation that these types of upgrades would not trigger evictions or rent increases. Um, so on behalf of Council, the mayor's office sent a letter to the minister of housing earlier this week on this matter. Given the growing risk of major heat events as a result of climate change, uh, the BC building code was recently updated, as you all know. It requires at least one living space in each dwelling unit to be able to maintain a temperature of not more than 26 degrees Celsius. And the reason that

26 degrees was chosen is because health authorities have advised that prolonged exposure to indoor temperatures above 26 degrees starts to pose health risks for vulnerable populations. Uh, and then when temperatures rise, even higher above 31 degrees, that can actually become dangerous for vulnerable populations. With climate warming suites are projected to experience nearly twice as many hours over 26 degrees in the coming decades. And so this building code change is a very positive step forward, but it only applies to new buildings and doesn't address existing rental buildings in the city. So since receiving this Council direction, uh, staff have undertaken some preliminary research and we've engaged with staff at the City of New Westminster, the provincial residential tenancy branch, local health authorities, including island health and the BC Centre for Disease Control. Staff have also reached out to other organisations that represent tenants and landlords, including landlord BC, and together against poverty society as well as multiple climate organisations. There is a growing body of research

documenting overheating risks and guidance that's provided around municipal tools to help mitigate overheating in rental homes. It's a very complex matter. Um, this is a topic that intersects community health and housing and climate. And there are different roles for various levels of government. And the private sector to play around this. So, um, with respect to our preliminary research, the City of New Westminster chose a two - step approach in its efforts to regulate indoor temperature through a bylaw. Uh, in May of 2025, it introduced language to prohibit landlords from prohibiting cooling devices. And then earlier this year in April of 2026, they added a maximum temperature requirement of 26 degrees for one room in a rental home. New SminSTER uses a rental business licensing bylaw, and they enforce their by - allow primarily through a complaints - driven process, undertaken by Bylaw officers and building inspectors. In other municipalities, Vancouver is currently exploring options and will be reporting back to their council on how to

ensure no prohibition of cooling devices. And also will be writing an advocacy letter to the province to amend the Vancouver Charter, which is there enabling legislation to allow them to permit regulation of overheating and rental units. Nanaimo requires that secondary suites have cooling equipment capable of maintaining indoor air temperature of not more than 26 degrees in at least one living space. And Port Moody is also exploring options to ensure no prohibition of cooling devices. So as far as tools that we can use, municipalities and British Columbia that wish to establish general CARE and maintenance requirements for residential rental homes can do so through the use of a standards of maintenance, Vyla. These types of bylaws will vary somewhat from municipality to municipality, but essentially standards of maintenance bylaws are the most appropriate legislative tool that municipalities can use to introduce regulations to over - address heating in residential rental homes and council, as you know, the City of Victoria has this type of bylaw already

in place. Ours is called The Rental Property Standards of Maine and Spylaw. It was created in 2020, and it establishes minimum standards of maintenance for rental units and residential properties in Victoria to protect the health and safety of tenants and existing rental stock. And our bylaw is administered by our tenant assistance planner, and its enforced through the provincial residential tenancy branch with support provided by the city when needed. And the bylaw in its current form requires heating systems, but it does not address cooling. So as far as potential solutions, um, our research on this topic indicates there are generally three policy approaches aimed at addressing overheating that could be implemented individually or in some kind of combination. The first approach is in the spirit of removing barriers, and it would ensure that no landlord could prohibit or prevent a tenant from using a portable device designed to cool internal temperatures and a rental unit. The proviso with this is that, um, the residential tendency act

would allow a landlord to ban cooling devices if they can show that there would be safety or building issues with having air conditioning units, uh, but otherwise the barrier would be removed. Um, the second approach is also in the spirit of removing barriers where, um, we could ensure that buildings or dwellings, um, cooling devices or systems are already in existence. Uh, that they simply be properly maintained and in good working condition. And these two approaches are, um, aligned with the residential tendency act. And this is a potential solution that Victoria could take through amendments to our rental property standards of maintenance bylaw. Uh, the third approach that could be taken, um, is more complex. And it would involve imposing new requirements for existing buildings. And as I mentioned in our previous slide, other local governments have addressed this in different ways. Some have removed barriers to cooling while others have actually introduced a maximum temperature requirement. There are many things that would need to be

considered with imposing requirements. There are technical considerations for buildings. Uh, as you know, there's a range of building types and ages throughout Victoria. So electrical impacts and electrical capacities would need to be considered. There would be economic impacts for building owners if they were required to do significant system retrofits. And they would need time to prepare. While cooling would, um, support tenant health, um, we would also need to consider other impacts on tenants like potential rent increases or how building system upgrades could affect or interrupt their tendencies. Uh, and as I mentioned, we have sent the letter to the Minister of housing on these matters, um, and have also reached out to staff at the residential tenancy branch, but there is more, I think, to learn and consider around this. Um, an enforcement approach would also need to be considered along with resource impacts. And, uh, there are many people in organisations in our community that would be affected by this. So, uh, engagement would

also be recommended. So again, many considers to balance and more work that would need to be done with that. So as far as next step, the city could start by removing barriers to cooling equipment. And this is something that we could easily initiate now. In our initial conversations with, uh, organisations particularly landlord BC, there was support for removing barriers. And, um, if we did do that, the city could spend the winter communicating any updates to our rental property standards of maintenance by law, um, landlords and tenants. And we could continue to monitor and observe other jurisdictions in order to better understand implications and resource impacts, and as well as opportunities for requiring cooling. So Council, if you are interested in removing barriers to cooling equipment, we have provided a recommendation today where staff could report back to you with a written report that considers amendments to our rental property standards of maintenance bylaw. Uh, that would ensure no prohibition of portable cooling devices and rental

units and ensure that where cooling systems exist that they are properly maintained. Council, if you elected to do that, we could come back to with a more detailed report on what amendments would be needed. Um, and we would need to do some more thinking about what those amendments would look like in particular. Today's verbal report back is very high level. Um, so we would suggest coming back to with some more details on this. And also in this recommendation, we would suggest that we continue monitoring other jurisdictions to see how others bylaws are working. So that concludes our summary on what we've learned so far. And, uh, happy to take any questions. Thank you very much, Dr. Hossen. I am aware that, uh, a Council Member has a motion arising, which looks very similar to this.

So after we deal with any questions, I will pose the question as to whether or not this is close enough or whether they wish to propose what I understand that they have ready to go. But let us first start with questions. Questions. Councillor Dell. And then Council Cardinals. Cheryl, I'll just say I had the motion arising, which I wrote and somehow you wrote the exact same motion rising. So I'm very happy about that. I don't need to get, I don't need to have my motion to rising here. Uh, that's great. Um, this is, this is perfect. Thank you very much for all this work. Um, it's an issue. It raises for me is around jurisdiction of the 13 municipalities and it's an issue where it's like if Victoria is one of 13 is tackling, uh, keeping renters cool. But one block over, uh, renters are at risk. It doesn't, doesn't make sense. It doesn't make me feel good. Have you talked at all to any

of the other municipalities or the CRD? It does seem like something that, that where the CRD could be involved to ensure we're working as a region or is this something that really Victoria would just do on our own and, and other municipalities possibly with smaller research teams would have to figure it out. Cause I think we do have an interest in ensuring the safety of everyone in the entire region as well. So comment on any relation to other municipalities in the CRD. Dirt Hudson. To the mayor. We haven't spoken with any of our neighbouring municipalities at this point. We certainly could do that to see if they're considering anything, um, I guess given our rental property standards of maintenance by that is very specific to Victoria. And that's the tool that seems to be most appropriate to deal with this. Um, we haven't reached out to the CRD. But again, we could certainly have those conversations with our colleagues. Okay. Thanks. Thanks so much. A

question is back to when the rental property centres are maintenance bylaw was developed. I believe was last term. Can you maybe talk about why this wasn't included in that at that time. Does anyone have that kind of corporate memory? Was it just not on the radar? I know that was aimed at things like maintaining sinks and carpet and cleanliness, but I'm just surprised that it wasn't caught then. Other than obviously climate change is getting worse every year. So maybe it's just a product of, of the heat wave perhaps a 2021 heat wave. Director Hudson. Through the mayor. I actually don't recall whether we considered that or not, to be honest. And I think our key staff person who might be able to answer that question is not here at the moment. But, um, but we can certainly, you know, if we come back to you with a more detailed report on this, we're happy to answer that question and sort of dig back to see

what we considered at that time. I would just offer, um, I think the only person at this table who was there at the time, uh, Councillor Dell, your question included the answer. It wasn't paramount at that time to consider the necessity of enshrining in a bylaw, a specific response to what was clearly an emerging climate change issue. Uh, but I think when it was originally drafted, it was intended to be something that was evolutionary in the sense that it could be adapted as time's changed, which is why we're here today. Okay. My final question here is I know the folks out there in the health community and the nursing community who are watching this quite closely, um, obviously because I'm worried about deaths that could occur in the next heat wave. Given we're in the middle of the summer now, uh, we've probably missed this window. We're looking already at next summer. Would you be able to speculate on when a written report could come

back and what might be able to be in place by next summer, uh, like do we think that option one here could be a place by next summer. Is there any sense of timeline that staff would want to give or is it will that be a council decision as the next council weighs priorities? But I just also reflected back that there is concern. I think about next summer. Like another heat wave will come. We don't know when, but we don't want to be underprepared for it. Victor Hudson. So the mayor, I mean, I couldn't say a specific date when we would report back, but I think it would if you directed us to do this, we would start that work. Um, we would need to work with our colleagues and other departments on, on any bylaw amendments, um, but I think, you know, we, we'd like to bring it back. Also because it aligns with some work that we were anticipating doing this winter where

we were going to be doing some tenant capacity building in the community just to sort of alert tenants to broad rules around tendencies. And so this would fit in with that really nicely to be able to alert them to that if it was a change that was coming ahead of next summer. So I think that would be our hope is that we could deal with it before next summer. Okay. Great. I will leave my questions there. Then and I'll hold off on giving a date, only just because I think that's up to the City Manager and staff with the balance. There's a whole bunch of work we've asked to have to do. It's all very important. And I don't want to start prioritizing that right now. Thank you. Councillor Cardona and then Councillor Loton. Thanks a couple of questions. Technical questions in terms of the potential maintenance of cooling equipment that is installed. With that false sully to installations undertaken by the landlord, what happens

if the installation that's made by a tenant. And that tenant moves out. Is the landlord then per the potential wording of this future bylaw amendment. Obligated to maintain that equipment. Dr. Hudson. What's your thought on that.

Through the mayor, I think it depends. If it's something the tenant was doing themselves, like if it was their own portable, you know, cooling device that they took with them, um, then it probably wouldn't be subject to that. But if it was something that the building owners or managers actually installed as part of the building, then I think that's what we would be trying to target. Something that lives in the, or that stays with the, with the building and with, I get that. But I'm saying it, you know, take a scenario in which someone adds an AC insert into a window. They move out. They do, they do not take that equipment. It remains in the unit. Would the landlord who did not install it would they be obligated to maintain it.

Um, through the mayor, I think other jurisdictions have, have dealt with this by saying that units that are permanently installed would be subject to this, um, but we, we could consider that further and take that away. Okay. That might need to be amended then. Cause as written, it seems to me that it's only of its provided, I presume owner means the landlord. Not the tenant. So anyway, when it's on the floor, you might want to get to that. Uh, just, I'll move on to a second question then about heat pumps and heat pump inserts. I mean, we're not quite there yet in terms of, um, something that could be relatively easily installed right now. You need a professional. But I'm following this, this field a bit. And we're getting closer to the point where heat pump installations can actually happen as an insert. Just want to see if you guys have been following those trends or how you might contemplate that affecting or impacting or

being relating to this, this bylaw. Victorness, is that something that you've contemplated at this point or would that be part of your future work. Through the mayor. Certainly following technical developments. And in this case, uh, we'd have to see, you know, whether this falls into portable or permanent. But, uh, you know, it would certainly fall within the no prohibition of cooling devices in rental unit in the case that it would be portable. Okay. But I haven't seen any installs in Victoria as far as I know yet. I think it's coming though. Um, okay. Last, I think, question for me is how many folks died in the heat dome in Victoria. Do we have that exact number. Director Hudson, we have had that in the past.

Do you have six? Is it more than three the mayor? We've consulted with health authorities and data is not provided in specific detail due to, uh, privacy and personal data concerns. But we do know that roughly 20 deaths occurred in Victoria or nearby municipalities. And likely between five and 11 occurred within the municipal boundary, but we don't have a specific number, uh, that hasn't been shared. Um, by the BC coroner's office. Okay. And so do we have any information on where they were living. And therefore what buildings we might want to be focusing on? Or is that a level privacy that we're not allowed to have access to? Mr. Moore. Three of the mayor, we have that information at a provincial level, but we do not have it at a local level. And is there any way to acquire it or is it just behind a privacy barrier. Through the mayor, um, we've made some requests and this has been the best data provided, but

I'm not sure if I can say for certain if it's completely unavailable. Okay. Uh, maybe just, it's something of a, of a comment though, but we had other direction a couple of weeks ago about studying the potential to expand the revitalization tax exemption. To allow for a greater number of types of buildings to be allowed into that deep retrofits program. And one of the pieces that we amended was, um, around. Potential retrofits of buildings that are already electrified, but have baseboard heating and therefore don't have cooling. So it's not a fuel switching situation, but it's still a cooling situation. And I do wonder if there is an opportunity to, as part of that research, which kind of dovetails with this research, to think about whether or not we could determine some criteria that prioritizes certain kinds of buildings in which, for instance, someone has passed away. I mean, if the handful of really problematic buildings in this city, they're maybe built in the cities, or

sorry, in the 70s, the glazing is bad. The insulation's bad. And we could sort of isolate a handful of buildings that are really problematic where the level of acuity or risk is so high, especially for seniors, that maybe that becomes a factor that is considered as like a criterion, as part of a potential RTE program. And maybe a bit of outreach there to say, these are the really 20 problematic buildings. This is a low - hanging fruit. We need to deal with these buildings first. The newer ones we can deal with later because they have better insulation, et cetera. So have you turned your minds to that? Or would that be part of the ongoing research. Dirt, Hudson. Through the mayor, I think that would be part of the direction that council's already given us on reviewing the retrofit tax exemption program. And between that and this, I think that is something we are going to turn our minds to because, you know, we, as

you know, we have many, many rental buildings in the city. It's, you know, not, it's not possible to give incentives to everybody or tax exemptions to everyone. So I think we would want to turn our minds too. If we were going to expand it for that purpose, how do we prioritize? So yes, we will be considering that. Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Mayor. Councillor Loughton and then Gardner and Kim, which I suspect we won't get to before we break for lunch. Councillor Loughton. Um, thanks Mr. UMair. I'd like to move the staff recommendation because I have an amendments hoping we can do questions and comments together. Yes.

If you move that recommendation that Stafford provided, then we will move into both questions and comments. Okay. And then for that. Questions. First. Yes. We absolutely can. That is our convention. So would you like to hold on? It's whatever suits. Okay. Then let's stick with questions for now. Okay. So. And then we'll come back to this at some point. Great. Thanks. You have no questions. No. Oh, okay. Pardon me. Sorry. I have an amendment. So I thought it would be prudent to put it. I got you. No, Council Gardner is correct. We should stick with questions for now. Okay. Uh, that takes us to Councillor Gardner. Do you have a few brief questions before we break? My. Friend. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for what you've done so far. And I really appreciate how you've gone a bit beyond, which is good because it's a broader question that I think our first, uh, question of you was. And you've taken it, I think. So

thank you very much for that. Um, so and I appreciate what you suggested here, which is to start by removing barriers to cooling equipment. Now research looked at secondary suites in some of the points you gave to us, which I thought was interesting that somebody's palettes are doing that. And months ago, when we looked at housing types, I'm talking in December or January when we got data on that. We learned that condos are a major source of the secondary rental stock with 29 percent of condos being in there. So would you also be looking at the, um, rental units, which is quite major in condos.

Dirk, Hudson. Through the mayor, we would by virtue of the fact that our rental property standards of maintenance by a lot, um, deal with, it does apply to all rental properties in the city, um, whether it's the primary rental market or the secondary rental market. So that would be a consideration. Great. And how do we know where they are. Dr. Hudson. I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question? How would we know where the rental units are in condominiums. Or stratus go back from the 70s too. Richardson. Trucking question. Through the mayor. We have data on how many strata units are in the secondary rental market, but we don't know where they are exactly because they do change over time based on, um, the owners, you know, deciding whether they want to have them in the rental pool or not. So yeah, we don't have precise locations. Yes. And so we don't know how we're going to defy that 29 percent which is a huge number. Correct. We don't

know how we're going to reach them. Is that correct. Kirk Rudsson. At this point. Um, so the mayor reached them through an engagement process. Is that how were you going to identify those rental units that are actually in condominiums in order for this to apply to them? Through the mayor, just Ross, I would manage your housing. You know, I just worth putting back into context that the tools that we're talking about today, uh, being the rental property standards of maintenance bylaw, um, it is more of a complaint - based, um, approach to enforcement. And so typically if there is a renter who is in a strata building within the secondary rental market and they're having issues, they may reach out to our tenant planner. They may reach out to the, uh, the RTB. And that is the way those sort of mechanism to which they would identify where the discrepancy between the rental property standards means of bylaw and what's happening and within their rental

unit. So it's not necessarily as critical for us to know at any one time where all of those units are. It's about setting up the framework. So there is a process by which those tenants can have some recourse if something is wrong. Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So therefore other people that live in condominium buildings, it might be identical to someone next door. They wouldn't have any mechanism of complaining because it wouldn't relate if they happened to own a structure, or a unit. We don't reliant on a complaint. Yeah. Those, no, not if someone lives there and as an owner, not a renter. So they aren't of concern. Is that correct? Mr. Sauerd. Well, through the mayor, if they are an owner of the strata unit, they have the mechanism of the strata Council and the Strata Act that they would be operating under, right? Like that's what we're talking about the sort of rental versus ownership. Yeah. Yeah, I know a lot that

sleep outside on their decks and their owners because of course that they really don't have access. They don't have control. But anyway, I've also, the last question I've also been concerned about old rental structures. Cause I live in James Bay and we knew that it was very, you know, hit because we have a lot of elderly with already compromised health conditions. And so we know that. And the four story rental buildings. Now I am concerned and don't want to lose those low cost housing. So if requirements are quite perspective with the viability of these older structures be at risk. In other words, have you heard from this segment of the rental industry. That they may be feel forced to sail, uh, were two prescriptive on what is asked of them. And some of these buildings.

Mr. Sauerd. Uh, through the mayor, I think, you know, just worth highlighting that, you know, we're, it's a certainly a very complex issue. And we've, we've highlighted that in the presentation, uh, today, um, recognising that there's implications, whether it be economic, whether it be health, uh, climate. And so I think that's why we would be suggesting to do some more monitoring and further sort of investigate the issue. We've had some early conversations with representatives from the property management sort of sector with landlord BC. And I think those have been positive conversations thus far, but certainly there's an acknowledgement within that, uh, that group that they would need to be some time for them to prepare for the transition. But they acknowledge that there's, there's issues and challenges, uh, with the lack of cooling within the stock as well. So, uh, I think it's something that we would explore further, um, but we understand for sure that there are, um, their implications. I will maybe just

defer if Chris Moore has anything to add. Thank you for the work you're doing. And I only. Oh, sorry. Okay. Get into the lights. Through the mayor. I'll also add that following best practices of other jurisdictions. There's generally an opportunity for landlords to indicate if there are technical challenges and be exempted from the requirements. But it requires some sort of professional review or engineering review. Uh, so that's how other jurisdictions have taken that into consideration. Great. Thank you very much. And thank you for that last point. It's very important. Going forward. And I raised the questions only so that you can perhaps add them through your considerations as you go forward on this important project.

Thank you Mayor. Thank you very much. I think with that, we'll take a break now and we'll return at 105 to allow a full hour for lunch. And when we do, we'll start with Councillor Kim and we'll deal with the balance of this particular item, including potentially, I understand, uh, the moving and perhaps amending of the recommended recommended motion from staff. So let's return at 105. Come back to Victoria City Council's Committee of the Whole meeting for July 23rd. Before we took our break, we were dealing with item G1, the first of two staff reports. We were still on questions, and before I turned to Councillor Loughton, who I believe is going to make a motion, I will turn to Councillor Kim, who has some questions. Yes, thank you through the chair. You know, some order in the Gallery, please. Order the gallery, please. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor Kibb. Wow, thanks for making me feel important. So the first question is, have a staff.

Are you aware of the CRD heat map. And have you taken a look at it for this. Is he nodding, Mr. Moore? What were you? Through the mayor, we are, we help support the development of that as well, and we add a staff level have more detailed information. At a building level. Yeah, then that is both heat mapping, as well as social demographics that are also important when considering extreme heat. Great. You just led me into the second question, which is, if we cannot target individual buildings where fatalities have occurred, would you be comfortable with the next best step being referencing that data in the heat map for geographic social determinants and demographics. As a way forward, perhaps. Mr. Moore. Through the mayor. I think we're developing this, but certainly that's one of our strongest sources of information for buildings in the community around these risks. So it would be taken into consideration.

Have Staff considered. How this could open the door to a conversation about licensing of landlords. It's a large question. Anyone like to try and hypothesize on that. Through the mayor, you know, I think given the scope of the direction to date, I would say there hasn't really been any further investigation of that. But I guess I just would say that, you know, in doing some of the research and looking at the new Westminster kind of context, they do use sort of their business license kind of bylaw, but that also is where they kind of embed their sort of standards of maintenance work within that bylaw. So, um, certainly as we turn our minds to sort of further understanding the issue, um, that is something that we could look at. But it is worth noting that it's quite a different context than the City of Victoria in terms of like how they've set up their bylaws. Yeah, thank you for that. Um, with respect to mention of some sort of tenant outreach happening in

the winter that was mentioned, can I be given some information about like the communications plan outreach? What will that look like. How can you leverage us to support that work. Mr. Snoward? Through the mayor, the, uh, the sort of outreach, um, and kind of education work is following from the community safety wellbeing plan, uh, that sort of highlights, uh, opportunities to kind of improve tenant education, uh, in the community. And so, uh, it would be really looking at sort of advancing that action. And, you know, currently, uh, Stafford just doing some of the sort of early work planning on that, um, really, I think a big focus is an opportunity to make sure tenants in the community are aware of some of the tools that are there to support them, whether that be things like the tenant protection bylaw, whether it be the rental property stains of standards of maintenance by a law and just recognising that we probably would be focusing more on organisations

that have a lot of, uh, sort of interface with renters and sort of a bit more of a like train the trainer kind of approach, um, as opposed to maybe, you know, trying to do comprehensive outreach to all the tenants in the community per se, but trying to make sure the resources are there with sort of the groups that may have, uh, you know, tie - ins with, with different renter populations. Um, are these groups all locally based or are you also looking at provincial orcs that serve Victoria tenants. Through the mayor, um, it's a good question. I would have to look back at sort of our early kind of, um, list of community partners and things like that, um, probably predominantly would be Victoria based groups, but, um, I think there probably are maybe opportunities for looking at some other provincial ones. Um, but I think certainly as we, uh, we sort of move that work for, we would certainly, um, keep counsel, uh,

kind of updated. Okay. Um, I'll just flag track BC. It's where I went when I was facing an eviction and it's provincial. Um, so, um, number four. Let's say this, this goes forward. It's okay if the answer for this right now, it's a bit of a detailed question. Um, but my concern is that the market that provides portable cooling devices will then adjust and enjoy a windfall. Of profit. Uh, we do not control that private market. However, um, that is a concern I have, which will then have knock on impacts on landlords, the phasing of an availability of cooling devices, uh, locally in stores. So, um, has that been considered. Who'd like to take that.

Director hudson? I see you leaning in. Through the mayor. We haven't considered that because I think there's various ways that cooling systems could be addressed. But I think we did turn our minds to when this work should happen with, you know, if Council wants to make amendments to our rental property standards of maintenance, SPILA to remove barriers. Then, um, the more, I guess the sooner that we do that, the more people can plan ahead, um, ahead of next summer and sort of spread out those kinds of costs, um, but that's really all that we've thought about so far. So I think we would, we may need to, you know, take that into consideration. But, but you're correct that some of those things are out of our control. Is communication around that when doing tenant outreach work, something that can be folded in. Especially because air conditioners tend to be cheaper in the winter. Yeah. I'm seeing an odd, yes. I'll take that as an answer.

And then my last question is the standards of living. So, um, I have a concern that this sounds so great on paper, but when it comes, when the rubber hits the road and it's put into practice, um, we will find edge cases where, uh, bylaw standard will be met, but it's not necessarily what we might consider a livable condition. Perhaps as an air conditioning unit that was cheap and makes a lot of noise, um, and it drives the tenant nuts. And so my question is like, how are we negotiating those like unexpected edge case circumstances where it doesn't land. George Johnson. Mr. Moore. Through the mayor. I think for the proposed amendments, the option, this would still be tenant driven. So they're choosing the model that they would bring into their apartment, um, so they would have the opportunity to find, uh, hopefully a unit that serves them best. But, uh, for an example like new Westminsters bylaw, that's a very valid point on something we can take into consideration as we monitor

other jurisdictions. Okay. That's it for me. Thank you. You almost have any specific questions. Checking with concert Thompson. Nope. All right. I'm going to go to Councillor Loton to move what is not a staff recommendation, but it's a suggestion by staff of an appropriate motion. Do you like to move that motion? Yes, please. Is the seconder for that? Councillor Kim is seconding that motion. Okay. Councillor Loton. Over to you. I'd like to start by trying an amendment. Um, I've sent it over to alleged services. So it's a new number three. It was a second to read it. Before I ask for a second, you're, do staff understand what a passive first cooling strategy is.

Councillorton, can you take less than a minute to describe what you think that is? Yes. It is, um, different ways of making units cooler without using an air conditioner or, um, a heat pump. So for example solar films or exterior shading or just different ways of decreasing the heat in a unit that is essentially non - mechanical. Maybe we put it that way. Okay. With that then, um, is there a seconder for the amendment. Councillor Kim, second amendment. Councillor Loughton, please speak to the amendment only, please. Thank you. And through you mayor. I think in my mind, this is just the low hanging fruit on the situation in order to help keep units cooler in, in the immediate term. And when this came to us, um, based on the work that was done in new west, we learned that advocacy groups are pushing for what they're calling a passive first approach. So if a landlord installs high quality window filming or exterior shading, the unit

might only need a small fan to stay below 26 degrees rather than a heavy duty air conditioner or, or a heat pump. In the new Westminster debate, the external shading was also highlighted. And these are kind of like heavy duty mesh filters that sit outside the window. And sometimes these can even be more effective than internal films because they stop the sun from hitting the glass entirely. And what we learned is that in Europe, these are standard. And we could ask staff to look at making it easier for landlords to install these without needing, um, complex development. Permits, or maybe, you know, tenants themselves could have them installed if they wanted to take on that expense or perhaps the way to help offset these expenses.

But that's what, what I'd be asking staff to come back with options and recommendations for. So in some, it's just to prioritize this passive cooling solutions like solar window films and external shading to help meet the 26 degree target immediately and protect the electrical grid. And these, these ways are often more affordable for building owners than mechanical air conditioning. And they ensure that safety upgrades might not lead to higher rent. Just in closing, I'll note that I actually have solar filters on my windows in my apartment. And they do work. It's my space is much cooler. And I, you know, I do have a thermometer in there. It hasn't gotten up above, you know, 22 sort of yet this year. So I just want to note that I have some firsthand experience about these. And I think they could really help particularly, you know, seniors who are suffering and hot apartments without, um, mechanical cooling.

Thank you. Thank you Councillor Kim on the amendment. Thanks a question for staff. I love this. And another example of a PASA first cooling strategy is lining your windows with aluminum foil. Um, so what lines are you going to be trying to strike here. Um, and I also bring up the aluminum foil example because like does that then encroach on things like design. And design guidelines. Yeah. I wonder your sense of scope. Kirk Radson. Through the mayor. Certainly there are some strategies that would be interior only and there would be some that would affect the exterior. So I think we would turn our minds to that because some of them would affect the exterior design of buildings. And we have design guidelines in place throughout the city for multi unit residential buildings. Um, but all that to say, we could certainly think about this and, and come back with something. I guess, uh, maybe I could ask Council just for clarity if the suite of

recommendations pass, would there be an expectation that number three would come at the same time as number one? Or is it okay to have a phased approach with something's coming first and something's coming later? So I guess that would be my question. Can you move the motion? What is your thought on that? Through you, Mayor, in my mind, the passive cooling strategy should come first, but I'd be open to, you know, staff's thoughts on this because I don't, I'm not sure what this actually entails. So, um, it seems to be logical that that would be, you know, the next step because it's, it's quite a bit simpler than the rest of this, I think, but is it. I think the answer to your question, Director Hudson is it would be helpful if it was combined.

If it came at the same time. It's just our. Mayor. I guess just the one point I would add is just that, you know, at this point in time, like I think staff have some confidence that at least the, you know, part one of the recommendation, you know, we have, we're, we're kind of suggesting, you know, clear. Specific updates to an existing bylaw. Um, and so I think there is a bit more certainty and clarity around what that action is. Whereas, uh, I think just the nature of the third recommendation on the floor right now is it would be, there may be a bit more of an iterative approach where we need to come back, describe what maybe some of the options are, get direction around said options. And then there may be policies or bylaw or design guideline updates that flow from that. So I think just recognising that there's maybe a little bit of process associated with figuring out what exactly makes sense to include in, in a, in a

passive first cooling strategy, given that there may be different tools at play. Councillor Loughton, you've not included a deadline in this. I've understood staff correctly. Number three is doable, but not necessarily in the same time frame is one and two. Does that undermine your amendment? No, I think that's a, I think that's okay. Like that was, that was my intention. That is that it would come back with some recommendations. And that's specifically why I didn't include it as part of number one. So, um, because the number one and two are clearer and more, you know, direct action if you want to put it that way.

Then I think it makes sense to you to have, you continue working on that and then do this report back as you can. Yes, director Hudson. Thank you through the mayor. Maybe then I'll just add that, um, you know, as Mr. Sauerd mentioned number one is really just about removing barriers. And so that's a fairly straightforward bialumiment that we could make. So, um, so yeah, I think my question was in the spirit of not wanting to hold number one up if this is what you were inclined to do. And, um, but we would certainly be able to start the work in number three and bring it to you when it's ready. So thank you. That seems perfectly acceptable to me, Mayor. Councillor Coleman, sir. Did you have anything to add before I go to further speakers? Um, yeah, thank you. Um, glad we figured that out because not going to lie, El Nino and next summer is really freaking me out. So the sooner we

got to like something instead of waiting for perfect is like, great. Um, the other reason I like this amendment is funny enough addresses my concern about market costs of air conditioners and fans. So, um, I really appreciate the diversification here. Thanks. Councillor Gardner on the amendment. Well, thank you. Um, I mean, visited people on Michigan and the four story walkups, they indeed have tinfoil. On the windows facing south. So I quite appreciate this number three. And I think it's actually, um, I actually feel the same as first mentioned by Councillor Loughton, which is that can almost be easier. And to put into place earlier. And, um, so I hope that you will actually look at it because I think it could be a quick, not fix, but a quick type of thing that might be able to be done. Now, and although she did mention passive, I can understand we don't want to really interfere, I think, with the building envelope. So the exterior doesn't

appeal to me as much as a treatment inside windows. I think that could be very beneficial. And, uh, so I hope that that will be incorporated more quickly than you might have first thought of when you first looked at it. Cause it may be something before next summer. And so, um, I very much appreciate this amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Thompson, do you speak to the amendment or the main motion. Uh, the amendment, please. Go ahead. Um, yeah, thanks to staff. I appreciate that number one can be done before the number three report. That's very important. Um, I do have a question about number three for the idea of passive first. Once that is supposed we do adopt some sort of a passive first strategy or bylaw or whatever it would look like in the end. Would staffs understanding B that that just means we're trying to encourage passive or does it mean that, um, a building owner has to try passive first. See

that it fails. And then they can consider mechanical. Director Hudson through the mayor, this wouldn't be a requirement for building owners. It would be in the spirit of design guidelines. So, um, or advisory design guidelines. And so it would be very much triggered when somebody's considering doing changes to their building. And then we would potentially have some guidelines for them to follow. So I don't think we would see this as a, as a requirement. It would be to help them, if they are seeking out what strategies could we do either inside our buildings or on the outside. And then we would perhaps have some guidelines for them to help them with that. Okay. Great. Thanks.

And thank you. And, um, still talking about passive, but as it may relate to part number one, um, what we've got there is remove barriers to cooling equipment, including. Now just wonder if cooling equipment, including would potentially include passive or if it means nope, it's only mechanical. Director Hudson. Mr. Mutz. Through the mayor. The focus of those bylaw amendments, uh, are on mechanical equipment. And this is largely motivated by the fact that while PASCE cooling, uh, can provide benefits. It slows the rate of cooling in a suite. And then, uh, lower outdoor temperatures allow, uh, temperatures to come back down, um, outdoors and indoors. But, uh, they're, they don't remove heat from a already hot space. So in the case of a situation like heat dome where there's extended duration of hot temperatures, uh, even with PESF measures, those spaces may reach unsafe temperatures and you need mechanical cooling to remove the heat from a, from a hot space or you need temperatures to go down, uh,

overnight or outside, which may not be the case. And some heat wave events. Uh, so that has been the primary focus, um, of these proposed amendments. Okay. At the very beginning, thanks at the very beginning of what you said there, I think you said, um, that passive only could result in suites not being able to shed heat, like not being able to release the extra heat that's built up. Is that correct? Did I hear that correctly? Mr. Mur. Through the mayor. Passive measures prevent heat gain in a space and slow the rate of heating in the case of the outdoor air is warmer than the indoor air. But it can't remove heat from a space.

And there are people and electronics in a space are constantly generating heat within a space raising that temperature as well as solar heat gains and heat conducted through the building envelope. Um, so that's the key point is that I think passive measures slow the rate of heat gain. And if outdoor temperatures drop soon enough, uh, then you'll have comfortable temperatures inside, but only mechanical cooling removes heat from a space that's an uncomfortable temperature already. Okay. Thanks. No further questions mayor. And I do support the amendment. Thank you very much on the amendment. Any other comments or questions. Not seeing any on the amendment. Then all those in favor. I'm going to pose. That is unanimous.

Councillor Loughten back to you in the main motion. I'm just happy to support this. I think it's really important that we do everything we can to keep temperatures under 26 degrees in rental buildings and based on the last heat dome and the loss of life. It's just we need to do everything we can. So, um, happy to support this today. Thanks. Thank you Councillor Kimmy with the Secondary of the Main Motion. Um, thank you. Uh, well, I'm so grateful to each of you for what you're doing. And, you know, actually being on one could argue on the front lines of the public health and safety of residents. Um, my only comment that might sour this is there should have been done years ago. Um, I was just having a conversation with someone over, um, today about how they remember the Mount St. Helens eruption and how there was a bit of smoke in the area here when that happened and how it is now just

like a regular common occurrence stuff smoky air in the summers. And I just wish our society had collectively recognise that we were frogs and boiling water sooner. But you know, better late than never. So thank you. Councillor Caradona on the main motion. Uh, thanks. I've got two additional amendments. So the first one would be under 1B. Circling back to my comments from earlier. Um, try to rearrange some of the words. So it would be ensure that buildings are dwelling units with cooling devices or other forms of properly. Properly. Properly installed. Cooling systems. And then. Move the provided by the owner. To after the words. Be properly maintained. Sorry. That's a direction, not actual. Oh, sorry. So he's providing direction to move some words. Yeah. So the words provided by the owner. Would be moved to after the words be properly maintained. Have you got that. That's it.

Yeah. Okay. You'll have to put a strike through that. There you go. Uh, you want to not have the second provided in there, I believe, Councillor Caridona. He wants to be read properly made. Yeah. Actually. Yeah. That's correct. Cut the other button. Provide it. That's your intention. Yeah. So in case maybe a problem anybody. Okay. So you can see that that amendment is the addition of the bolded words or the movement of some of the boulder words and the removal of the structure through bolded words. Uh, secondary for that amendment. Councillor Kim Council Count on that amendment. Go ahead. Yeah. I'm trying to solve the issue here that we want to be somebody agnostic on who installs a cooling system. It could be the owner.

It could be a tenant. But I do think I added the word properly, purposefully, because I'm imagining a scenario in which maybe a tenant does not install something properly. I can imagine a landlord saying, well, why should we have to maintain something that wasn't properly installed? Which I think would be a fair criticism. So this assumes it's something that's properly installed. However, that would be defined by staff. And then it makes it clear that the maintenance would fall to the owner, whoever that is. Not to the tenant. So it's subtle, but I don't want to presume that the only time that a cooling system is being installed. It's by an owner. It could also be by a tenant. It would then leaves that material behind.

Councillor Kim is the secondary of the amendment. And I think on the amendment. Yeah. Question. Uh, just again, totally okay if the answer. I'm asking something a bit provincial here. Um, I have seen leases where, uh, landlords will offer a little less on rent or, um, have a condition where they have to do things like landscaping or agreed to maintain a particular appliance or what have you. Um, and I'm also seeing, uh, rentals offering deals. Uh, trying to attract new tenants. My concern here is that, uh, a Building owner may rent out a home without a cooling device. On the condition that the rent may be cheaper. Uh, because they may not want to be the ones to provide or install or what have you.

So is that something this amendment has put this thought in my head? Is that something that we can safeguard against. That's a question that probably deals more into residential tenancy laws than it does into the material aspect of a particular amendment. So if staff have a comment there, welcome to make it. If they don't, that's okay too. Click holds in. Um, so the mayor, yes, I think that's correct that that starts to get into specific tendency agreements and residential tenancy act, but, um, but if we're going to be coming back with a written report on this for you, we could certainly look into that and bring back any answers that we find on that. Very good. Thank you. And further, just also worth just, you know, zooming out a little bit and, you know, the intent really of, of recommendation 1A and B is really around the removing the barriers, right? And so it's still a lot of the onus is on, you know. Either

the tenant to install, you know, a portable cooling device that works for them or where the landlord is taking, taking steps or already has a building that, you know, has some sort of mechanized cooling that ensuring that those systems are maintained and proper working conditions. So I guess it's, it's just, you know, we're about the first part of this recommendation is about like removing the barriers. It's not necessarily obligating somebody to, you know, bring in something new. Right. Right. Thank you for reminding me of the scope creep of my question. Listen, thanks. Very good. Councillor Thompson, are you on this amendment. Uh, sorry. No, I've, um, not on the amendment. I'm waiting for the main motion. Sorry. Very good. I'll put you there. Uh, anyone else on this particular amendment? Councillor Hammond. Thanks Mayor. Through you, I'm confused by this. So the purpose of properly means that I'm a tenant and I want to put it in. I'm making sure that it's properly installed. Is

that the idea. But it's not, it's not, if I'm the landlord and I'm installing it, there's already a presumption that it's going to be properly installed. Is that right? That is my understanding. Okay. So then, all right, so that part I get and then installed cooling system provided by the owner. So that's removed. Be properly maintained by the owner. So does that mean if I as a tenant, properly install a cooling system that I pay for that the landlord is responsible for maintaining that good working condition. Correct. What if I as a tenant just abused the thing. Now you truly are getting into landlord tenant relations. And I'm going to go to director Hudson who has her hand up. Um, so the mayor, I think the spirit of B, so one A is really dealing with, you know, removing any barriers to a tenant installing their own. I think what's maybe tripping all of us up is the reference to cooling devices in B. I

think all we're trying to say with B is that if there's an existing rental building that already has a heat pump air conditioning system or another form of air conditioning system that's in the building that we just want to make sure that they maintain it in working order. So I sort of wonder now looking at this after the fact of maybe, maybe it's just about removing the term cooling devices and just focusing on the systems. I think that's really what we're trying to get out here. But that's up to Council, of course. Sure. But I don't know if that addresses my issue, which is that if someone is installing it, I think they're the ones that want to make sure that they are probably maintaining it. And I always hate any, and again, this is just, you're just coming back with information. So where it's not wording on a bylaw, but I know if there's legal, if the ambiguity, that defaults to usually something going

wrong under the law, uh, meaning, you know, meanings opportunity for someone to strike it down. So don't we want the people who are installing it to, it's their responsibility to be looking, looking after it? Well, that would in fact, if that's your opinion, you would vote against this amendment. Right. So I'm all in favor of what we're trying to do. I just don't want to complicate it. With this because I think that complicates it for me. Very good. Anyone else want to name the Council Garder. Mine with similar in there. I thought who's the owner. Are you talking about the tenant or the landlord. The landlord. No, no, I know. But it wasn't exactly clear.

And so it really changed the whole thing. And so I have a similar problem to what was just mentioned. Is it, uh, and also it depends whether it is properly installed, whether it's portable or not. And then all of a sudden you have other things kicking in from residential tendency act as whether or not something has been added to a building. And so this gets into all kinds of different things. I think that are not intended by staff with the original wording they had. So we've gone way beyond with this one. Uh, I understand the intent, but the other complications in here with other acts.

And I'm very worried about this. Cause someone can't maintain what someone else has done. And of course it's not in Star Wars because its daughters might be a company as opposed to the tenant. So, um, I have problems with a change of wording. I understand what is meant. But if I live somewhere, no one's going to fix my food processor. So I think we have to be very careful of this. As I noted and all of those comments are perfectly appropriate and relevant and that would indicate how you would like to vote on this amendment. Anyone else on this amendment. Seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment. Councillor Dowell. Councillor Kim. Councillor Gardonat.

Councillor Loughton, myself. And Councillor Thompson in opposition. Councillor Coleman, Councillor Heimand and Councillor Gardner. Going back then, Council Cardona, you still have the floor. That is adopted by the way. Noting three in opposition. And Councillor Courage on you still have the floor. Yeah. Just last amendment for me. So on number two, it would change to, um, continue to monitor. Just let them, there you go. Continue to moderate other jurisdictions and replace two with and. Consider. Opportunist implications of requiring cooling or other means. I'm adding after the word cooling. After the word cooling. Or other means of ensuring that at least one building in a MURB. Does not exceed 26C. Oh, sorry. What did I say? Well at least one room. Yeah one room. One room in a, in a merb. Multi unit residential building.

Multi residential building. One room and a suite. Councillor Thompson, they would be helpful if you allowed Council Caradona to complete. Councillor Cardona. Would you like to cook me? Multi - unit could be multi - unit residential. Multi - residential, multi - unit residential government. Does not exceed 26C. So after the word building does not exceed 26 degrees. 26 degrees. 26C. Check out the zero and 206. Thank you. That looks good. Good run. Is that what you intend? Yeah. Is there a secondary for that amendment? Yes, Mr. Howard. You're the mayor for clarification. Are we talking about one room in dwelling units within multi - unit residential buildings or just one room? Let's update that. At least one room per dwelling or something. Well, the way it had formally read it would be like a common room. Right. Okay.

One room per dwelling. Just trying to align it with the PC building code language. Just approximately. Yep. That makes sense. Is there a seconder for that amendment? Council Kim is secondary. Councillor Codonon, your amendment. PRIA. Thank you. So changing the to an and to me when I was reading number two as it was written, it's more just like an ongoing jurisdictional scan. Whereas this amendment makes it both a jurisdictional scan. And we should be considering opportunities implications. Somewhat separate from the jurisdictional scan. And added in the other language to align it more closely with the BC building code for new construction. But also to not lose sight of what we're trying to do here, which is not exceed 26C. And I know that that's up in the title, but it doesn't appear anywhere in the actual motion itself. And I think it should be in there because that's what the intent of all of this has been. So partly it's just about clarification. Very good

Councillor Kim is the secondary of the amendment. Nothing to add anyone else on this amendment. So online. Nope, we're good. All right. On this amendment, all those in favor. All right. Councillor Dell. Councillor Kim. Council Cardinette Councillor Loughton. Myself. Councillor Coleman. Councillor Hammond and Councillor Thompson. And in opposition. You're also in favor. Okay. Council Guard is well. Sorry. I always look for hands to determine whether or not we need to call them out because I don't want to miss anyone in opposition. But that is unanimous. Closer Codonia, you still have the floor. That's it. Thank you. All right. Councillor Thompson, you're up next on the main motion as amended. Thanks Mayor. Yeah. I wanted to, uh, circle back to, um, barriers to passive and looking at number one, um, are there forget the language of number one for now? Are there any practices that staff know about where building owners or landlords do actively prevent, um, passive means. Is that a risk. Tractor Hudson, do

you know that. Again, that does beer fairly heavily into residential tennis tree laws. But if you have any information on that, it would be welcome. Through the mayor, I think the only thing we would be aware of that could possibly be a barrier is putting things in windows, but that's really all that we can think of. I mean, when people are coming forward with building new buildings or renovations or additions to their buildings and their proposing passive, you know, design features, I think that's certainly welcomed with open arms. So it may be about how buildings are being manipulated through window, uh, installments. That would be the only thing we can think of. Okay. Coach Johnson through the mayor. It's Stacey grub, the city solicitor, um, in my conversations with new Westminster, um, I was made aware that there were, um, landlords in that jurisdiction actively blocking the use of passive cooling devices, um, within, for their tenants. And that was one of the reasons why

their council looked at this motion. It was grocery. You're chiming in from your legal perspective is that legal. To passively, to prevent them. I would, I'm not sure. I haven't looked at the, the legislation on that. I would say that it probably beers into residential tenancy issues. Okay. Thank you for that. As well. Councillor Thompson. Okay. A question for staff. As you look at preparing the amendments to the rental property standards of maintenance bylaw. Just thinking about that process. It'll be addressing, uh, mechanical equipment. Would it be difficult to draft that in such a way that it all, that it says, and also passive means.

Dr. Hudson. Through the mayor, um, if Council gives us the direction to do this, we will be working together with our, with our legal services team on any bylaw amendments. So we could certainly consider the wording. And if that is the objective of Council, we can think about how we would do that. Coach Johnson. Would you need, would you, in order to pursue that, to pursue, um, prohibiting the barriers to passive, would you need language added to this motion or would you consider it that, you know, you've clearly heard the intention of Council around passive heating. And you would bring it back. Do you need wording. Dr. Hudson, do you need us to add an amendment or have you understood that to be inclusive in the phrase cooling devices? So the mayor, no, I think we've heard that loud and clear. So we'll, we'll certainly consider that as part of this work. Okay. In that case, uh, Mayor, I don't need to bring a motion

for amendment. And I'll just comment that, uh, I'm really happy that staff, uh, responded so quickly. And so well to the original motion on this. And as I've said, um, you know, a home shouldn't be a dangerous place. And this, uh, this, uh, this motion will help us to achieve that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the now amended motion. Council Coleman. Thank you. Um, I support this, but we, it's a bad pun, but we've made heavy weather of it. Um, the reality is what we're asking Staff to do is go away and bring back some assessment of what could work. We've, through this discussion, wandered into, we need passive first cooling strategies because they're better. But we don't know that. We actually need to do some research on it. And it reminded me of a time before we raised the souk dam, we were trying to do water conservation. And one of the goals was every, so this is great. Put

a brick in your toilet tank. Because that makes you use less water every time you flush. A couple of years later, they started finding a great deal of grit in the sewer lines because the bricks were breaking down. What I think we're asking for is staff to go and bring back a compendium of different options that are available to us to make sure that the housing units for all our citizens are safe. That's the direction we should be giving. And we are trying to tie it up with as many things that we're concerned about. We're not going to get to a perfect solution. We're going to learn as we go through the process. And the report isn't coming back to us. It's coming back to the next council. We may be here. We may not be. So let's staff go do their work. I don't try and constrain them too much. I appreciate the fact that they will bring back information to us or whoever

succeeds us. Thank you Councillor Gardner. Thank you. Supreme Weather Heat events and the impact on our residents are important. We received many emails from people, uh, with relatives or some relatives of very elderly and care. Describing conditions that need to be addressed. We've also received emails identifying the problems with a regulatory approach. Today's staff has spoken of many of the issues raised during the May 24 discussion. And staff have effectively taken the issue into reality identifying possible implications which might negatively impact tendencies. Heat wave is serious. Loss of tenancy due to landlord selling a property could even be worse. The amendment, uh, I found to be somewhat problematic, but the motion is an exploration to explore and report back of the options that may assist our residents, especially those who are living in very old billings that don't have modern, um, air conditioning. And the problem needs to be addressed, but the city also needs to tread softly. So thank you, Staff. Thank you very

much. Councillor Kim. Thank you. Through the chair, uh, concluding remarks here. First, um. So not your jurisdiction, but I will just say it. It drives me bonkers when landlords won't let tenants dry things on balconies and decks for optics. But if you got to run the dryer on a hot summer day, well then that's just running counter to this. So just like, again, those sort of edge cases that we don't necessarily think of, um, uh, yeah, it would really love, uh, and encourage talking to renters of all varieties. Um, as you do this work. Uh, secondly, I wanted to give a shout out that, um, I think you should know that this work is already being recognised by the climate caucus, a national group. And it is already being broadcast, uh, to municipalities across the country. So congratulations on being at the forefront of that.

And then, um, third, uh, just reflecting on my colleagues comments, um, I encourage staff to push back on council where things are just not, again, the scope creep. However, when you embark on barrier breaking work like this that hasn't necessarily been done before because we're responding to new contexts that we are as frankly as humans have never faced before, I recognise that that brings a unique set of challenges and, um, while I encourage you to push back, I would also ask that, uh, you also, uh, encourage counsel to work with you, uh, to come to, um, something that can be modelled going forward. Being among the first to do something like this makes landing on perfection near impossible. Um, and I recognise that. And this is not a challenge that I would have loved to take on. So I'm glad it's you three instead. Um, but, uh, yeah, it's, there's a lot to tackle. And you are among the first to tackle this, um, my

hat goes off to you for, um, navigating, managing our expectations around that too. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone else. Wants to get another comments. The motion's on the floor as amended. All those in favor. Is anyone opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you very much for that. Thank you for all of your work. And good luck to you. That does take us on to the next item on our agenda. That is item G2. And that is the economic and employment land solutions presentation of Lubistra McLean is in the, yes, there you are. Why don't you come on up with your colleague and while you're getting settled, I'm going to ask, um, Ms. Ruder or Mr. Kingsley to put on the screen before we address the matter at hand, the motion that I sent to you earlier today.

I'll explain why once it comes onto the screen. Thank you. As I understand it, a member of council, I believe Councillor Gardner would like to propose as it explains here that the procedures bylaw under which we usually operate be suspended specifically in regard to the amount of time that is allotted for each Council member to speak to a particular item. And that that should be extended from 10 minutes to 15 minutes specifically for item G2, which is the item that we are about to address. Councillor Gardner, if this is suitable, this is the proper procedural motion for you to make. If you would like to do so, you are welcome to do so. I thought it would be helpful to draft something for your consideration. Mayor. Thank you. Is there a secondary for this please. Coleman Second? Thank you very much. So Councillor Gardner, if you could speak briefly only to the motion to suspend the rules, not to the content of the upcoming item. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. This is an ominous

report before us and it actually concerns four distinct policies, which is the doubling of density, uh, delegating. And of course, the discussion of old town, which is not very clear, uh, the subsidizing of private sector businesses through tax shifts and altering, um, the process for private sector events. And, uh, each of the items deserves thorough discussion. And right now we're kind of overshadowed by one. But I hope the others can receive it. Now the proposal for an additional five minutes is acceptable to me. I dare not suggest more. Again. Given the interpretation by BC political watch when I randomly suggested seven minutes, uh, our industrial land discussion on June 25th. So thank you Mayor for presenting this. You're most welcome Councillor Coleman is the second or anything to add. I think that. Anyone else wished a comment on simply the motion to suspend the rules of procedure as it pertains through time limits with regards specifically to item G2, any other comments? Councillor Dell. Sure,

I'll just speak against this. We all have 10 minutes. That's 90 minutes total, which was take us to 330. Just for the public, that does not include staff time. So the presentation will not be in there and all the questions we ask of staff don't count towards that. So I don't see any need to go beyond probably well over two hours on this. I think most of us this term have made our points and well under 10 minutes. If we have read the material, uh, done our work ahead of time in 15 minutes is not needed. So I'll be opposing this. Thank you very much.

Anyone else on the motion on the table. Sicking online. Nope. Okay. All those in favor. Of the motion to extend. That would be Councillor Caridona Councillor Lauten myself, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Hammond and Councillor Gardner in opposition. Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim and Councillor Thompson. Noting three in opposition, uh, that motion is adopted. And so for this item only, Council will be allowed up to 15 minutes for their questions and comments. And as was noted previously, this is not include staff presentation or answer time. So with that noted, I will adjust the timekeepers clocks. And I will turn it over to staff. I believe led by Mr.

McClain for your presentation on this matter. Or where do you, sir? Uh, thank you Mayor and hello mayor and Council. I am Senior Pioner Malcolm McClain. And here to present to you today on our report on economic and employment LAN solutions. These solutions are used to speak up a little bit. You're a bit faint. Absolutely. Thank you. Uh, these solutions are quick actions aligned with city policy that we're able to recommend immediately proceeding with. To start with a bit of background, the effects of national and global economic challenges are being felt across many Canadian cities and around the world. Uh, the global challenges include trade disruption and changes in how and where we work. Uh, and I know where the issue in Canada is especially high construction costs, which are challenging the viability of various forms of development. Despite the challenges, Victoria has major economic strengths to build on. Our deep water harbour and established marine industry are set to grow amidst major federal investment

in defence. Our renowned quality of life attracts businesses and tourism. Our well - established downtown core is a desirable place, both for tourism and employment. The recent official community plan update and zoning modernization has improved certainty for residential development throughout the city. This is, uh, reduced risk and timeline related costs for building housing throughout Victoria. However, this level of certainty has not yet been achieved for all of Victoria's employment and economic lands. Uh, achieving this will require a comprehensive planning process. Um, and we envision bringing forward a recommended approach for this later this year. In the meantime, this report focuses on immediate actions that the city can take to support economic and employment land development.

So the first solution is an increase in density within the central business district zone, or zones, I should say, to permit a maximum of 5. 5 to one floor space ratio for non - residential development. This helps to improve the window of opportunity. We're currently seeing for hotel development. Um, by eliminating the need for rezoning process within the central business district. The greater certainty and simpler approval process helps to reduce risk and financing costs. Over the long term, permitting increased non - residential density within the central business district will also support employment to other forms of employment, development. To be clear, these changes would apply only within the central business district. Uh, no zoning changes proposed to height or density within the old town district.

Uh, zone. So the next solution relates to addressing adding three new uses to the central business district zones and the old town district zone. These are light industrial or artisanal, laboratory and veterinary uses. These uses align with fast growing sectors of our economy, including the life sciences sector. Uh, and in addition to supporting development of new buildings pursuant to these uses, this change also helps expand the potential for renewal of vacant office space downtown. For clarity, while we are proposing to add uses to the old town district zone, no height or density changes are proposed to the old town district zone. We're also recommending to update policies in the downtown core area plan. Uh, this would provide flexible guidance for allowing the city to add to consider rezoning applications for a density above three to one floor space ratio in old town and the inner harbour district. As long as Heritage and other policy objectives are upheld. For clarity, rezoning applications, um, in this area

would need to demonstrate alignment with the policies and the official community plan in the downtown core area plan, uh, the old town design guidelines, the downtown core design guidelines and the standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in Canada. To further clarify, these policy updates allow consideration of development applications that rehabilitate historic buildings or involve new development on properties where heritage merit is not identified. Another important solution we're recommending is a revitalization tax exemption program to support the economic revitalization of Victoria through spurring new hotel development. The destination greater Victoria Hotel Development report and related analysis is indicating that we are seeing a window of opportunity for hotel development in Victoria. Um, and this is partly due to high construction costs and otherwise challenging market conditions deterring investment in office and high rise residential development right now. Um, meanwhile, the business case for hotel development is improving as we see, um, hotel rooms getting more scarce in Victoria and demand for visitor accommodation

increasing. Even in this window of opportunity, the remains a small viability gap for hotel development. And analysis is showing that an RTE program can help close this gap. The recommended RTE program would expire in 2035 or earlier, uh, if the objective noted in the official community plan to see 1500 new hotel rooms developed is realised. So the hotel development report estimated that new hotel development will contribute significantly to economic revitalization in Victoria. They noted 2000 new hotel rooms could create over 2, 700 direct and indirect jobs, 85 million in annual wages, 100 million in annual visitor spending and almost 50 million in annual tax revenue to various levels of government. So assuming 1500 new hotel rooms, I realised in Victoria, as is envisioned in the official community plan, this would realise approximately three quarters of this economic revitalization effect within the City of Victoria. The tax exemption is proposed to apply only to the incremental value increase created by Hotel Development. So this means the

property would continue paying tax on the pre - construction assessed value. And this helps minimize any tax shift created by the exemption. So this approach is designed to help keep the proportion of taxes that other properties pay. Equivalent to what they would be paying, whether there was a hotel development on a site or not. The incentive for hotel development comes from the delay in taxing the incremental value increase. Meanwhile, the closest possible to a net neutral effect on the rest of the tax base, regardless of whether there is or is an hotel developed. By spurring hotel development through the RTE program, the community benefits both from the economic revitalization effect, uh, of new hotel development.

And eventually from the greater share of property taxes that the hotel begins paying after the exemption expires. Last, but definitely not least. We're also recommending to create a proactive and streamlined permitting approach for people to host special events on private property. This is intended to enhance economic and cultural vitality in Victoria by removing barriers that property owners currently face when they want to host a special event on private property. Currently, the city has a permitting approach for special events on public property, but no formal process for special events on private property. So event organisers rely on the temporary use permit process or other ad hoc city approaches to allow them toast special events. Some examples of PAST events, uh, that could become easier to permit as a result of this work. Include small scale one - off events in retail spaces such as music, theatre, dance performances or pop - up visual art exhibits. Um, music rehearsal recording and performance at menus like quadratic sound

markets in indoor or outdoor spaces. The carnival rights at me fair mall and the Van Gogh exhibit, which is pictured on screen, uh, which was hosted for six months in a vacant parking lot and very successfully attracted visitors from around the region. So that concludes our presentation. This slide summarizes the recommended motions. Uh, we've discussed today. You'll note the recommendation includes waving the public hearing. Uh, this is our standard practice for zoning changes the line with city policy. Um, the public hearing is not required, but it is permitted. Uh, thank you. And we're happy to take any questions. Thank you, Mr. McClain. We'll start with questions as usual and unusually. I'm going to ask you two questions to start. And these are questions that I have flagged for director Hudson. And so I would suspect that she may wish to answer them. If the empty lot in old town, what can be built there now.

Um, through the mayor, um. A proposal would have to meet the zoning, first of all, for the district. And, um, the old town zones are mixed you zones. Um, so various uses could be built, but they would have to be in accordance with the zone. They would have to also be consistent with city policy. And they would have to meet our design guidelines for old town. So any proposal would have to meet all of those things. And in the context of this particular report and the proposals and recommendations that staff are making, does that change. Through the mayor, know that doesn't change. Um, what we are not proposing to change, um, the density of the zones in Old Town. That would remain the same. We are introducing some, um, new uses into the zone, but not proposing to change densities. We are bringing forward a recommended policy that we would turn our minds to, um, proposals for hotels in Old Town, but those would be

considered on a case by case basis through a rezoning process, similar to how we, um, handle now, uh, for properties throughout Old Town. And again, they would have to be assessed through all of the city policies that we have in place and our design guidelines. Thank you. My last question there. And in the context of these recommendations, should they be adopted. Could a land owner demolish an existing. Property that was designated as heritage to create an empty space on which to build. Through the mayor, no. Somebody would not be able to do that. Um, there are many buildings in Old Town that are protected through heritage designation bylaws. So demolition would not be possible. Um, also old town is a heritage conservation area. And, um, heritage properties that are listed on our heritage register, um, any alterations that are proposed would need a heritage alteration permit and would have to go through that process. And, um, so again, that would be valuated against city policy.

And often in those cases, um, when we see redevelopments for heritage register properties, we often negotiate their protection, um, as part of that process. And then we encourage them to actually designate their properties because they have, you know, access to other heritage incentives if they do that. So, um, yes, that's, they're protected essentially. And no, they cannot be demolished. Thank you for those answers. Let us go to questions from the rest of Council Councillor Hammond to start Councillor Dell next. Thanks, Mayor. I promise I'll try not to use up the 15. Um, could you go back, which led to some ambiguity for me, which made some reference to looking at, ah, that's it. Okay. The second bullet, um, interim policy updates for flexibility considers increased density in historic commercial district Old town. So when we're told at the outset that there would not be any more density within Old Town, what is this getting at.

To the mayor, maybe I'll start and then I'll turn it over to the team. Um, this is a policy proposal for the downtown corps area plan. So it's just for consideration if there were applications for rezonings. We're not proposing to change the density in the zoning for the whole old town district. So that would remain at three to one. So if something comes to us and it's four to one or five to one or just something different at all, that would automatically come through council. Is that delegated? Through the mayor, that would absolutely come to council. It would be referred to the community association for comment. It would go to the Heritage Advisory panel and it would come to Council for consideration. PONNER. Can I ask on that, do you envision just on doing this on a policy where it still must answer, um, people still must answer two council for this. Do you think that would still cause concerns for people who very much

want to preserve the heritage aspect of old town. Victor Hudson. Well, through the mayor. I would say that this is actually what our current practice is. We do see a lot of rezoning applications in Old Town already, like over the years. There's been many, um, applications both for heritage rehabilitation or for, um, sites without heritage buildings to have buildings on them. And we've, um, we've often granted densities that are higher than three to one. Um, and taller than 15 metres. And because it's very much contextual, you know, old town's quite a large area. And so, um, we really need to look at these, these on a case - by - case basis and consider the context in the surroundings to see what the right answer is and really help guide applicants to come up with solutions that will complement the Heritage Conservation area. So, so this is very much what we do now. I think we were just trying to be a little more explicit

in our policies that we were open to seeing hotel developments in the city. Okay. And sort of tapping into the notion of hotels, the building that we, um, we rejected just over here. That was one of those things where it came to us. It was more than Council was interested in. And so therefore it was denied. Is that right? Yes. Through the Marius, it didn't meet the guidelines on the policies of the city. Thank you. And through you, Mayor, now I have some other questions. So I want to get to the bigger issue of the public hearing. Would it be a problem to approve a public hearing on this. Is there any prohibition on that.

Through the mayor. No, there's, there's no issue with that. Uh, it is an option for council, uh, to have a public hearing on this item if they wish to. Okay. Great. And through you mayor, um, then if so, and I'm told yes, uh, first of all, maybe just ballpark, how quickly, or sorry, when would that happen. Also what would go ahead today and what would hold off for after a public hearing if Council decided to have a public hearing. Of these six items. Dr. Johnson, would the entire piece go to a public hearing noting that we'd have to amend it to delete number two. Uh, through the mayor. So if Council wanted to direct staff to schedule a public hearing on the zoning proposed zoning amendments, those would be the piece, the part of the recommendation that, um, could go to a public hearing. Then we would need to add some additional. We would need to amend the recommendation to strike out, uh, some portions

and amend others to get that direction. Um, and in terms of timing of when that would happen, uh, if council directed us to do that, um, we would still need to go and prepare the bylaws, um, and bring them forward for introductory readings, Council, uh, and then schedule a public hearing from there. So the timing would be dependent on when the bylaws came forward for introductory readings, which would be, I don't know how long that would take, at least be months from now. Practically speaking, you're looking at later in the fall. Yeah, great. Thanks very much, Mayor. And then on page two, um, there's reference and it even was brought up, um, verbally, uh, current marketing conditions are reducing the viability of office and high rise residential development. It carries on. My question was, what are the quote current market conditions that are reducing quote high rise residential development? End quote which wouldn't be the same challenges for hotel development. Mr. McLean. Through the mayor,

thanks for the question. Um, yeah, so there's, there's a challenge that's shared across both, which is the very high construction costs we're seeing right now, which is a major challenge for viability of development. What's different between high rise residential or office for that matter versus hotel development. Um, is that we're seeing elevated inventory levels for condos right now. And I'm, and a moderation in price, which is kind of softening the revenue side expectations for high rise residential development. The opposite is true with respect to hotel. We're seeing a scarcity of hotel rooms and an increasing demand for visitor accommodation. Council him. All right. So you're saying then because of how well hotels are doing that there wouldn't be the same challenges for hotels, economic challenges.

Through the mayor, that's correct. Yeah. Although they're both facing high construction costs, the outlook on the revenue side is improving for hotels and softening for high - res residential right now. Then it's not one of the questions I had written down, but following up on that, then why are we looking to give them a tax holiday. Sir Payne? Through the mayor, um, I would reference back to high construction costs right now. We're, we're seeing that, uh, there is, you know, a relative terms improvement in, in hotel, viability relative to the worsening viability of other forms. Uh, but in absolute terms, there is still a viability gap for hotel development. And that's something that the RTE program can help to close. Okay. Thank you. Oh, I was just wondering, and I sent this to Staff beforehand.

Is it possible on page five and six, it talks about the new floor space ratio of 5. 5 to one. And I was just wondering if, and this, this again, is in the, um, CBD and CBD2. And is it possible to get a mockup of the difference of the FSR in a couple of locations where that would be allowed, or were we, or were we able to do that. Mr. Clay. Through the mayor, we can provide some illustrative examples. So some of the images we've used in the presentation, we can describe the floor space ratios. So, uh, on the cover of the greater Victor Victoria Hotel Development report is pictured the Magnolia hotel, which was approved at 4. 6 to one floor space ratio. We also know, uh, the atrium building at 1321 Blanchard was approved at 5. 0 to one floor space ratio. And I think that may be the only ones we have on. Bread, yeah. And so I can just describe. I

don't necessarily have photos in the presentation, but, um, the rotunda building, which is just a cross Douglas street from City Hall. The zoning approval for that is split into two parts. Um, sub areas. So the six story building, uh, right on the corner of Douglas and Pandora was approved at 3. 7 floor space ratio. But the taller building that's connected to it behind, uh, was its own kind of sub area. And that was at 5. 88 to Flurspace Ratio. Okay. So from the look of things, they don't seem freakishly tall. You don't have to use my wording, but, uh, it, I mean, from the illustrations you gave and when I look at these, it doesn't seem as though it would scare most people, I presume, or, or have people, most people be upset by that.

Is that a question? Well, yeah, okay. Sorry an observations. I should stick to question. I don't think it's quite on. But go ahead. Okay. Thanks. Now, um, we moved to page seven and talk about the tax exemptions. My question is, can someone give me a ballpark example of what taxes would be saved in such a situation. And let me throw in the other question is how much more can the city estimate would be shifted to other businesses in a year or perhaps up to 10 years. And if you need me to repeat those, feel free. Mr. McLean. Thanks for the question. I understood. Uh, so through the mayor, we can, um, kind of discuss a hypothetical to give you some concrete figures on, on tax exemptions. Note every site is going to be very different.

Uh, in that regard, um, for the sake of an illustrative example, if we imagine, uh, existing property, preconstruction assessed at about six million, uh, in assessed value. And after hotel construction, the assessed value goes to 72 million. Uh, so the 66 million increase in value. The 10 year tax exemption or if, if there was a 10 year tax exemption for that, uh, value increase over those 10 years, it would be approximately 8. 4 million that is exempted taxes during that exemption period. And, um, I'll just add that recognising money is worth more today than it is in the future. Uh, we've estimated that the value of that 10 year tax exemption in today's terms would be about 6. 1 million to the hotel owner. Okay.

Um, and sorry, I think there was a second part to the question I'm making too. How much can the City estimate would be shifted to other businesses in a year or perhaps up to 10 years. Through the mayor. Yeah. Thank you. Um, so the, the premise here is that as, as little to, to no tax shift occurs, uh, and this is, um, related to exempting only the increase in the SS value. And so having the property continue to pay taxes, uh, close to equivalent. Thank you. The visual is helpful here. Um, that, that kind of dark blue at the bottom there, the SS value that is before and after construction. Um, having the taxation continue to, um, more or less equate to what they would have been paying otherwise. Uh, helps to ensure that there's as little, uh, or effectively net neutral effect to the rest of the taxpayn community, whether the hotel developed or not in this case, um, I can open it up

for any other comment. If I may, uh, Robert Batalla, senior planner, Community Planning, I just wanted to maybe just highlight a little bit more detail on the revitalization tax exemption that one of the things the notions that we're looking at is we've been talking about new hotels as it was discussed through destination great at Victor Victoria, but we also recognise that we have existing hotels in the city. And so one of the other elements that we'd be exploring is a potential exemption when those existing hotels also add additional net new hotel rooms to their existing facilities as well as had been mentioned previously or where there's a non multi - residential building, for example, that is converted to a hotel purpose as well. And so it's not just about a brand new hotel, but it's also about using existing hotels and adding to their surplus of rooms or to their provision of rooms as well.

And also the conversion of buildings as well for hotel purposes. Okay. All right. So the good news is that it doesn't shift on anything that is existing now. Um, I guess what the, I don't know if I call it bad news, but the difference operationally is that some business in this case is hotel decides they want to go for more than what they were before. They, they otherwise would have paid that tax that would be extra revenue to the city, which we all know we can use. And yet, um, they'd be doing that on their own because we wouldn't be giving them any exemption. So it's, it makes sense. We're helping them along, but there also could be, especially with the industry that we're in the environment we're in in which the hotels are doing well. It also could be, they're looking at the bottom line and say, Hey, we can, we can pay for this ourselves and we don't need any exemption. If this

wasn't brought forward. So, so what we're doing is, is we are absorbing their risk, I suppose. We're absorbing some of the chances that they would take otherwise. Is that correct? Uh, thank you through the mayor. Um, I think an important distinction here is that, um, the financial analysis is showing the still a gap, um, in viability, uh, and so the, without the tax exemption kind of in theoretical terms, I'll emphasize every site's different. But, um, you know, in what the analysis is showing is that without closing that viability gap, we wouldn't expect to see that hotel development, uh, or investment. And so the important thing is, if I'm understanding the kind of question, um, that there isn't so much a scenario where a hotel is developed anyway without the tax exemption, uh, and that we're not necessarily losing out on that contribution to the tax revenue. And in fact, we're spurring that for then future contribution to the tax base once the exemption expires. Okay.

Yes. Um, through the mayor, I just wanted to make the point that, um, when we consider revitalization tax exemption programs, it isn't just about, um, the high construction costs. It's actually about revitalizing the area and I'm bringing in, you know, more visitors, more jobs, better utilising, you know, underutilized land, those kinds of things. So we're also looking at this big picture for what's for what's best for doing as much as we can to provide vitalize the downtown area. So that's part of it as well. Great. Thanks. And through you, Mayor, what do we say to other businesses who would say we also are not willing to take the risk, um, we're just, we're close, but we're not willing to take that risk. I can give you, you know, the person says, I can give you all kinds of reasons why we also help out the economy here. Why are you singling out hotels and not, not others who are adding, not taking away from their

base already, but who are adding, um, to their businesses, to their buildings? What do you say to them. Mr. McLean, is this something you want to take on. Through the mirror? Thank you. Uh, I can at least start the comment on, I'll invite any follow - up from my colleagues as well. Um, but I would just kind of call back to what I mentioned at the beginning of the presentation too, that, um, that these are, uh, quick solutions that we're able to immediately recommend at this point based on the analysis we've been able to undertake. And this analysis was greatly supported by the work done by the hotel working group. Um, and so we're able to speak with a fair amount of understanding on this topic. And, um, that other actions would require more analysis.

Okay. Thanks. I think I've only got two more questions, Mayor. Um, one of them is the reference to the 50 million dollars of extra revenue if by putting that correctly that would go to governments. Do we have any idea of what portion of that would come to the City of Victoria. Mr. McLean. Or. And we'll come back. Through the mayor, my apologies could you repeat the question? Sure. Um, in the reading and what we had here, it was indicating that I believe it's with the, um, tax exemption program. It would, it would create more jobs and more wealth and 50 million dollars would, would go to governments during a certain period of time. And I'm just wondering since we're one of three governments, what would we expect or if you include the region 104, how much of that 50 million dollars actually would come back to the city of Victoria and to our coffers? I see Mr. McClain wanting to start. Through the mayor. Thank

you. Yeah. I can, I can start just to say that, um, I haven't personally seen all of the analysis that led the destination greater Victoria report to cite that figure. Um, and I haven't done the analysis on, on what, you know, from all new hotel development that we would hope to spur through this action, what the total scale of tax revenue, we would eventually see is, um, I'll welcome any further comment CFO Thompson without necessarily diving into the specifics. What would be typical? Through the mayor. So just building on the previous example that was provided to council that would in that particular case, uh, the city's additional property tax revenue would be about 8. 4 million dollars So again, it's a hypothetical example, um, and, uh, each property would be different. So that's probably as best as we could, but for each hotel, I guess, uh, potentially. This was about the 50 million dollars that you would cited that would be extra revenues, I assume,

given to levels of, there it is. Almost 50 million dollars in annual tax revenue to various levels of government. I was wondering how much we get in that level of government. Not seeing anyone willing to weigh in on. Okay. So, so that's from the tourism board. Gee, they should be more accurate. Oh, wait a second. I'm on the tourism board. Well, I'll have to ask them. Anyways, I think it's just, I think it's fair when we're saying, look, we're giving these incentives for us to also have the information on how it affects us. And I think my last question is about from page eight. It's about the, um, special events. And so I can probably say Van Gogh or anything along those lines. I think it'll all be welcomed. Music and events that like big music events, um, that we get emails about, um, might not always be welcomed. I'm not being a kmudin about this. I'm just saying we get emails about this. So

do we distinguish. Super clean. Through the mayor. Thanks for the question. Um, so this will be a part of the work we're expecting to undertake to draw fine lines around that. Um, but in terms of the events that, um, we're kind of immediately able to highlight would be easier to permit as a part of this, uh, is generally smaller scale kind of music or performance or rehearsal events that might be permittable. Great. Thank you, Mayor. Thanks very much. Thank you very much. Um, that's a great report. And the good stuff in there. So through the mayor, um, I just want to clarify the emails we got are concerned about old town and rezoning Old Town.

Are you proposing to change the zoning to Old Town? Should we play? Through the mayor, no. No change is to old town. With one exception, adding uses to the old town district, but specifically regarding heights and densities, uh, no. Thank you. So through the mayor right now adding increased density to old town requires a rezoning. And after this proposal, adding increased density would require a rezoning. So really nothing has changed between now and in the future in terms of adding density to old town. Is that correct? Through the mayor, that's correct regarding old town district zone. Okay. So technically as per my understanding, the only change is that in a report for a hotel that might fictionally come in the future, it would say this, this hotel does not currently would say this hotel does not comply with current policy. And in the future, it would likely say this building does comply with policy. Although it still requires a rezoning. Is that essentially what this

change will make? Like a sentence change in a report. Essentially, I might offer. She was close. Can you introduce you? Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you Mayoral to yes. My name is Lauren close. I'm the manager of community planning. Um, the only change I would offer is that this hotel may comply with policy because it's not just the density policy. It must comply with a number of policies across the downtown core area plan and the official community plan as well. Of course. Okay. So any type of approval coming to Council in Old Town that is above the density is going to come to council for rezoning with a full staff report and a full review and a full submission to the Heritage Advisory panel. Is that correct? Close. Through the mirror, that's correct. Okay. Thank you.

Um, I received a couple emails that said, um, the magnolia hotel is a good example of how we can build heritage hotels in Old Town. Um, I looked it up. It was built in 1997 at 4. 6. So technically the magnolia hotel, which was cited as an example of a good heritage building, um, is not compliant with our policies right now and would also need to come to Council for a rezoning if it was brought forward today. And if it was brought forward after these proposals, if they were approved. Is that correct? It was close. Um, through you mayor Alto, that's correct. I would assume that the Council of the day ultimately found that on balance. It was compliant with policy. Um, and that the density made sense because the hotel achieved a number of other objectives. Right. Yeah. It's funny because that's almost 30 years ago now. Does Staff go back on those applications to go, why did 30 years ago we approve overly

dense hotel that's kind of beloved by residents? Do we look back at that? I find that just kind of funny 30 years later. It's, it's, uh, perhaps even more controversial to build them. They can only hotel. Or do we just chalk that up to history. And don't look at it? Through mayoral to, um, maybe I'll just dwell back on, on, on, uh, previous project I was involved here that would came before a number of members of Council here. And that was when we did the update to the old town design guidelines. I think around 2, 2017, 2019. And at the time we had a large working group with the community heritage folks and whatnot. And this is an example of a building that kept coming up over and over. And is actually included in the Old Town Design guidelines as a good example. Because it wasn't so much about what's the density of a building, but it's really about being a good fit, the design,

the articulation, how it relates to patterns, fenestrations, other buildings within the area. And so that's why we keep looking at this one is a good example. So to say that within Old Town, there are lots of attractive, very sensitive buildings that come in a whole range of densities. And so, you know, my colleague, Joaquin Crack, is it not here, but I can hear him saying that density is an outcome rather than a driver. And so it's starting with the, how does it fit within the zoning, the design guidelines, heritage policies, conservation policies first. And that will determine in terms of what a potential density may be. And so I think I just wanted to highlight that, that this is a great example of the very things that we're trying to achieve here. Okay. Thank you.

Um, I responded to a number of folks about the proposed change in uses, which I believe are for light industrial veterinary and medical, I believe, adding those, um, a folks respond and said, Oh, we actually have no concerns about that. Like a small t - shirt printing company in Old Town is really not the end of the world where veterinary clinic. Where did you find these three somewhat random? I mean, light industrial, I understand, but, uh, laboratory and veterinary is, is kind of plucked out of the blue. Where did you find these and what other things did you consider. McLean. Sure. Thank you through the mayor. I'll start us off and welcome any further comments from a colleagues. But, um, I would just point out these are uses that are enabled in some of our newer zones, like the town centre and community village district zones that were approved as part of, uh, or alongside the OCP update. Um, and so this is kind of

harmonizing. And especially in light of, of economic projections, highlighting things like the life sciences sector being a major growth sector. Great opportunities to be kind of plucking the low hanging fruit, enabling these growth sectors in areas where, uh, little bit older zoning was just a little bit more restrictive in the uses. I'll pause in case the colleagues want to add more. Maybe I'll just add. When zoning by allow 2018 was completed as well, we've also continued to monitor its effectiveness. And these are some of the things that we've heard and we've seen where applications have come to the city. We realise the gaps of some of the uses. We know people live downtown. If you may have a small animal, you have to travel to an industrial area to see a vet. So it's, it's those kinds of fixes and real eggs in that when we say laboratory, it's different than industrial. It's more of a R and D type facility, but right now there

was some gaps and conflicts with, with some of our zoning. So part of it has been from ongoing monitoring and evaluation of our zoning bylaw as well. Okay. Um, thank you very much. Um, in our term we approved a really beautiful, you know, heritage compliant building, um, on Johnson and government street. I think that was in maybe 2024. My understanding is the approval as we made it is just economically viable to build as difficult to build to the density and height. Is that essentially what you're trying to do through this report is find out ways that we can hit old town guidelines while also make it economically viable to fill in spaces or replace buildings.

Is that what this proposed amendment is trying to do is like reconcile the difference in cost of building right now with limitations that are on the special district. Mr. McLean. Uh, thank you through the mayor. Um, yes. I think that like combined with, with all of the solutions together, the vitalization tax exemption is an important measure to help address some of the challenges. Um, and to, to, to provide a comprehensive policy framework that allows us to consider these buildings. We are just discussing the magnolia, for instance that, um, can fit in in the right locations with the right design solutions. Um, and not having, uh, specific barrier of a certain density, um, restricting our ability to consider applications that might fit. Okay. My last question is, have been talking to some folks in the building hotel industry, uh, one of the issues that's come up regularly is that we have a huge amount of class B and class C office space in the city that's

unused and nobody wants to use. So as, as workers worked remotely, we have a lot of the space. It's a demand for class A, but not the B and C. And it's all over downtown. One of the challenges is I understand is that trying to change the use of that for say a hotel triggers, uh, BC building code seismic issues that make it essentially unviable to use that space. You have to update the whole size. You get the building. And the folks that I know have looked into to said it just never works. So what is the city doing to possibly look at, uh, workarounds with that work for the province so that people can like, you know, do a pop up a quick build hotel in empty class, see your class B office building.

Example is maybe on the down in the corner of the Yates and Douglas above the bulk barn. I think the Scotiabank there, large office building, but sitting up to for quite a while. Why isn't any of that captured in this work and our staff doing anything or do we just go that's a BC building code issue. It's out of our control. Mr. McLean. Uh, thanks for the questions from the mayor. That definitely is being looked at. That was something that, um, the hotel working group, uh, considered and discussed in their hotel development report for sure. Uh, the opportunities to convert existing heritage buildings and otherwise that, that's a something that really depends on the specific architecture of, of existing buildings, whether they lend themselves to that. Um, one other thing, obviously the building code is outside of our control to modify. But what is within our control are some of the actions presented here, um, adding uses to help enable adaptive reuse of older office

spaces. Um, but also the heritage, um, tax incentive program can stack with, uh, the proposed hotel viralization tax exemption. Uh, and one of the intentions of the Heritage Tax Incentive program is to help defray some of those costs of rehabilitating and seismically upgrading existing buildings. And so that can help in those contexts. Okay. Thanks very much. I appreciate all that. I'll hand it off Mayor. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, just before we move on, I just wanted to note that, uh, director Moore, who works in our economic development section has provided some information in response to, uh, Councillor Hammond's earlier question about where does the 50 million dollar go and how's it divided?

And so she has provided these numbers that 17. 9 million dollars would go to the federal government, 15. 8 million dollars would go to the provincial government and 15. 8 million dollars would come to the municipal government. And then just before I go on to the rest of our speaking lists, which so far as Councillor Gardner and Councillor Loughton, I'm going to suggest we take a short break as we have been sitting for more than an hour and a half, which is our custom to stand up at that point. So let us take a quick break and return at 250, 250. And welcome back. Please take your seats. We would like to resume our consideration of item G2. And so up next on our list of speakers with questions is Councillor Gardner.

What were you, Councillor Gardner? Thank you. Thank you very much. And I think everyone here and probably a lot of other people are very relieved that no rezoning by right is intended for Old Town. I and others missed that in the document because it wasn't clear in the document. And so do you have any schematics that indicate what increases of density are intended with the decap initiative? And where not. Mr. McClain. Through Mayora, thank you. And yeah, so we've prepared a map to help clarify on the right in the red colour is the central business district zones, CBD - 1 and CBD2. And on the left in the kind of translucent brown is the old town district zone. And we've included some street names for reference. Okay, but that map wasn't attached to docking. But the zoning is way beyond that because it goes right into James Bay. Does it not? Is this all that's being considered in this motion? Just this map. So the

recommended changes to zoning are represented by this in terms of the geographic extent. And so this is it. So it does not include the decap part that goes into James Bay. With respect to zoning proposed zoning changes, that's correct. This is the full extent. Oh boy, would this have been a great relief to people? Had this been known. Okay, so brown, old town. Is not. Going to be by right up zone. Mr. McLean. Through the mayor, that's correct. So what we're proposing in terms of changes to the old town district zone is to add new uses. And those are the light industrial or artisanal laboratory and vet. And then what is proposed for the central business district zones on the right is also to add those uses and to increase the density within the zone to 5. 5 to one floor space ratio. Great. Cause when I check the districts that were mentioned in the document, uh, with decap, I didn't know exactly which maps.

Can you please send me a copy of that map so that I consider to others so that they understand it. So that's great. Now has there been any consultation with or notification of DRA or JBNA on this? Well, not JVNA if it doesn't go beyond. Got it. With DRA. Downtown residents association. Uh, through the mayor, I would point to the consultation on the policies, uh, in the official community plan and the downtown core area plan, uh, that these changes align with, um, but specific to the recommendations in this report, we haven't done standalone engagement. I'll open it up. Um, for any other comment as well.

Okay. So the hotels we're talking about too is only for in this map. Mr. McLean. Uh, through the mayor. Thank you. So the, uh, proposed revitalization tax exemption program would apply citywide. Is that on the exemption? So there's also other discussion about hotels beyond the exemption. I think in this document, or is that the only part of this 10 page document that applies to hotels to the tax exemption? Or does any of the other density discussion apply to hotels? Uh, through the mayor. Thanks for the question. Um, so the increase of density in the central business district zone for reference again, that's the red area on the right in this map is definitely intended to remove the barrier of the rezoning process and, and help enable hotel development if that helps answer. That's an e - development. I'll invite other comment here. Um, if, if I'm mayoral to just provide a little bit on clarity, the report talks about increasing the density within the central

business district zones to support hotels. So that is only for the geographic area that you see here in red. The area in old town in the brown does not propose a numerical increase in density to the zone. So the zones stay as is other than the additional uses that we've mentioned. The residential tax exemption is a separate item is a citywide initiative that would provide the tax exemption from new hotel, new hotel rooms at a citywide area. And it doesn't get into densities. It's simply around the tax exemption program to spur the development of all shapes and size of hotels citywide. Okay. So please, please get me that map. That's very important. I think we would have had a lot less angst. Have you knew about this map? Or that was exactly all that was restricted. Okay. Um, now I appreciate that years ago a large consultation group was created for Old Town. And maybe it might be useful. I know you have the, uh,

the Heritage Advisor Committee, but it might be useful to have a bit of a discussion on that. Once we get the bylaw going on or that you're into the draft stage, uh, cause I don't want the same kind of angst to the last three days coming up when the bylaw comes up. And of course we'll be, if not me, I'm sure someone else will be asking for that waving of public hearing to be deleted from the recommendations. Okay. Now, um, Councillor Hammond, I forgot your name. Okay. Uh, mentioned one of the skyline. Of course, you talked about that, uh, you know, the one, um, well, COP two or three hotels. So if it only continues this part, I don't think we need that. Okay. Um, now what property this is for our director of finance.

So she can pay attention before I ask it. What class property assessment cluster hotels fallender. Merk Thompson through the mayor, so that's class six business. Sorry. Classic six. So under business and other. Thank you. The report speaks of attached shift. But it doesn't say where the shifts will be. So what is intended for the PO's tax shift? Where's it going to land to only class six or to others? What is meant. Rita Thompson. Through the mayor. So my apologies for the wording and the report. I think we should have clarified a bit more since the intent is not to shift anything. It's simply delaying, um, the collection of the new revenue. We intend to continue to collect on the current value. So the full taxable amount right now. Uh, and it's the incremental value only that would, um, delayed for the period of the exemption.

So they're actually in this case there would be no shift. The delay. So is that going to be like, sorry. Is that going to be like a loan? Or because it's going to be a bit of a reduction. I realised I read the package and I understand that it's going to be much smaller than one might think you're not exempting the whole property tax. I get that. But nevertheless, so just, okay. So you're not shifting it. You're just not going to collect it. Right. That's correct. That is still unusual. Okay. Uh. Has staff, this was alluded to, but not quite answered because the question isn't quite the same. Has staff considered tax exemptions for any other industry. Mr. McLean. Or director Thompson. Director Thompson, do you know that answer? Um, through the mayor, I guess I can start. I'll certainly invite other comment from my colleagues. Uh, we do have a tax incentive program for Heritage Vitalization, uh, to encourage that. Um, we also have

a revitalization tax exemption program to encourage energy retrofits and rental buildings. Um, and, uh, I'll open any other references. Thank you. I know we have specific purpose ones, but do we have one for particular industry like a hotel industry? Do we have something like that. Director Thompson. For a private sector industry, I'm not talking not for profit social housing. Through the mayor. So the, um, well, it's the rental properties as we're mentioned. I don't know exactly what you mean by a certain industry. We don't have another type of business class if that's what you're asking. But Heritage Properties, for example, is another one that we have as an exemption, uh, program. Would we do one for all of the, uh, brew pubs in the city.

That's a question that is far beyond the material aspects of this issue. Yes. But it's an industry thing. Okay. Old town. Thank you. Um. Sorry, these are my questions. You know old town that I made yesterday. On to events, indoor and outdoor. Uh, you've mentioned one that was indoor one that outdoor. And I'm familiar with both of them. With the Van Gogh event and the major mall. Both great events and the Mayfair one, of course, is not in the middle of a residential area. And so there is not much impact, even though it's an outdoor noise event, shall we say. So while events are usually welcome, the aftermath can be problematic when they are, well, and during an event when it's really loud, you may recall last year we had complaints for some events going all the way over to Oak Bay. Because the noise volume. I realised the noise bylaw will be coming to as soon. I'm not too sure whether it'll be in

it. And so I'm very worried about trying to speed up processes. Although the ones you've mentioned, of course, are great. Now recently we had some complaints about a couple of recent events. And what it was, it was, um, the dealings of the aftermath. Garbage, uh, things put on poles and those kind of things. I realised this isn't really yours. It's another department. But the, uh, policy understands, says the event organiser must arrange for waste removal and pickup of any additional garbage and recycling produced by the event and those attending event, which means even perhaps the actual place with event occurs. And these events were on public property. So does anyone know if we're going to be doing more in that regard? Because if we start expanding events and speeding them up, and we haven't taken care of some of these other items, I'm really quite concerned. Mr. McLean, have you put any thought into that?

How much close? Um, I think, uh, through you mayor to answer the final question I think you had, um, the motion does not, uh, direct any changes to our processes for special events on public property. If that was the key part of your question, um, but we will be considering these processes that we already have in place as we turn our minds to what a process would look like for hosting events on private property. Thank you. My concern was if we're not doing it and really making sure that things are done thoroughly as the policy says on public property, I fear that we're going to perhaps do less when it's on private property. So I'm just saying we have to really start watching some of these events. Once again, please. Thank you. Okay. Other question.

Uh, okay. No, that now that we've got different, okay, I think that's questions for now, mayor. You good? Since we have a different definition of land base. Up next, Councillor Luton. Thanks and through you mayor. I would, uh, I'd like to move this staff recommendation if there aren't any other questions. I believe I have questions at least from Councillor Coleman and Councillor Kim. So why don't we put a pin in that? If you have questions, you can do those now. And I'll come back to you when we're ready. I don't have questions. I just, I've got an amendment and I'd like to move it just a few. So welcome back to you. Councillor Coleman and then Councillor Kim. Thank you and through you your worship.

Um, back to the tax exemption. We've had a number of emails saying, why are you giving a specific industry and advantage? And we've talked about, could you go back to the graphic you have where it has the blue, the two different types of blue. That one. Perfect. So if I understand the system properly. We will, the dark blue is the, uh. Before hotel construction and we will tax that at a normal rate. There is construction, which is the light blue section. We don't tax that for 10 years. Oh, up to 10 years. Whatever has decided in the process. What happens in year 11. Mr. Flame through the mayor. Thanks for the question. Uh, so then the entire assess value of the property would be the basis for taxation. And what generally has happened to the BC assessment of that property over the 10 years. Mr. McLean. Through the mayor, sorry, can you elaborate on that question? So the dark blue property is assessed by BC assessment authority at a certain value.

We are still practicing, we'll still tax that at the normal rate. Over 10 years, because you've done the construction, my assumption is, and history has borne out this, that the value of the property has gone up. Is that generally true. Dr. Thompson. Through the mayor. Yes, that's correct. So that darker blue portion will actually be larger each year generally. And in year 11, if we give a 10 year tax exemption, we then get a tax apportionment based on a property value that has gone up. That's correct. So at some point in year, if we look across the street, what was McDonald's furniture. We gave a historic tax exemption for that for revitalization. It became a TV station. And the tax exemption went with the TV station until year 10 was hit. And then they received an incredibly large tax bill. Is that the process and is there a projected. Payout when we get plus revenue over the, probably 15 or 18 years or something like

that? Is that the process? Because I think that's missed by many people. Richard Thompson. Uh, through the mayor, if I understand, uh, your question correctly, yes, that is the process. They will get that very much larger tax bill in year 11. So what we miss quite often and what the public sometimes misses is the fact that this is a future revenue stream where we make money over and above the taxation that we would have had if it just stayed the dark blue building the whole time. Is that correct? Through the mayor, correct. Thank you. Councillor Kim. Thank you through the chair. Um. The beginning of the presentation sets some background context, uh, you don't need to go back. The bullet that is of great interest to me is global challenges, global and national economic challenges.

If those weren't. A factor, do you think would be here today. Mr. McClain, that's somewhat of a conjecturing notion, but if you have an opinion, you're welcome to share it. But it should not be something that you feel compelled to reply. Thank you, Mayor. Maybe I'll offer some minor comments. That's a major hypothetical for sure. Um, many of these solutions make sense to do, um, uh, regardless. For instance, improving our process for permitting special events, um, would make just as much sense in a very economically active time, um, without major challenges. Um, but I would say these, these economic challenges certainly enhance the imperative currently.

Okay. Um. Why weren't motels included in this conversation. Through the mayor, great question. Thanks for that. And to clarify, uh, in our zoning by lab 2018, um, motels are defined as a type of hotel. And so as we talk about hotels, that would be one subset. Okay. Um. Forgive my ignorance. I did a little expedia ing. And again, based on a conversation I had today, uh, I thought to compare hotel prices between Victoria for August 1st to seventh this summer. With an arguably comparable sized medium municipality new west. The prices are quite different. Um, I understand also we are the capital city, urban context, dot, da, da. However, given that the price of hotels in Victoria is just so much more. Is it not that there's a shortage so much as just people aren't booking them. Has that been discussed. Mr McLean, I mean, again, this is a bit beyond your responsibility areas, but I believe you have been in conversations like this. Sure. Through

the mayor. And please follow up if I've missed the point of the question. But one thing that, um, I understand just from kind of looking at the destination greater Victoria Hotel report and related information is that, um, our average daily room rates as you were describing are relatively high in Victoria being a tourist destination. Um, but also our occupancy levels, our relatively high compared to a lot of places, uh, and so there is a relatively high booking rate of hotels. Okay. Thanks. Um, my next question is, um. How are you planning to communicate to any applicant enrolled in the tax exemption program. If we meet our target within the 10 years, as was mentioned in the presentation that there's a likely chance that the exemption program won't go all the way to the 10 years.

How do you plan to communicate that? And will that actually impact going back to my previous colleagues question, the long - term potential revenue stream for the city. Jealous. Uh, through mayoral, too. The revitalization tax exemption, just like the other RTEs that the city prepares are essentially a two - part component. One is the bylaw, which establishes the program. And then a landowner who seeks to be part of that has to enter into a legal agreement with the city that outlines all the terms, conditions, requirements, eligibility, everything. And so that's really our key tool for that so that there's everything's quite certain and clear for them. Right short answer. Last question. Um. I have a concern that, uh, while I appreciate that we're trying to bridge the viability gap, especially, I assume for, uh, less multinational hotel corporations. Are there any safeguards in place to ensure that those are, um, that the applicants for this kind of, uh, policy change are indeed those smaller, uh,

hotels that will be able to maintain that sort of boutique, old town flavour as opposed to another pick. Hilton Marriott, whatever. Yeah. That's your, Mayoralto. Maybe I'll begin. Um, I'm just hearkening back on the presentation from destination great Victor Victoria to this Council. And one thing that they made very clear is that Victoria in the region needs a whole spectrum of different types of hotels for different users, different needs. Um, they had categorized sort of four different types of one being sort of mid, mid scale, mid - rise suite hotels with kitchenets that support perhaps longer stays. Uh, there's a gap for those. Certainly the full service, the amenity rich downtown type hotels that we see with meeting rooms. Small boutique hotels with high service components as well. And also high capacity larger scale conference hotels and event hotels. And so it's not about just one, but it's around making sure that the market can deliver on all of those different types. And obviously at

different price points, which is reflected by the hotel companies, you know, a SAN man is certainly different than a Hyatt. And, and so, um, this is open and equitable to all of the hotel proprietors as well. So I just want to highlight that. It doesn't get into one specific type. It's to allow equal treatment and equal opportunity for all of those different types. Mr. McClain. Thank you through the mayor. I'll just add, uh, two points. I think often we have the refrain that, that, uh, Council and staff's purview is to evaluate an application rather than an applicant, uh, and so we wouldn't necessarily be, uh, distinguishing between any specific brand of, of a hotel, um, in the application. But one other important thing that the, um, the hotel report emphasized too is that the kind of adaptive reuse of heritage buildings is a really great opportunity to realise those boutique style hotels, um, and so that's something that we're definitely encouraging with the policy and

potentially stacking tax incentive programs. Ooh, you just give me a brainwave. Does this also include BNBs. Mr. McLean. Through the mayor. Thanks. I'm certainly invite further comment because I don't want to speak about our zoning definitions without grounding. But I think there may be an important distinction there, uh, just in terms of that specific terminology. Mr. Handy. Good afternoon, Mary and Council Jim Handy, this is some director acting assistant directed development services. Sorry, could you repeat the question? Would everything in front of us today include bed and breakfast. Under hotel. Perhaps through maralto. Uh, so no, bed and breakfast or fall under a different definition within zoning byla 2018. This would just be specific to the typical hotel and motel type forms that we have. Okay. Um, and then I'm thinking of the empress as an example of like quite heritage historical, um, I don't know much about it, except that it's literally on shaky ground. Uh, and so, uh, does this also apply, um, revitalizing, um, seismic of preexisting

heritage on top of the heritage tax exemption. Like what, what, how broadly can the tax exemption program be applied to existing. Hotels. Mr. McLean, three of your thanks for the question. So the heritage tax incentive program is definitely intended to help address and defray the seismic upgrading, um, and that seismic risk is a kind of key thing related to the soft soils. Um, but the, you know, engineering to those standards is something that creates high construction costs, uh, and, and so more broadly the stacking of the tax incentive program with a hotel revitalization tax incentive program. Uh, is a part of, you know, maybe to put this the other way, the high construction costs are a part of the viability gap that we're recognising. That's a contributing factor. Uh, and so that hotel tax exemption is a part of, of seeking to spur economic revitalization through helping to close that gap. Okay.

Okay. Um, I, I want to come back to an earlier comment that was made, uh, that yes, we're supposed to evaluate the application and not the applicant. However, and I don't expect an answer to this. If the whole purpose is economic revitalization of Victoria, as has been laid out time and time again in reports and presentations, don't we want to support hotels that are more likely to be more local, not multinational corporations. Those that would be able to better reinvest in the local economy. Mr. McLean, again, you're welcome to comment, but ultimately, I believe that would end up being a decision of council. So that's a policy review. I was just trying to point out a gap in the way some of the things are done, but you know, I think maybe if I can just interject, and again, just going back to a lot of this boils down to as a starting point is, do you meet her zoning bylaws where it's about the

use, not the user? So a hotel is a hotel. We don't get into who's developing it, who owns it, any of that. It's really about the use. And going back to economic riotalization, the needs of destination great Victoria is about that use of hotel motels. That's really what's sort of before us here is how can we get more of those without getting into the weeeds per se or finer details that are really beyond our purview. Okay. Um, great job handling this whack of questions. Thank you so much. Councillor Thompson. Thanks, Mayor. Um, and thanks to staff for your, uh, work on this. And thanks for bringing it forward. It's certainly something that we do need to be working on. Um, I wanted to further explore the earlier staff statement. Uh, and I'll quote no height or density changes are proposed to the old town zone.

Um, as I think staff know, um, we've received a number of emails. Worried that this proposal removes height limits and removes density limits in old town. We just wanted to ask you once again, can you confirm that is not the case. Mr. McClain through the mayor. Thanks for confirming. That is true. We are not, uh, as a part of this recommending changes to the old town district zone that would change height or density. Okay. Thanks. Um, I had another question from a, uh, or suggestion actually from an email received that, that, uh, any changes in density mean that the height of buildings has to change, uh, automatically, um. And another one, um, or sorry. I should, I should briephrase that, that you can't get, um, FSR three without going up to six stories. Is that correct? Mr. McClain. Through the mayor, I don't think it can be said that simply, uh, in the sense that, um, an FSR outcome can, can look many different ways,

uh, depending on the, uh, building footprint and the overall design of a development and that shaped by a considerable number of factors, including our design guidelines. Okay. Thanks. Um, concern was raised that, um, uh, the changes would mean that there's no guidance for decisions on zoning future decisions that Council may make on his owning request. I think I heard you say that's not the case. Can you confirm that. Through the mayor, yes confirmed. There are, um, all of the same policies and design guidelines would apply as the due currently, um, in before and after the recommended, uh, policy changes. Okay. Thanks. And I'm, I'm getting these emails from people who are as far as I know are actually familiar with the system. People who have been, uh, involved with, um, city zoning proposals, CALICs, that sort of thing for years. Um, so it appears that they're receiving some misconceptions or misinformation from somewhere, uh, that is not the staff report. I know that staff that

you have a lot of discussions with members of the public. For instance, I attended a number of the OCP sort of public engagement sessions. And there were, you know, hundreds of people in those, I'm going to ask, Staff, are you. Sensing that people are coming to consultations and coming to discussions with misconceptions and misinformation? And if so, where from. PON. I do think that probably calls for some, uh, conjecture on the part of staff. But again, I will say that anyone is welcome to offer opinion, but is not required given it's asking for an opinion. Mr. Johnson, did you join away in here. Sure. Uh, Sheldon Johnson, Director of Communications and Engagement. I would say that's a, it's rather common problem that we're all facing right now. Uh, in the current public sphere is that there's lots of information available to quote, uh, Y'allari, there's never been more information in the history of the world.

But what we lack is wisdom. So it's really hard to sift through all the information that is available. That's why we do these public engagement sessions. That's why we're available to the public, uh, through a variety of scenarios so that we can help them, um, sieve through everything that is available to them, uh, come to the source of information. Thank you. Councillor. Okay. Thanks for that. Um, and I think I've heard on a sort of a related point that that's kind of why we do a broader range of public engagement than just putting out reports and inviting people to public hearings. Is that, is that correct? Because we actually need to have more of a two way conversation. Mr. Johnson. Thanks. And through the mayor, I would say that's exactly correct. Uh, that's why we do, uh, in - person information sessions. That's why we pop up at random farmers markets and that sort of things when there's large things to do. Uh, but we're

also available by email, by phone. We have lots of information on our website as well. Uh, that anytime somebody needs clarification on anything, we're available. Absolutely. Councillor. Okay, great. Thanks. Um, going back to, um, planning staff, having, having heard, uh, the concerns that are out there, uh, from emails or from me or from my colleagues. Can you, can you step back from individual comments and concerns and look at the big picture and answer the following question. This proposal, what harm does it do to Old Town. Mr. Play and I'm going to feel a certain subjective aspect of that as well. But again, you're welcome to venture an opinion. Uh, through the mayor, I would not describe this as doing harm to Old Town. Uh, I think that we have a robust framework of policies from the official community plan through the downtown court area plan, uh, our design guidelines for the downtown core. And Old Town, um, and the standards and guidelines for the conservation

of historic places in Canada, all work together, uh, to provide a robust framework for evaluating applications and ensuring the R a best fit in a positive contribution to old town, uh, and downtown in general. Council. Thanks. And I think you've, you've probably gone halfway to answering my next question. Um, what changes should we make to this. Sorry, let me, let me rephrase that given, given your answer. Do you see any reason to make changes to this to better protect Old town or, or do we need to delay it or anything like that. Mr. McLean. Again, somewhat subjective, but you're welcome to offer an opinion. Thank you Mayor. Um, yeah, I guess I could, I can venture that, um, we have a pretty robust framework of protection through our heritage conservation area established in the, uh, official community plan, and, uh, the guidelines I mentioned that provide a strong framework for protection and continued evolution at the same time. Okay. Given the, uh, number of, uh,

corrections to misconceptions and misinformation that have been discussed in this meeting, uh, would it be a lot of work for staff to write up a blurb, you know, maybe one pager saying, you know, no, it doesn't increase, it doesn't remove height limits. No, it doesn't remove density limits, et cetera, just sort of an FAQ if it doesn't already exist somewhere about this and be able to, would it take much work to do that and pump it out of various channels, communications channels. It was close. Through you, Mayor, that would not be too much work at all. And we would be happy to do that. Okay.

Mayor, I'd like to move in a men, well, I guess once the motion's on the floor electon move an amendment, asking staff to do just that, but, uh, I think that's probably all my questions. And I'm happy to move it. Council Loton is expressed in interest in moving it, but I'm happy to take you as a seconder if you like. And certainly there will be room for amendments once it's on the floor. Yes. Councillor Hammond. Yep. And the Councillor Garder, yeah. Thanks. Since BC assessment taxes on the highest and best use, why would any potential hotel or a hotel that would be adding hotel rooms, higher floors, higher floors or not. Not already be taxed at that potential. Dr. Thompson, is that a you question.

Or is that a McLean question? PENT. Through the mayor, it's really a question for BC assessment. Um, they, they do the assessments and we, we simply receive them from them. Um, that said their approach is typically for highest and best use of a property within the, uh, existing zoning. So, uh, I can't really answer why a property that doesn't have a hotel that could have, could have a hotel is not assessed at that higher value. It isn't. Um, but, um, that really is the BC assessment question. Thanks, Mayor. If I could follow up, if we can go to that slide that everyone looks at the two sizes of it. So, and the only reason I'm asking this is because it's relevant for when we're asking to defer taxes that other people do not get. If you've got on the left before hotel, but the potential of doing the light blue, so much higher hotel. Why is it the BC assessment doesn't look at that? There's

all kinds of, all kinds of people who tell us that their places only worth this much, but they are assessed on this much because B, C assessment says, look, the potential could be that. Why, why wouldn't someone be assessed on that already? Mr. McLean, you're asking Councillor someone to answer the question of the intention behind BC assessment, which is always a difficult question. Mr. McLean. And then perhaps director Thompson. Thank you, Mayor, for the caveat. Yeah. I will try to answer within the bounds of what I can, uh, without trying to speak too much for VC assessment. But, um, maybe one important thing to come back to is the viability gap that we're recognising. Um, for a hotel development. And so if, if BC assessment is seeing that as well through their analysis, um, then it may not actually be the best use if it's not viable. Um, and so that's something that we're hoping we can change through the revitalization tax exemption to spur

that for the purpose of economic revitalization. Um, in Victoria. But, um, I recognise I'm bordering on speculation here, imagining the, the analysis that BC assessments doing, but that may be one factor why on a certain site, they might not conclude that, uh, is the viable use for the site. And that spurs one more question, Mayor. Then so this, we give the tax exemption for the 10, let's say 10 years on this property. Why is it that that property next door. Isn't also going to be assessed at the same value. And therefore, their taxes go up. I think again, you're asking questions about the intent behind the policies at BC assessment, which is a bit of a stretch for us. Well, Mayor, actually, because we, we are talking about giving a break. And I'm, you know, I'm fine with entertaining that, moving a break to a certain industry. Um, so much of it, so all of this is coming down to, for us, is that we

are entering to giving tax holidays for people, which is fine. We do it for good reasons. But the reason I'm asking this is because that's going to increase the value of the land. And therefore, the person next door might not be that thrilled. So I think we should just go into this with our eyes open, even though we are not BC assessment. You're not venturing into commentary. No, but I'm saying, wouldn't this director Thompson now for an answer? Because I think she has something to offer. Director Thompson, I believe that you've had a conversation you'd like to share. Through the mayor, I guess what I will say is that for BC assessment, they, um, in many cases, they can generalize when it comes to residential properties. So if residential properties are selling at higher values because for various reasons, then that might trigger those, um, similar increases to assess values of residential properties. I do believe or I do know that PC assessment uses different

methodologies when they assess commercial properties. And so what we have seen with Heritage, um, uh, revitalization exemptions, for example, is what we're modelling here because that is, uh, where, uh, individual properties are assessed differently depending on what's happening on those individual commercial properties. So again, it is, it really is a question for BC assessment, um, but they do have different methodologies when it comes to commercial versus residential properties. Councillor Hillman. Anything else? Thank you. That's a girdner. You had a follow - up question. Yes. Yes. Thank you. I now have two. With this diagram, this assumes 10 years. How long do you think that hotel is going to take to be built. Mr. McLean? Yeah.

Through the mayor, thanks. Um, I think we kind of use some rules of thumb and generalization of, uh, maybe 24 to 30 months. So just over two years as a kind of a common construction timeline for a larger building downtown. So why wouldn't you give it to your exemption. Maybe if I can, uh, with respect to the residential tax exemption, sort of best practices around that. We've been looking at other municipalities who've done that for specifically for hotels. And they typically start once in occupancy permit has been completed. So the tax exemption is not during construction or while it were reviewing applications once it's actually open to the public and operating. So it provides a bit of an incentive to move the hotel along the construction. Councillor. Pardon? No, I'm sorry. I miss that. Could you explain that again? Why wouldn't we give it to a time of occupancy, which is what you do with buildings rather than 10 years. I don't mean best practice

yet. So the tax exemption would commence at the time that the occupancy permit is received. Yes. At the time that it commences would continue starting at that point for 10 years. So there's an incentive to get it built ASAP. The exemptions for 10 years after completion. Correct. Correct. Unoccupancy. Pardon? Unccupancy. Yes. After occupancy. Correct. Oh. Okay. Second question. Uh, just to confirm to make sure I heard it right since now I understand this better. Any new builder significant change to an existing heritage in Old Town must go to Calick and come to Council. Is that correct? Director Hudson? Yes. Uh, through the mayor, if it's a rezoning application. Yes. Rezoning applications would be, um, in Old Town would be, would go to the heritage advisory panel and circulate it to the community association for comment.

And any adding a story to an existing heritage house would require a rezoning. Not necessarily if the heritage building that's below what the allowable density below three. If it's below three and they're proposing a rooftop edition and they're still within the three to one floor space ratio, they wouldn't, it wouldn't trigger a rezoning application from a density perspective. So it's all very case by case. Hey, thank you. Very good. Any other questions Councillor, can you have another question? I do. Yeah. Okay. Um, question on language that has come up in the report and in the presentation time and time again. When recommendations are going to be provided, uh, if an application sits outside of the proposed policies, um, reports are going to quote provide, um, consideration of, sorry, where new hotel development positively contributes to the heritage conservation area. How are you defining positive contribution.

Mr. McLean. Thank you through the mayor. And I understand our heritage planner is on the line as well and maybe able to provide, um, uh, more detailed and qualified answer, um, but we would look to the objectives of the Heritage Conservation area that's established in the official community plan and, uh, the guidelines related to that Heritage Conservation area. And maybe I'll pause just in case our heritage monitor planner wants to add anything, excuse me. I believe that is Miseretsky. Hello. Please do chime in. Hello. Thank you. Hi, thank you through the mayor. I'm Laura Stratky heritage planner with community planning. And Mr. McClain has it exactly right. We would use the old town design guidelines as well as the standards and guidelines for conservation of historic places in Canada and any other relevant policies to determine if a proposal meets those heritage objectives. So a positive contribution is meeting heritage objectives. Yes, that is what they've said. Okay. Just being clear. And so, um, it

isn't necessarily economic revitalization. It's more so heritage objectives with the added benefits of hopefully meeting economic revitalization. Mr. McLean. Through the mayor, that's correct. Uh, what we're seeking is to achieve both in Old Town simultaneously. We all deserve gold stars for your patients with us. Thanks. That's it. Any other questions. That's a Coleman. Thank you. And through you to Director Thompson, I think. Much has been made of the BC assessment authority and highest and best use. Do you have any, uh, understanding of where appeal the appeal process to the assessment is, is it does it tend to be on residential properties or commercial properties based on highest and best use assessments? Mr. Thompson, do you have that information at hand. Um, through the mayor, we can look it up. I'm looking at, um, manager moncure.

She's doing that. Right now. I do think we have a combination of the two. Questions, Councillor Bomber. No, it's just, I conundrum for us. And I, my gut feeling is that we see more coming from the highest and best use based on commercial properties. And owners say, no, that's not what we're at. And that gets into the vagueness issue. Let's wait for that answer and I'll go to Councillor Gardner with a subsequent question. Yep. Thank you. I'm trying to get the street in my head. We're going to gain, not gain. The city will get from nice business activity about 15 million a year. Once the taxes come down to us, I understand that with X number of hotels being built, what is the 10 years of foregone taxes over. Those 10 years. Ryder Thompson, would you have any idea about that? Or Mr. McLean, go ahead. Uh, through the mayor. Thanks. Um, so earlier we discussed a hypothetical and so I'll call back to that

hypothetical of, um, you know, a scenario where they're that light group blue, uh, in this case, um, of incremental value increase is 66 million, uh, of value. And in that scenario, uh, over 10 years, the exempted portion of the taxes would accumulate to 8. 4 million. Per building or. So that would be in one, when scenario, uh, yeah, we have one building, one property under discussion. It'd be eight million dollars of foregone taxes. Okay. But the 15 million, when we looked at taxes, was that I thought that was overall. Or is that for how many hotels was that for one hotel. When he said that there was going to be, uh, 50 some million in taxes being paid, 18 were the federal government, 17 province, 15 to City. How many tales was that for. The mayor? Um, that was, uh, referenced by the destination greater Victoria Hotel Development Working Group report. And they were contemplating assuming 2000 new hotel rooms are built. So that many.

And so, but each hotel we could forego, did you say eight million per year. Or ten years? Go ahead. The latter over, over 10 years through the mere 10 years. So we're going to forego chan and eventually we're going to get 15 per year. We're going eight over 10 years for one hotel of a couple hundred units. So we're going to have 10 of them. So we're going to forego. 80 million. Mr. McClain, would you like to clarify that for us, please? Through the mayor, yes. Thank you. So the, I believe the figures in terms of tax revenue. I'm going to see if I can get back to this. There we go. Um, those are annual figures. And what we've been discussing is, is the accumulation of, um, exempted taxes over a period of 10 years. Um, so let me just see if I can clarify that. The 8. 4 that you quoted. Okay. I'd hear you, sorry. 8. 4 that you quoted is the

total lost in tax revenue. Over 10 years. These figures are annual figures. Is that correct? Through the mayor, that's correct. And maybe 8. 44 for a single hotel. And these are for all the hotels that are necessary for 27, 2000 brooms. Through the mayor, that's correct. Yeah. There you go. So Ms. Close, do you want to clarify more? I think I just like to further reiterate this is, um, that 8. 4 million dollar was a sort of a typical example. They won't all be that number exactly, first of all, um, and second of all, that's assuming that the hotel gets, could get built without the tax exemption in the first place, which of course we've framed the tax exemption program to help hotels get built.

Um, so it's not really foregone revenue in that sense. Gotcha. Council Garden or anything else? Yeah. I still don't have the answer to reality my question because we're talking in here about 10 hotels and we're talking the city's revenue. And so for 10 hotels. At, I'm just going to interrupt your Council Gardner because I think Mr. McClain has an ability to clarify for this. Can you clarify this for us, Mr. McClain? Through the mayor, thank you. I think I'm recognising where there's going, where, where you're going. And I think there's one, uh, other piece of information that might be helpful. Uh, in this hypothetical, maybe it's helpful to, to describe the hotel as containing 150 rooms. Um, and so we have the hotel, uh, working group, um, noting 2000 new rooms. We have the OCP referencing 1500 new hotel rooms. So for the sake of some quick, easy math, maybe we frame this in three quarters of that value as occurring within the City of

Victoria related to the 1500 hotel rooms. Um, which would, so if, if each hotel has 150 rooms, that would be 10 hotels to achieve the 1500 rooms that are objectives within, um, the official community plan. Uh, so, so bringing that back around, um, say we have 10 hotels and they all are exactly like this hypothetical scenario. We can just move the decimal place. Um, one and the 8. 4 over 10 years becomes 84 over 10 years across all 10 hotels. Um, and we could compare the 15. 8, I believe it was. And we can also move the decimal one point to, to get to 10 years. And we can compare 158 million, uh, to 84 million. Well done, Mr. McCarthy. Thank you. That's exactly what I was getting at was 80 million, but we get 150 million, but we get that 150 million even if they're paying the taxes. Through the mayor, maybe, sorry, can you clarify the question? Okay. Um, it's. Foregone taxes is

80 million, correct? Through the mayor correct. I would just reiterate that in this hypothetical, uh, they aren't necessarily foregone taxes because we wouldn't expect those taxes to happen without the RTE program. Right. Well, I would expect them that they're going to be able to hotel or not. So, I mean, it's 84 million in foregone taxes. And the idea is for some reason that when they're building the hope, not building the hotel occupying it. We're supposed to get 15 million dollars. In benefit for all of them per year, which is 150 million. But what we're really saying is we have to pay, we have to forego 80 million to get 150. Because you're saying the hotels wouldn't be built all without this exemption. In a way, that's correct. Through the mayor, yes. Yeah. Maybe a simple way to put it is we can imagine, um, the tax revenue that, uh, destination greater Victor Victoria is estimated here as being what we would realise once the exemption

is over. And once full taxation resumes of the hotels, um, that would be kind of the level of taxation and contribution we'd be expecting from this influx of new hotels. If Costco came in and wanted to build a big building, would we give them a tax break for five or 10 years because they're going to bring in an awful lot of income. No question about that. That is not relevant to the application that's before us. And I've got a war that you've used now. Thank you. Almost 11 minutes of your time. So, uh, but there is much more to come. Councillor Thompson. Do you have a question? I also have you on my list as wanting to second domain motion. Thanks, Mayor. Both of those.

Thanks. Yeah. Just wanted to, um, clarify because I'm now worried that after the last few minutes, there's going to be some misconceptions out there among the public. I just wanted to clarify with staff. If you could confirm, we are not losing or giving up any revenue that we're currently collecting. What we're talking about is. Not collecting additional revenues. Is that correct? Mr. McLean? Uh, through the mayor, that, that is correct. This is a program intended to spur economic activity that, uh, we're estimating wouldn't happen otherwise. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Any other questions. Not seeing any other questions. Councillor Lotten, I believe you wanted to move the staff recommendation. Yes, Mayor. Patrick Thompson, do you still wish to second it? Yes, please. Very good.

All right. Move to second. Did Councillor Lowton over to you? I'm going to start with a few comments and then I do have an amendment. So, um, I just, this has been, I think a little bit difficult to understand for the public and, uh, and council, I would suggest too. So I just want to zoom out here for a minute to just remind the public what's happening here. So this is from the staff report. There's a, there's a broader economic land planning process happening that's estimated to take about two years to complete. This process is going to come to Council for consideration to advance priority OCP actions. But in the meantime, there are more immediate land use and development solutions that can be implemented to complement some initiatives described in the report, which I'm going to go to in a second. Well, still ensuring a full term planning process informs the long - term solution.

So there is a big two - year economic land planning process happening. And within the report, there was certain initiatives. That are already happening. So one of them is the community safety and well - being plan. And within that, there are also things about citywide economic development, commercial viability in downtown vitality. There's the Ardown Town program. There's the Victoria storefront activation program. There's the feed on the street program. There's a good night out program. The festival projects grant. The industrial zoning modernization and also business license processing improvements. What this in front of us is doing today is adding four things to that list if I have this correct. And those four things are, it increased density to the CBD zones for non - residential, which has already been policy since 2011, adding three new uses, um, to the CBD zones and to the old town district. The RTE for new hotel development and permitting special events on private property. So it's like we're adding those

four things to these other initiatives that are already happening while the bigger planning process is underway. And I think what happened, um, and why we were getting a lot of, uh, pushback from the public is that, that old town was included in this, but it didn't, it wasn't in the title of the, of the actual report and people got, they're protective of old town. So it, it created a lot of confusion. So what I'm going to do, Mayor, is try an amendment. I've sent it over to ledge services. And what it is, is to strike out number four and replace it with the language provided.

Let's just wait a minute. Look at that's up there. So you want to delete everything after that? Yeah. It's just a complete replacement of number four. And we'll just give people time. All right. So we'll just go folks get a chance to read that before I look for a seconder. Mr. McLean, since you seem to be leading this discussion. Does this give you the detail that you had previously. One would assume require in the language that you had previously in this truck out sections. Is there anything missing here that would be problematic. Thank you Mayor. Um, no, this is quite clear. And does it change what has been struck out. I'm trying to make sure that you get the direction you need and that this doesn't materially change what you had intended to place before council. Thank you. Yeah. What I understand this would, would accomplish is, uh, that as part of the, um, longer planning process, uh, we anticipate bringing recommended approach to Council for later

this year. Um, we would roll this work into that process rather than, than proceeding in advance of that process to publish revisions to the downtown core area plan. So if I understood you correctly, it would have material impact because it would hold one piece into the larger later process, which is a PCU had intended for us to consider today. Correct. Thank you. I say thank you. Is there a secretary for that amendment. Councillor Codon is second in. Go ahead, Councillor Loughton on the amendment. Uh, thank you Mayor. And through you. So I'm just bringing this because members of the, of the public were, I would say shocked by some of the potential changes to the old town district. Although that has been clarified in this meeting today, I still think, um, because of this sort of emotional surge around this very special part of our city, like clear about that, um, I just want to give the public some certainty that will slow down on

this and give it a little bit more breathing room, which gives some time for these ideas to come back. Um, with the deeper work on the downtown core area plan and the heritage review or also as has been mentioned, the bigger plan that's coming to council, um, before the end of this year. So essentially all this does is removes old town from the equations and allows all of the other economic development work presented in this report to move on to the next step. I do want to note that though, that I do support the rehabilitation seismic upgrading and adaptive reuse of existing heritage buildings for hotels. Um, but based on the initial feedback from the public, I think it's prudent to slow down this part of the proposal quality change in old town until the Folsom work is completed. And it allows also allows some time for public comment. It just allows people to get used to this. That doesn't mean that applications can't come

forward. For hotels and old town. It's just going to have to go through the process that it always does, which would be applying for rezoning. So it's, it's just meant to bring some peace around this. And then let the rest of the work go forward. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Caradona is the secondary of the amendment on the amendment. Any dad? Oh, okay. Anybody else on the amendment. Councillor Thompson. On the amendment. On the amendment, thanks Mayor. Um, yeah, just a question for Staff. If this amendment proceeds and this gets rolled into the work in the fall, uh, and then it comes back to us, um. Would you anticipate that there will be any changes to the content of what is being suggested today. Mr.

McLean. Through the mayor. Thank you for the question. Um, it's, it very well could, uh, further evolve as we work through the two year process of community engagement and for the policy development. Um, it's hard to speculate on exactly what might change. Councillor Thompson. Okay. And okay. Thanks. And any idea of the timing for that, um, next stage. Uh, through the mayor of the immediate next stage would be to present a proposed approach to the overall process, uh, to Council later this year. And at that time we would anticipate, uh, presenting an anticipated timeline for the broader process. Right. Okay. And, uh, I guess that's after our August break, but, um, anything more precise than this year. Mr. McLean. Uh, through the mayor, no, we don't have any precise dates, but it's likely we would be bringing this to the next council. Yes. I really likely, yes. Councillor Thompson. Okay. No further questions. Thanks. Mr.

McLean, can you explain in simple terms the impact of this amendment on what you had proposed. Uh, this would delay providing further policy guidance to guide consideration of rezoning applications. And so if, if someone is proposing a hotel or otherwise, um, in Old Town, the existing policy framework and guidelines would, uh, guide the application review. Maybe the difference would be the level of emphasis that is placed on encouraging hotel development, uh, within old town. So I'm a little perplexed because earlier you had suggested that the existing policies around Old Town were sufficient to protect it. And yet this would suggest that that isn't as clear or perhaps a certain thank you for the clarification. And apologies if I misspoke. I would say that what doesn't change is the Heritage Conservation area, all of the framework of guidelines. Um, what does change, you know, if Council were to proceed, um, with the recommended motion and see some updates to the policies within the downtown Corps A

plan, um, we would have a little bit more policy guidance, emphasis on encouraging hotel development, um, and explicit direction that, that, uh, the city's able to consider densities above 3. 0 FSR as a framework for considering hotel development and otherwise. Director Hudson, did you want to add something? Um, through the mayor, all we were trying to do with these policy, um, editions was just to provide a little bit more encouragement and clarity for hotel proposals in Old Town. We can still consider any hotel proposals that come forward and we would still look at our existing policies, our OCP, the downtown core area plan, our design guidelines. So this was just trying to provide more specificity.

But, you know, we still in our OCP, we have policies to encourage hotels. And we'll see what comes along. And we can still consider things on a case - by - case basis. So, um, that was all we were trying to do here. It was just for clarity. Yeah. Okay. Any other comments or questions on the amendment? Yes. Hammond and then Gardner. Thanks, Mayor. And I actually appreciate the tone of the amender on this one. And I think it's completely legitimate. I did not find any misinformation. I found people had a very negative reaction to this because they were concerned about what was going on in Old Town. And this is a part of what makes Victoria different. And the other cities that are in the same boat, but is one of the, one of the areas, one of the things that makes us different.

And if that takes a little more time and explanation, and I don't mind saying that I was very worried from what I was reading and then what people sent. And then an email from our acting director from yesterday, I think it was really put my mind at ease and it allowed me to ask those questions, which you then answered, uh, right away. So I don't, I don't see any conspiracy. And I don't like the idea of, you know, making people think they're stupid because they were asking questions about this. So if this gives us a little more pause and a little more opportunity, I'm in favor of it. Thank you Councillor Gardner. Thank you. Like you mayor, I was perplexed too, thinking that it was covered, uh, with the previous discussion. So the response is actually from staff have reinforced me that this is a very good amendment. And I very much appreciate it because I think it is very much needed. This was thrown

on us with two short of a notice and to the public. Very little notice too. So I think I very much appreciate this amendment. Thank you. Anyone else on the amendment. How's your Kim? And yep, Councillor Kim. And Council Coleman. Um, thanks. My comment on the amendment is more so that, um, I think this is, uh, I see it as a response from council, not just to public feedback, but also to, um, frankly, the attitude that we seem to have instilled in staff ourselves, which is, let's go. Let's, let's, let's make it happen. And do you have done that? Thank you. Um, and it is our job to then be the tuning fork and listen to the public. And so, um, I appreciate my colleague for making this move and first to staff for their flexibility. Um, and I really want to emphasize that like, this is at no point in my opinion anything to do with, um, how staff have presented or anything. It's,

it's not, it's not a surprise because this is what we asked for. It's, it just wasn't enough time to digest what staff art. Of course, naturally going to be very familiar with, but which counsel as representatives of the general layperson still need to digest. So, um, I just want to put into context, uh, sort of where I think this conversation has landed. But I can support that, um, this amendment. Thanks. Thank you very much. Councillor Coleman. Thank you. On the amendment. Yes. On the amendment. Um, I support this amendment because I think it is a constraint, but I will point out to folks that, um, not that much different than the process we had before just to the next two blocks. In this term of council, we've had two applications, one of which the majority of council turned down. And one of which the majority of Council supported, um, that were slightly outside what was expected. So it's, it's not that much of a change.

I do think that we've, um, perhaps it's not dissimilar to our marine industrial where we created great. Angst in one of our neighbourhoods and said, no, I think you're misreading it, but we took James Bay off that. And I think we're doing the same thing here. I think that, uh, the concern for most of the public that we've heard is they love old town. They are concerned that impacts beyond their control may change the face of old town forever. Um, I think that this is a more cautious approach. And I appreciate it coming forward. I think there will be some other amendments as well. Thank you very much. Anyone else on this amendment. Let's take another comments. All those in favor of this amendment. Councillor Dell. Councillor Kim Councillor Cardinal Council Loughton myself Councillor Coleman, Councillor Hammond, Councillor Gardner. And Councillor Thompson. So that is unanimous. Uh, so that amendment is adopted and Councillor Loatny, you still have the floor. That's it for me, Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Thompson, you second did this now amended motion over to you. Councillor Johnson. You're muted. Thanks Mayor. Um, yeah, I wanted to thank staff once again for having, uh, brought this forward and having done this work. I think it's excellent at work. Um, I don't think that it was confusing actually, uh, in the staff report. I think what was confusing is that people were receiving a ton of information from a variety of sources other than the staff report. Uh, and it's pretty clear from the emails I received and the online discussion that I saw, uh, that people were, uh, misled by that information. And that does not mean that they're stupid contrary to, uh, what was suggested earlier. I think that, uh, we are all very aware that there is a ton of misinformation on social media right now. There's, if anybody's not aware of that, then I suggest you just Google it. Uh, and you'll find a lot of media stories about it. Again, it's not a reflection of the,

um, uh, intelligence of the people receiving it. It's just a reflection of the, uh, ubiquity of the stuff that's going around. Um, that being said, I think that, um, it is incumbent now that, that so much has been misunderstood about this that we clarify the actual facts. And what I heard from staff earlier was that that would be pretty easy to do. So I've sent a, uh, an amendment motion to legislative staff. And hopefully they can pull it up. I'm not, I'm not sure. Probably just a bullet point number seven. Let's just give Staff a moment to pull it up and then we can decide whether that's the appropriate place for it. We'll just take a second to read it, Darre. Need some word smithing.

Mr. Johnson, in just having a look at number seven as a potential amendment, uh, is it necessary for there to be a recitation of examples of different media or is it sufficient for it to simply say via multiple usual channels. Thanks for the question through the mayor. Yeah, it could be, it could be general and we can just use a sort of a regular channel. So that's for sure. Councillor Thompson, I don't know if you heard that, but the reason that I asked is because often when we begin to cite examples, we missed something. And so rather than limiting this to the one, two, three, four, five items that you've identified. If we simply said, um, via the city's usual multiple channels of communication and then left it to our staff. They would access all of those. Would that be sufficient for you? Yes. That sounds great. And I think we can also ditch. Okay.

So why are the cities usual. Media channels, Mr. Johnson media channels? Yes, I'm getting nods from that media channels. And then you could delete everything after the EG all the way down to the fact. There you go. Try that. Councillor Thompson can you see that. Yep. And it looks good. Yes. And I think you could also staff remove the first via. Uh, right after communicate. Uh, yes, that's true. Very good. Thank you for that. So if that's, uh, sufficient for you, I'll ask for a seconder. Council occurred on a second in. Go ahead, Councillor Thompson on your amendment. I think I motivated earlier, uh, for it, Mayor, when I was asking questions of staff. Thanks.

Thank you Councillor Caradona. The amendment, anything? Nope. Nothing on the amendment. Councillor Hammond on the amendment. I like making amendment. Yep. Go ahead. Um. I would just like to end it at zone and remove the rest of it. Okay. So the amendment to the amendment is to delete everything after district zone. And that leads at very general statement. Is there a second year for that? So Councillor Councillor Gardenry Second Age Councillor Hammond on your amendment to the amendment? Well, lucky for me, I don't spend a lot of time on social media and I don't worry about misinformation or misconceptions. I think that's getting very subjective.

The fact is that there were a lot of people who, um, quite, um, quite, um, I don't want to say innocently, but quite legitimately, we're concerned about something like this. We have already, um, address that thanks to the already, the mover of the amendment, uh, that was, was put in place so that we could make people feel better about this. I don't want to get subjective and I don't want people feeling bad that suddenly they're giving misinformation when, in fact, they were just very concerned about, um, what was going on. So let's, let's do the same thing that I that really woke me up, which was from our acting directors email. And then other questions that I asked here today. So let's just give the information without putting a lot of, um, subjectivity to it and a lot of, um, a lot of other sort of words in there. Thank you, Councillor Gardner on the amendment to the amendment. Thank you. Um, I too believe

this should be struck. I'm not a follower of social media. And frankly, I and a lot of other people, they only learned people misunderstood what was there because of the information gap in that paper. And that was really the problem. People were interpreting the words that were there. And there were a lot of words that weren't there that would have perhaps, you know, flex things along. For example, the cimatic we mentioned. So it's that paper have been a bit more forthcoming, uh, or broader. I don't think we would have had the controversy we've had. And I quite appreciate the previous amendment. And I will have a moment myself, mayor. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the amendment to the amendment, Councillor Thompson. I see your hand up. Thanks, Mary. Yeah. Um, both of my colleagues are active on social media. I will just point that out. Um, as far as the actual words proposed to be struck here, um, they refer back to no

height or density changes to more general eyes. The other, um, uh, if, you know, if we can't use words like misconception or misinformation, let's, let's call it something else. Uh, the other things that are not correct, uh, that we have received. There's a, there's a few things that staff spoke about today. It wasn't just height or density. And I think that staff should have the opportunity, uh, to present, uh, more broadly. Thank you. Will there is not room for an amendment to an amendment to an amendment. So we'll have to deal with this one first. And then we can see where we go. Council Cardona.

I saw your handy. We should speak to the amendment. Yeah. I'll just say that, um, I'm, I'm actually okay with this amendment to the amendment. But if it passes, I would then make one small additional amendment to sort of broaden what staff are able to speak to. Because right now it's solely to the question of heightened density. So I think that there's an opportunity to get at the intent here without using this particular language. Thank you for that. Anyone else on the amendment to the amendment. That's just dealing with the underlying and struck through language Councillor Coleman. Thank you. I support the amendment to the amendment. I will point out that this could be achieved if we just got rid of number two and didn't wave the requirement for a public hearing. Indeed. That is correct. And so anyone else on the amendment to the amendment. Seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment to the amendment. Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim. Councillor Coronic Councillor

Loughton myself, Councillor Coleman Councillor Herman County Councillor Gardner in opposition. Councillor Thompson. Noting one in opposition, that amendment to the amendment is CARE. So that language is being removed. That takes us back to the amendment. And Councillor Caridona, you had the floor on the amendment. Do I? Yes, you do. I'll just make one very minor amendment, which is to add the word including before the fact. Including, I see. Thus, second, seconded by Council Gardner. Councillor Courage, don't you think you'd like to say about it? No. Councillor Gardner, anything you like to say about it? No. Anybody else like to say anything about it. Not seeing any other commentary. All those in favor of adding the word including. And I'm going to pose. That is unanimous.

Thank you very much for that. Councillor Coderno, you still have the floor. I was going to make an amendment, but it's somewhat captured by what was just approved. So I will see the floor I've got no further comments. All right. Very good. Um, anyone else on the main motion. Council Gardner. Thank you. As mentioned, I had an amendment. Amen is to strike out recommendation too. Very good. Is there a second here for that? That's for Hammond. Go ahead, Councillor Gardner. I will just suggest to you, you have two minutes and 41 seconds left. Point of privilege. Did we not vote on seven. Makeup burden? Did we not vote on seven. Yes, I believe we did.

Did we not? We voted on the amendment to the amendment. So you may not the actual amendment. My apologies. Thanks for catching that Councillor Kim. It's a long day. Uh, on number seven then. Any final commentary? Go ahead, Council. Yeah. Um, it's because I had a question. What, what is a usual media channel. And is there a cost associated? Mr. Johnson, what would you describe as our usual media channels. And it costs there to them. Uh, through the mayor, uh, cost would be, um, minimal to nothing, uh, as you're aware, we have many social media channels, uh, like blue sky, Facebook, Instagram, that sort of thing. As well as, uh, we would make use of our website and our media relationships that we have as well. And make sure that we point people to, uh, you know, the source of truth. Is there precedent of the city doing a similar mode of communication. About something that has come up at Council and we're just trying

to like fill in that information gap. Mr. Judson, do something we would do regularly. Through the mayor, it's not typical for us to do, um, things like that before the ratify. That's for sure. Uh, this would be a step out of what would be a normal process. And in your professional estimation, because this is my concern. And so I look to you for your professional thoughts. Um, is there a risk that this may actually serve to inflame tensions more. Mr. Johnson. Through the mayor, uh, no, I don't perceive that as a risk. Um, and this is usually in preparations for, um, for things like this to be ratified. And we're already working on, you know, QA documents and that sort of thing and running through every possible question that the public may have. Once something is ratified, so although this is a step out of process, I don't see it as a, as a risk.

Director Hudson, one question just on something that was flagged by that commentary. Is there any, um, concern raised by this amendment to the process itself. Of the larger proposal around its land use application. Planning application, policy application. With this type of communication at this time. Be problematic. I heard a reference to the possibility of it being done once this is all ratified, which would be actually next week, uh, because of the way that we're schedules are running. Is that a concern at all. If it's not, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that Staff had an opportunity to consider that. Through the mayor. No, I don't think this, um, affects the process and we can deal with this. I want to make sure. All right. Any other comments on the amendment. Seeing none, all those in favor. Anybody opposed. That's unanimous. Thank you very much for that. Councillor Gardner, back to you.

Oh yes, Councillor Gardner, you have an additional amendment. It's just a strike number two. Is that all? Yeah. I did that so much time do I have left? Do I have two minutes and 41 seconds? Okay. Yeah. Strike number two. You just want to strike number two. So hang on. Staff could you take the bold off of number seven, please? And then, uh, proposal has enough further amendment is to strike number two. I suspect, as I heard earlier that should this indeed be struck that there are a number of other aspects of this that would need to be struck as well or amended to accommodate that reality. So my question to staff is do you want to highlight those now or wait until we determine whether or not this is approved by council? Dr. Dawson.

Uh, through, through you mayor. Um, so if the intention, it looks like it would be to have a public hearing. Then if, uh, if this amendment passes, then we would suggest replacing it with some, um, some other wording. So I guess that could be included now as part of the amendment just to sort of set the stage for a public hearing. Yeah. When did you propose that so we get it right? Sure. So I think, um, it would be striking out number two and replacing it with a new number two, um, which is sort of a standard language that we have in our reports when we are having a public hearing. So that would be that, uh, that pursuant two section 30 of the land use procedures bylaw.

Um, comma, Council requires the holding of a public hearing. And then there would be an amendment to number three. And what would that be? Um. So it would be striking out after publication of notification in accordance with Section 467 of the local government act. And so then we have the first second readings. Version. And then striking out third and final reading. Right. Um, so we want to say that first, the first and second readings of the zoning bylaw amendment be considered by Council and a public hearing date beset. Right. Okay. First. So it might be easier just to strike it all out or add that bit. Yeah. That first, that, so it would be that first and second. Right.

Reading a little bit. Very good. Is that sufficient? Yes. All right. Yes. Thank you. All right. So we're just going to consider that as part of the original amendment because we want to make sure that it's accurate and give staff the appropriate direction. And so with that, I believe Councillor, you seconded that, did you not? Yes, very good. Councillor Gardner, go ahead on your amendment. Thank you. Many people who review this proposal had a difficult understanding than what we heard today. There were information gaps in the document, uh, that made it unclear for people. I appreciate that the amendment provides a pause for old town.

But we actually haven't had much discussion on any other three aspects of the recommendation package either. And I think that we need to reassurance and the public needs reassurance. Bylaw detail is needed by the public before we approve it. So I very much believe that a public hearing is needed. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Hammond is the secondary. Thanks Mayor. Can I ask, and I know I'd ask the acting director about this before. Does that change anything? Let's say this were to go ahead to have a public hearing. Does that change anything about what would be preparing for the revitalization tax exemption program bylaw. Director Johnston. Uh, through the mayor. So this would be specifically, um, directing to have a public hearing before council's consideration of the zoning amendments. The other aspects of this, uh, recommendation. So the revitalized action revitalization tax exemption program bylaw.

That wouldn't be subject to the public hearing. So, um, the way this is currently structured, I would, I think we would be proceeding with those other aspects of the recommendation. And at the same time, scheduling the public hearing for the proposed zoning amendments. If council's intention is something else, then we may need some further. Changes to the recommendation. Thank you. Well, we'll see how far this goes. Um, on that, I really do, this was a great example for me of where people were saying, where's the rush? And there was a lot of things that I learned in the process. And the clearly many people, and my guess is people, um, here in the gallery, who had a different position, not positioned in different understanding as I did. And so I think for something as important as this, I think, um, as a matter of fact, it's a good thing, not just not a bad thing to not home, but it's a good thing to hold

it. I don't mind saying that somewhere in the process, we might, just might, even if it's not delayed about the tax exemption program is that we might hear from others, uh, about this. And just because I think it's very easy for someone like me to go, okay, you know, I ask the questions and I've come to the conclusion that I'm okay with that, with this. You know, you give up something in order to get it. But I know there are going to be other people who are going to at least bring things to my eyes and ears about saying why them and not us. And we can still at the end of the day say, sorry, there's this greater public policy which goes here and not for you. Or it might give us pause. I'm on the tourism board. I know that it's very important about the, um, you know, from destination greater Victor Victoria's perspective. But again, I don't, I don't think it would

be harmful of in the public hearing. We might also hear things about the tax exemption, even though that will be carrying on. Thank you. Thank you. On the amendment. Anyone else. Councillor Cardona. Yeah. Uh, through you to staff, why was it that in the, uh, in the original staff recommendation of public hearing was not recommended. Mr Klean. Through the mayor. It's, it's just kind of a standard city, uh, procedure, um, zoning changes that are in accordance with or aligned with city policy that public hearing is not required. And. Through the mayor, just to add to that. So, uh, when it proposed zoning amendment is considered consistent with the official community plan than a public hearing is not required. Um, and that has been our sort of standard practice for some time now to, um, to draft our recommendations in that way for zoning amendments that are consistent with the OCP. We recommend waving it, but it is an option for council to have a public

hearing in this case. Okay. Um, given that I think I'm going to oppose this amendment because this does align with the OCP. I mean, there was certainly considerable confusion coming into today. I think on a part of a number of us and the public. But I think that that confusion has been sorted out through this conversation through the number seven that was added in which an FAQ will go out and through this conversation that I assume will be reported on by the media today and tomorrow. I think that coming into this, a lot of people thought that this had to do with heights and density in Old Town, but we've now confirmed that it does not. If it did, I definitely think that there should be a public hearing, but that is actually not material to our decision. What this is essentially about is pluralizing the mixed use nature of the central business district and also proposing an RTE for hotels. And I think that

that could reasonably be advanced without a public hearing. Noting that just a week or two ago, we approved another RTE expanding a pilot program for detrofits of buildings around decarbonization. And we didn't even have a conversation about a public hearing there. So why would that RTE go ahead without a public hearing and all of a sudden this one needs one? Yes. There was some ferment around Old Town, but the old town elements of this have actually been delayed. And also going back to my previous statement, the question of heightened density is actually not on the table here at all. So given that that has been clarified, I don't see the rationale for a public hearing on this decision. Thank you. Anybody else on the amendments?

Councillor Coleman. Thank you. I actually do support this. I think that, yes, we have waived. We've, we've become used to the changing legislation that the province has put upon us where we've done away with many public hearings. It used to be, we had public hearings on everything. And that slowed the system down at ground the system down. And we have now, our very few public hearings, um, this is a slightly larger issue than some of the other, uh, ones that could have come before us and we waived. I think that this is large enough that the notion of having a public hearing will slow the process down and we need to be aware of that.

But it will also, uh, re - engage the public in something that they are passionately, uh, attached to. There have been lots of, uh, concerns expressed to us. Some of them passionate, but not based in reality. Some others closer to what could happen. And I have used this in the past, but I remember Councillor Young many years ago protecting an aspect of downtown because it hadn't been in a public hearing. It was Waddington Alley. And it was going to be repaved. And in order to do that, they wanted to take out all the old wooden blocks. The heritage wooden blocks in the street. Councillor Young, bless them, was the acting mayor. Everybody else was away.

And he went in and stopped the crew. Said, no, you can't do that. This is this, this is that important at the time. Um, he was right. And we did get lots of emails about this process and one that particularly struck me described the downtown core particularly as something that has been curated in a craftsperson manner over the last 50 years. And sometimes when we wave public hearings, the opportunity for the public to weigh in and learn, which goes to number seven that's here, we lose the opportunity to protect some things that are critical to the ongoing, uh. Notion of what makes Victoria very special.

I also point out that if many people use other jurisdictions as. A crucible to look at and Paris is brought up quite often. And if you go to the second or third floor of the Tour Efel and you look at most of downtown Paris, it's six to eight stories. If you look to the Southwest, you get to La Defence, which is, uh, 50 to 60 stories. It's 280 metres, I think in great height, because they've moved the density away from the downtown core. But we're talking about in a microcosm here in Victoria is exactly that. But some of the height that will, we will see in the CBD. Will potentially have an impact on Old Town. And that's what I think the public want to come and learn more about. And I think that that's, this is a large enough issue that I think a public hearing is warranted. So I will support this. Thank you very much. Anybody else on ES amendment? Councillor LoU.

Thanks to you, Mayor. Um, I appreciate this amendment coming forward. And, um, I too, if old town was part of this, I would support it. But I also just want to reiterate something in the report and that there is a window of opportunity here for hotel development that was highlighted by the hotel development report. And this is to sort of kickstart that. And I believe that we need that downtown right now. And the report says that the viability of this work happening, but this development work happening around hotels still needs assistance. So, um, having a public hearing will slow this down. And I don't think that's the right move for downtown right now. I think we need to have more people downtown, particularly with the office spaces from the public employees that are open. There's, there's, there's a lot of work that needs to be done and to get creative about what's going to happen with those spaces. But in the meantime encouraging hotel development

seems like really low hanging fruit where we can just bring more people downtown. And I think our downtown businesses and the economic vitality of our downtown is actually starving for that right now. So, um, unfortunately I will have to vote against this amendment. Although I do understand the place where it's coming from. And again, if old town was part of this, I would support. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone else on the amendment. Council Del. Yeah. I think that we have, I've reviewed my emails. I mean, essentially we did not receive any feedback whatsoever about one, uh, five and six. There was general consensus on that. It was number four, the old town piece. And what we've done is added a motion to strip that out of here and not address that. So, um, a public hearing at this point based on what we've received, um, is not of interest to the public until we actually get around to redoing those policies. So, um, I don't think

this is necessary. I think it creates a risk that folks will come out to go, uh, don't rezone old time when we just found out today that's actually not happening. But that, that's been the big misconception. So it might actually create an incentive to that. So I'm going to oppose the amendment motion. Thank you. Anybody else on the amendment. A question. Mr. McLean. I believe earlier someone asked a public hearing would be held to consider only the zoning bylaw amendment. Correct. Yes. That's correct. Does that mean then that while we were waiting for the public hearing to occur whenever that might be that the work identified in number one, number four, number five, number six and number seven would all take place? Or does any of that have to wait for the public hearing. Thanks for the question, Mayor. So, uh, motion one really, it's to the zoning changes. And that would be, uh, directly related to preparing for the public hearing. Motions four. Just

making sure I'm referring to the right things here. Motion four relates to the policy changes to decap, which, um, are related to upcoming planning work. Five, the revitalization tax exemption program work can proceed independent of the public hearing process. And, uh, as with the permitting special events on private property. So in fact, five and six could proceed if this is adopted even with this amendment. Is that correct? That is correct. As seven as well. Sorry. Five, six, seven. It's all work that could be done any, anyway. Thank you for that clarification. Um, earlier today, I was actually prepared to move this very same amendment because I do feel that the totality of what was there warranted a public hearing. Now I confess I'm much less inclined. And that is only because of the work that my colleagues did with number four in particular. Because I do believe that what was previously at number four was in fact the source of quite a bit of concern,

as has been expressed to Council and staff with the clarification that number four has brought and the delay that that brings to that work. I'm less inclined to see the utility of a public hearing. However, I think in this case given what I consider to be the delay of the work that was originally described in the first version of number four. That has taken care of that issue. And so five, six, and seven can now proceed regardless of this amendment, as I understand it. And those three pieces are in fact the pieces I believe are critical to ensure that there is a message delivered that we are welcoming now, the consideration of hotel development throughout the city. Therefore, I don't see the harm in setting a public hearing. I will say one thing to my colleagues and my apologies for being so blunt. I have sought on a council that delayed an important decision until the last week of a term. And lived to regret

it. And let me tell you that that set this council on a very difficult start to its term. An unnecessary start to its term. And so if you are going to support this amendment, which I will, I want you to think that we are going to deal with this on October the 8th. One week before the election. Because to delay it beyond that is to delay our responsibility and hand it to the next council. If you are willing to do that. Then hold the public hearing. And I am. The other comments on the amendment. All right. On the amendment. All those in favor. Myself, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Hammond, Councillor Gardner, and opposition. Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim, Councillor Caradona, Councillor Loughton. And I believe Councillor Thompson. Amendment fails. Councillor Gardner, you still have the floor and you have just under two minutes. Are there any more amendments first. I'm not aware of other amendments coming.

Thank you. Thank you for the report staff. Clerically was needed and welcome. So thank you for that. And it was a great amendment creating a pause for Old Town. However, more detail with schematics is needed before approval of bylaws. Regarding the forgiveness of taxes for the hotel industry, I cannot support the tax exemption of a private sector industry for 10 years as proposed in recommendation five. I do not accept that the hotel industry will not build another hotel within a without a 10 year tax exemption. The City has an existing jet load of 59, 000 million and significant higher debt will be ahead of us with the pool. I also cannot support this motion without a public hearing. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the main motion as amended. Uh, how Council Hammond, go ahead. Thanks. Um, I was wondering what I would do if we didn't get the public hearing. And I'm still willing to support this. I've, I've been clear about supporting

the Councillor's amendment to have a public hearing that didn't go forward. I'll be able to explain that to people. Um, on the issue of the tax exemption, I, you know, there's this whole issue of picking winners and losers. And I'm willing to go along with it. Um, but I'm also willing to hear from people. And I will be opening open to changing my mind. Um, on another vote on this. But that being said, we know we want more tells. We know it's on the lift and not on the money that is not there. I also understand when my colleague is saying, Hey, why are they putting the money there forward already? We'll see what happens with this. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else. Councillor Coleman.

Can you sever the, uh, separate the different parts. I just would like to call out number two particular. So usually I would be happy to do that, but I am going to suggest in this case that it is not appropriate because I read these particular clauses as being very intertwined and interdependent. So unfortunately, while I would love to be able to do that on your behalf, I really believe it would be materially unwise. Thank you. That's why I asked it as a question. Thank you. Anyone else. All right. So let's see any other questions or comments. All those in favor of the motion as amended, Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim Council Cardinalette, Councillor Loton, myself, Councillor Hammond in opposition. I'm sorry. End Councillor Thompson. And opposition, Councillor Coleman and Councillor Gardner. And noting two in opposition, that motion as amended is adopted. Thank you for your very much for that council, a very fruitful and thorough discussion. That takes us on to our one remaining item

of new business, which was item H1. The Council Member Motion with regard to the enforcement against derelict buildings, neglective properties and vacant commercial spaces. And stuff, I'm sorry, I didn't take the time because I'm looking at the time. Thank you so much for your work. We understand how much went into that. And good luck and thank you. That item H1 was placed on the consent agenda earlier today. And so it was considered at that time when we'll return to a future council meeting for final consideration. We have no requirement for a closed meeting at committee today. And so I would look for a motion to adjourn. Thank you Councillor Coleman, seconded by Councillor Kim. All those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Before you all run away, I'm going to suggest to you that we do have a very brief daytime council meeting, uh, the bulk, if not all of which is proposed for the consent agenda. If that stands, we can deal with

this quickly. I do think we need to rise at five o'clock. There is one item in clothes that requires attention today. And so I would suggest that we leave staff only the amount of time they need to convert us into the daytime council meeting. And that we address the CAACAT agenda expeditiously and see what we can do. I would prefer not to return later this evening to conclude any items from the daytime a Council. So I would urge us to be efficient, expedient and a little bit generous with our time. So staff, tell us when you're ready to go for daytime council.