Transcript: Committee of the Whole - 2026/06/18

Good morning everyone, excuse me and welcome to the June 18th Committee of the Whole Meeting of Victoria City Council. Councillors Dell and Thompson are joining us online today and Councillor Cardona is unavailable. Today we have considered before consideration two sets of minutes, one land use matter and one staff report. Excuse me. But of course before we begin we always like to take a moment to ground ourselves and our considerations in an acknowledgement of respect and understanding of the generosity and commitment of the two nations on whose territories our city sits in its entirety. The Songhees Nation and the Kosoppsum Nation. Billa Kungan people have for generations taken care of these lands and the waters that surround them and done so with the idea that they are acknowledging and honouring those who came before them, but also dealing with the issues of the day while thinking ahead as many as seven generations to determine what actions need to be taken to ensure that all those generations

through all that time have the ability to live as well as they are able. I think this is a great example for us to consider as to how we make our own decisions looking at the past, but considering the challenges of the current day, but also looking ahead for those folks who are coming later, so many generations away from us. We acknowledge always the remarkable opportunities that we have to join with the nations and work together. And on the opportunities that we have just to get together, which we did earlier actually this week, when we enjoyed a joint meal with most nations and their councils and their staff, as it was with our council and staff, and what a remarkable evening indeed it was to be able to learn a bit more about one another as people. We always want to say thank you and to honour their work and to pay respect to their continuing generosity and working with us. And in so doing,

we offer a simple thank you to them in their language, and that is to say, Hexkasivniquilia. His cassiam d'agility. I do not have any remarks, particularly to add today, so we'll go right on to the rest of our gender, and that is Introduction Late Item. It's none of which I'm aware need to be added today. So we'll go first then to item D, and that is looking for a motion to approve the published agenda. Thanks, Councillor Gardner. Second by Councillor Coleman. Any discussion on the published agenda. Not seeing any. I will note for folks who are watching that I will glance more often at my iPad so that I could make sure that our councillors who are online have an opportunity to participate as they desire. But I've seen no discussion on the agenda as published, so all those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you folks online for indicating. We do have a number of things to propose for the consent agenda.

Actually, just the minutes. So item F1, the minutes from the Committee of the Whole meeting held on May the 7th, and F2, the minutes from the Committee with Whole Meeting held on May the 14th. Would anyone like to remove either of those items or add anything to the agenda. Seeing any indication of Councillor Gardner, did you want to add something? No? Oh, okay. You want to move the Concentrygender. Thank you Councillor Gardas moving the consent agenda, Seconder Councillor Coleman, all those in favor. Anybody opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you for that. And that would move us on usually to item F. This would be consideration of the minutes, but of course we just put both of those on the consent agenda, both items F1 and F2. Those will return to us at a future daytime council meeting for final consideration. With that then, we move on to our one land use matter today. This is item G1. This is a development permit with variances application

for 2839 and 2845. Cedar Hill Road. I believe we do have a presentation from staff. So we'll let our staff get settled. And when you're ready, you can introduce yourselves to the public. And again, your presentation.

Alright. Good morning, Mayor Alto and members of Council. My name is Kasha Yanata Bysofska. Planner with Development Services. For short, you may call me Miss J. B. Today I will be presenting on a development application for 2839 and 2845 Cedar Hale Road. The proposal is to consolidate two lots into one and construct 12 new Strada townhouse units within three separate buildings. The properties are located in the Oakland's neighbourhood on Cedar Hill Road between Edgeware Road and the West Hall Connector Pathway. The area is characterized by a mix of single family and two - family dwellings. Small - scale apartment buildings. And neighbourhood commercial uses. Each subject property currently contains a single - family dwelling, an accessory structure, as you can see on the images on the slide. As well, here are some photos of the neighbouring properties and the existing condition of the West Hall Connector Pathway. Fronting Cedar Hill Road. For better context. Before discussing the proposal in detail, I'll briefly explain why it's

before Council today. On October 2nd, 2025, Council adopted the 10 - year OCP update, the property is now zoned GRD1 under which the proposal meets the use and density requirements. As a result, the originally submitted rezoning application is no longer required. A development permit is still needed. And in accordance with our land use procedures bylaw, would be delegated to staff for approval if consistent with the guidelines. However, in its current form, the proposal does not align with the design guidelines. Today's focus is on the proposal's response to the development permit area objectives, design guidelines, and requested variances. The subject properties are designated as residential fabric in the OCP, which envisions low rise and ground - orientated residential infill with all forms providing adequate open space, generally located at the rear of lots. Although the proposed townhouse form is consistent with the envisioned residential typology and scale of development, it is not consistent with the broader envisioned pattern of development for the city, particularly the perimeter block form of development. This illustration reflects a

key objective of development permit area one. Reinforcing the perimeter block urban form. In Victoria, this pattern places buildings near the front property line with landscaped rear yard areas and supporting pedestrian - friendly streets. Zoning regulations and design guidelines aimed to maintain this form as density increases throughout the city. Overall, the proposal as currently designed does not align with this key of. Here is the proposed site plan. The proposal includes 12 side - by - side, three - story strata units across three buildings. Along with 13 parking stalls accessed via an internal drive aisle. The design guidelines call for front to back building orientation with primary facades and patios facing the street. With generous rear - yard areas for townhouse configurations. Building block one meets this with entrances along cedar hillroad. Building block three has rear access from the West Hall connector pathway, but buildings two and three primarily rely on the internal driveway, which doesn't align with the guidelines. Building block two located in the

rear, presents the greatest concern. It's citing, massing, and inward - facing units do not meet the OCP perimeter block objectives. Should Council decide to advance the proposal, multiple variances would be required. Which are increasing lock coverage, decreasing the landscaped area. Reducing the front flanking side and rear yard setbacks. And reducing short - term bike parking. The zoning bylaw setbacks were established to support the design guideline objectives, including providing contiguous central green space and adequate common amenity areas. Reducing the step back's undermines these goals by limiting the depth and continuity of the shared interior space and reducing the ability to have a well - defined central green space. Combined with increased lot coverage and a reduction to the contiguous landscape area. These variances are not supported by staff. Here are the floor plans for the development.

Building block one consists of four three - bedroom units. Housing mix is guided by the zoning bylaw 2018, the rezoning and development policy and advisory design guidelines for family - friendly homes. The proposal exceeds the requirements with all 12 units provided as three bedroom surpassing the 30 percent minimum requirement. Building blocks two and three consist of four three bedroom units per building. To support the front - to - back perimeter block urban form, zoning regulations permits of reduced side - yard setback for non - primary building facades. In this case, the floor plans for building blocks two and three have been designed with the primary living and dining room windows of the main floor - orientated towards the front and side yard. Which triggers the requirement for larger setbacks. Turning now to the elevations, you can see how the buildings present to the street frontages and the interior of the site. All three buildings use consistent materials, including blue and green fibre cement lap siding,

white cement, shingle siding, grey roof shingles, and black balcony and patio railings. The design guidelines encourage design of building facades to support pedestrian activity and eyes on the street by integrating and orientating entryways, windows, patios and balconies to overlook sidewalks, walkways, parks, and other open outdoor spaces. The guidelines encourage ground floor units to have individual entrances orientated towards and directly connected to public sidewalks or open spaces. In building block two, however, the front doors face the internal drive aisle with no direct connection to cedar - hill road or the West Hall Connector Pathway. Building block three provides secondary access to the West Hall connector pathway. However, primary entrances face the internal drive aisle, which conflicts with the design guidelines. Staff find that locating the front door entrances within the drive aisles is not consistent with the guidelines, which prioritizes direct connection to public streets and open spaces. The rendering shown here were submitted as part of the applicant's presentation to the advisory design panel while the proposal was subject to a rezoning application. These

renderings depict a small open space between building block one and two. Consisting of a lawn, planted area with two, gary oak replacement trees, and an area for seating in play. However, the space is limited and overly hardscaped. Increasing the contiguous landscaped area, would create a more meaningful amenity space and better align with the guidelines. This slide presents the street elevations emphasizing the public - facing buildings and their relationship to the streetscapes and underscoring the role of street - facing units and reinforcing active frontages and supporting a lively streetscape. 23 trees currently exist on - site. Of these 14 trees are Bylaw protected on the subject lots and require removal as they are within the buildable area or near where excavation will occur. The landscape plan shows the proposal to plant 17 new trees and the applicant is requesting cash and lieu for the remaining six trees that cannot be accommodated on site. The guideline support urban forest growth heat reduction and on - site stormwater

management. Although the proposal meets the minimum tree requirements, expanding the contiguous landscape area, would enable more tree planting. In conclusion. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives and design guidelines of development permit area one general urban design, as it does not provide an adequate, usable outdoor amenity space, or preserve rear yard areas to support a healthy urban forest in accordance with the perimeter block urban form. Furthermore, the orientation and design of building block two at the rear of the site is inconsistent with this development form, limiting its ability to contribute meaningfully to landscaped amenity spaces and overall psychoon. The requested variances to lock coverage, single landscaped area, and building setbacks are not supportable. As the overall scale is excessive for the site. It should also be noted that although the design includes an infiltration chamber system to manage water runoff, it does not fully incorporate key, Valcry Creek blueprint principles, such as minimizing building footprints and site impervious areas, conserving green space, and the co

- benefits that come from naturalized areas. The applicant has stated that they are unwilling to make further revisions to the site layout to address the outstanding inconsistencies with the design guidelines. Therefore, the staff recommendation is to decline the application. However, should Council wish to advance the proposal to alternative motions have been provided to advance the application subject to satisfying key design guidelines and applicable zoning regulations, or to advance the application as currently designed. Thank you, and we welcome any questions. Thank you very much. As noted, we'll go first to questions before we consider any of the three options. Questions for anyone. Councillor Gardner. Thank you, and thank you, Ms. J. B. for the presentation. Just a couple of quick questions, and I realise this proposal, the development was caught between the OCP and the OCP 2050. Now there seems to be contradictory statements within the reports about the future of the pedestrian pathway. And are there to be lights and has a design been approved

upon. Or will there not be lights. J. Through the mayor, I would actually like to request our transportation staff to assist with answering that question, please. I think this is Mr. Paul. Thank you for the question through the mayor. We do have our planners on the call right now that are able to take that question. And which one would that be. Miss Crowder will be joining the call. There you go. Well. Thank you, Ron McCowder Transportation Planner for this file. I can confirm through the mayor that Lighting Policy and an assessment, um, for future lighting along this pathway is confirmed. It is with sort. Okay. And so that's settled.

Thank you. To confirm, looking at the table that was given to as the data table. The density salt is considerably lower than the current zone permits, is that correct? Through the mayor, yes, that is correct. Yes. And while the scale is considered, you've just said too much for the sight. The height is also one metre below the ceiling that is permitted, is that correct? Should be. Yes, that is correct. The height permitted is 12 metres and the tallest building stance at 10. 95 metres, which is building block two. Thank you. I walked it yesterday and I appreciate the drawing showing the elevation difference. That's all for my questions right now, Mayor. I may have more later. Very good. Councillor Louis? Yes, good morning. And through you, Mayor. I just, I just have a quick question about, um, the hardscaped and the issues around Stormwater runoff.

I'm wondering if there is any kind of way to mitigate that using permeable pavers or some kind of permeable aspect to the hardscape. Or is it all asphalt. Through the mayor, my understanding is that currently the proposal has a mix of both some permeable pavers. However, the driveway is proposed to be asphalt, but it does have that infiltration chamber system below. However, I believe that still, it is hardscaped. And so, um, like we have said, it hasn't met some of the intents of the Balker Creek blueprint. So we would be hoping to see more stormwater management principles in the design. Okay. So, so it's, it's, and it's also more about the green space than it is about, um, stormwater runoff. I guess what my question is, is there a way to improve that using more permeable pavers? Or is that all been explored. Ms. Jb.

Through the mayor, Charlotte Wayne, manager of neighbourhood development planning. I think just Artemis, geno to Bizzowska's comments, as noted in the staff report, the proposal is technically meeting the Stormwater objectives through the infiltration tank. But it is best practice, um, to increase green space and reduce the amount of hardscape, um, just to reduce the flows throughout the site. Okay. Yeah. Thank you for that. So it's really about the, about the green space. Okay, that's it for me, Mayor. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions? Let me just check online. Let's see any questions online. Oh, Councillor Hammond, go ahead. Thanks, Mayor. Could you please say your last name again? Through the mayor, my last name is Yanata Bzofska. One more time. Uh, Yanata. Bhazowska.

Baza. Okay. I always like the idea of at least trying people's names. Just because I have such an easy English names. Okay. Cause you're a woman. Ah, okay. Thank you. So when I was looking, um, this over, at first I thought, wow, that's a lot. And, and then I was surprised there was no blowback, um, within the community. But if you look at the heights, it's okay. So when you talked about the alternate, first you said that the applicant was not willing to go any further. And yet you said there's two alternates. And is it option two where you indicate the changes that you want to make or is that really just approve as proposed.

Through the mayor. So option two for your review and consideration only lists technical changes to be made to the plans. Okay. Um, it does not list a comprehensive list of what staff would want to see. That is meant to be for option one if you would like to bring it back to staff that we would work with the applicant to have those changes made to the design. Okay. Thanks. So then it's option one that you were making reference to, um, and I guess when I didn't see a list, you're just saying this little short sentence is all that you'd need. So if the applicant is not willing to go any further, what chance of success are you finding under option one. Of getting the things?

In other words, is it, is it mild enough so to speak or is it, um, lesser enough that you think you can still get these changes or really they be coming back and saying, no, not at all. Through the mayor, I will, I will answer that, um, broadly, but I may ask for my manager to assist as well. But my understanding with option one is also that it is an opportunity for the file to come back and become delegated to staff to approve. So I believe it's also an option for Council. So if you'd wish to have it come back to us. And then we would work through it becoming more eligible for that delegation.

Okay. Thank you for that. Thank you through the mayor. Just one more. Just to elaborate briefly if I may. The staff have worked with the applicant extensively to try and keep this on the delegated path. And that's essentially why it's before council today, um, with the recommendation for decline, because, um, those conversations have been extensive in reaching today. Um, but it's always, uh, the option for the applicant to hear what Council has to say about the application. And if Council does choose, uh, to do option one, um, and the applicant isn't able to make any further changes. It would come back to council, uh, but it is always stuff's hope to, uh, bring the application in alignment with the design guidelines and stay on the delegated path. Thank you. Connor. Thank you. And through the mayor, call me simple because I know you went through it and I'm trying to take some notes and I'd read the report. But could you really summarize if it

was option one? Could you summarize what changes you would need in order to say, yeah, we can, we can go with this. We would like to take that question. Through the mayor. What has remained outstanding issues with the design is how block two is currently presented. The rear yard setbacks, the massing, the footprint. There are multiple challenges with how it is currently designed. And we would like to work with the applicant to, I think, shift how it is proposed. As well, we'd want to see changes with the internal driveway configuration, how the front doors present, creating connectibility for block two so that it is accessed to one of the street frontages. We would also want to see an increase in the single landscaped area. Less parking, less hardscape. So those are kind of some of the main design issues that remain outstanding that we would be looking to work with the applicant to address. That's round. Thank you. And, and from a standpoint of, if

we're just talking about block two, does that mean that it would have to be substantially reduced or would it go from forward to three? Or what would you even, well, I mean, the staff have this idea that it's got to be changed. So what would that do to block two? Sween. Thank you, Suther Mowle attempt answer this. And then I refer to my colleagues if then further to add. But I think ultimately it's up to the applicant to determine, um, how to, how to meet the design guidelines staff have made, um, quite a number of suggestions about, um, what the minimum, uh, revisions would need to be in order to tip the scales into a level of stuff support, but ultimately, um, as just mentioned, you know, the landscape, the contiguous landscaped area and increased setbacks. So really the primary concern, um, just to ensure, um, adequate open space, um, meeting the oven forest goals and increased setbacks from the sidelines to reduce the amount

of variances that are being proposed. Thanks. Another question, Mayor, if I could is about the parking, um, when you were suggesting that, um, we, we would be asking where the staff would be asking for less parking. The fact is we don't, we don't require this amount of parking. Um, but what is the problem when an applicant knowing that they've got, especially if they're going for three bedrooms, which means that I'm guessing the target is, is families like kids. Which we don't have a lot of, you know, not just Victoria, but Candace a whole and others. So why would we be wanting to reduce a parking spot when with active families, I know the families who use the various bikes that are out there, the cargo bikes. But why would we be wanting to reduce that when this would be seen by many, um, purchasers as a perk. JP. Through the mayor, the current proposal requires nine residential parking stalls and one visitor stall for a

total of 10. The applicant is currently proposing 13 stalls. So it is an excess of what's required by the bylaw. So in this case, we would like to work with the applicant to reduce potentially, say, garages to create, you know, more green space to have less hardscaped. But really for now, what is proposed is an excess of the bylaw. And that is where conversations are had about shifting the design to help to try to bring it into better alignment with providing more green space on site and landscaping. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Could you Thompson, do you have a question. Yes, I do. Thanks, Mira. Please go ahead. Um. If we could go to the very beginning of the presentation, uh, I think that the, um, initial slide had the actual map of the area. Like the aerial photo. And I wanted to ask about the, how the perimeter block would look there. Can that be zoomed in a bit so we can see it a

bit more clearly. Maybe it's actually, maybe it's better to just leave it where it is. Um, so on, on perimeter blocks, we adopted that in the latest OCP. And I totally support that. But, um, I, I have a question about how it works on a corner property. Like if I could see in mid block, if you were to develop all the way to the back of the yard, you would eliminate the possibility of, of a perimeter block design. But in a corner, um, does that really, how would that kind of block the perimeter block idea in, in the context of this specific. Property. Ms. Wayne.

Thank you through the mayor. Thanks for the question. I think the site is a unique in some respect with the Westdore connector, um, located on the east of the property line. I mean, ultimately a perimeter block, you know, with the West ore connector being a public pathway, um, in an ideal perimeter block, utopian vision, it would be an L shape fronting City Hall Road. And then with a block facing the West Ore connector, um, where we have challenges in achieving the primitive block objectives is if there's significant development beyond that within the interior of the block. I mean, there is that a guidelines, you know, do allow for some development of that of the interior of the block, but it really is kind of an accessory dwelling kind of scale garden sweet scales. Um, you know, the property would need to be, you know, quite large to it in order to have anything within the middle and still meet those objectives. Right. So if I

understand correctly then that the L shape would occupy cedar hill road and the connector. And then the green space would be in the sort of the top corner of what's illustrated there. Through the maya, that's correct. Okay. And then there's a, um, there's a house at 14, 13 edgeware. That would be right, I guess, I guess that property would be adjacent to the green space that you're talking about. Through the merit. Yes, that is correct. Okay. Um. The next question then, uh, the changes that staff would like to work with the applicant on. Has there been any discussion with, uh, either internally with a staff or with the applicant about whether those desired changes would actually reduce the amount of housing? Or would those changes still work to provide the same amount of housing. And if I can elaborate on the question a little bit.

Uh, no, I'll just leave it there for now, maybe elaborate later. We'd like to take that. Through the mayor in conversations with the applicant we spoke a lot about the chosen configuration for having the units within three separate buildings because the density is allowed. The FSR right now is 1. 01. And it can be 1. 6 to one. So they could potentially reorientate and have the buildings. Within two buildings per se. However, this is the configuration that they've chosen. So we had spoken about perhaps attempting and looking at a stock design. Maybe they do lose a unit. However, again, it is the applicant's discretion and decision ultimately as to how they'd like to have it designed. But we had conversations with them. However, this is what they've still chosen to proceed with. Okay. Um, and just, uh, if they, I don't know the scale of the, um, lots and how they compare with other alternatives.

If there were to be four or six story apartment building, would that be something that the current OCP and zoning would permit on that lot or the double lot. Ms. Wayne. Thank you through the mowing theory. Yes, that is possible. The applicant has chosen to move forward with a townhouse proposal targeting, um, as, as mentioned, families. Okay. Um, I think that's it for my questions, Mayor. Thanks. Councillor Kim. I will come back to you, Councillor. Um, thank you. Through the chair, there was mention in the report about issues with sprinklering in block two. Does that mean that there weren't issues with sprinklering and one and three. Ms. Brian. Through the mayor, I was actually going to defer to our fire chief as he's available to answer questions about the fire access concerns for block two.

Chief Atkinson, I did see you online a little earlier. Are you still with us. There you go. Did you hear the question? Hello, sorry. Yeah. I apologise. I missed the question. Uh, did you say your question again? Yeah. Uh, block two in the report had issues with sprinklering, um, because of fire access. Were there any concerns with blocks one and three. Apologies through the mayor. Um, I'm going to have to take that back and review. I suspect on the surface that, um, if blocks one and three weren't referenced in the report, uh, that our fair prevention officers wouldn't have flagged them as a concern. But, uh, I would have to take that away and report back. Okay. Thank you. Um, do we understand why, uh, the applicant was not willing to work with the anticipated fire access requirements. Tween. Through the mayor, um, my understanding was that the primary, um. Issue that was preventing them from spring fling, it was cost. I'm hearing a nod next to me. But just to the, um,

earlier question about blocks one and three, Mr. Atkinson was correct in that those would not flagged as an issue during the staff review. My understanding was the primary concern was, um, the distance that blocked you was from the street and the closest fire hydrant. Oh, okay. Thanks. Wow. Um, it's kind of a big deal. Um, okay. And then with respect to Bhaocker Creek, um, there was mentioned in the correspondence from the applicant about how other properties nearby don't seem to have similar considerations around Baku Creek. Is that because those properties don't aren't actually on Balker Creek or adjacent to. No, this, this question's not landing.

Um, how do I rephrase this? Um, are you aware, if any of the adjacent properties have expressed concerns about their relationship with Bugger Creek? Thank you, Mayor. Through the merit, no, we have not received any correspondence from neighbours, um, with concerns like that. Is part of the concern with the excessive hardscaping partly because of the Bhaoker Creek relationship too. Is Wayne. Thank you to my, um, any property that is within the Bhaoquit watershed. Does require, I think, the best way to phrase it is, um, extra special considerations. I mean, Stormwater objective so important with all applications. But when there's an important watershed, um, that's potentially going to be impacted the review is, um, is more rigorous and there's definitely a finer lens that's taken on that review of how the propose is meeting of those objectives. Okay. Um. Okay. What would need to change in your view to make this application acceptable. With respect to those special considerations around the watershed.

I think, um, as I was mentioned in the staff report, you know, the proposal is technically meeting the objectives with the infiltration chamber. However, increasing more increased in the permeability of the site is really what it comes down to. So increasing whether that's to be permeable pavers or, um, increased landscape space, uh, reduced building footprint. Those are the kind of the key methods to achieving those objectives. Okay. Thanks. Um, and then the ADP talked about, uh, improving the ability for pedestrians to use the driveway through surface material treatments. Can you unpack what that means for me, please? Through the mayor, just drawing attention to the landscape plan here. My understanding from the ADP comment was an attempt to differentiate pedestrian walkways versus the drive aisle. So as you can see, there are two different materials proposed within that interior space. That kind of delineates where a pedestrian would walk. And it does also soften up. They've provided planters. So that is my understanding. And that is kind

of being shown here on the landscape plan as the use of those two different materials. Oh, okay. Thank you. Um, okay. Uh. That's it for me for now. Thanks. Oh, just checking online. I believe Councillor Gerda, you had a subsequent question. Yeah. So there was, uh, this is follows up from actually what was asked about a different angle of it. And that is the discussion about the contingency of green space. And then in some of the correspondence we received, that the requirement wasn't quite met because of the privacy walls between those patio spaces. Is that part of the problem? Maybe. Through the mayor know that is not, um, an issue with the design at this time. Sorry. Through the merit, no. That was not something that was. That's not the issue at all. Now fire trucks, fire trucks, not the great big ones, whatever. So our problem, where is the, uh, fire hydrant along that street. Cause that seems to be the issue for block

two. Because of course you have better vehicle access into block two and three than normal, um, multi residential areas. Just before, um, you answer that, uh, Ms. JBI. I noticed that Chief Atkinson has got his hand up. I suspect that he has some information from an earlier question, but may also want to comment on that question. Chief, over to you. Uh, thank you Mayor. Uh, yeah, I appreciate the, the grace there. Uh, in through you, I just wanted to confirm the previous statement. Block two was specifically a consideration, uh, concerning the distances that would require to be travelled. Um, to get our equipment in and things of that nature. So, um, I'll have to, uh, go back unless the, uh, information is readily available. Um, at hand, I don't have the exact distance of the fire hydrant right now, but, uh, it just wanted to confirm that what block one and block three, uh, we're identified as an acceptable distance in block two was too

far away. And Chief, just as a follow - up, is that because you have, you anticipate difficulty getting the adequate equipment to the block or just the distance from the street? Is it because of the size of the trucks and the vis - a - vis the driveway. Uh, thank you for the question through you. Uh, it could be a combination of both, uh, or one of the other. The code specifically speaks to the required distances to the front point to the front entryway. Uh, that's an acceptable distance. Um, my understanding is in this one when I reached out to my team is that, uh, block two, uh, exceeds that distance, uh, and then depending on the nature of the access, uh, it could be with respect to where we would need to stage her operatis as well. And the ability to affect rescue either from ground ladders or from an aerial ladder. So it could be any one of those or it could be

a combination of those. Thank you. Anything you'd like to add to that staff. Council Garder? Okay. There is. What is being asked or suggested by the fire department is sprinkling outside the building as opposed to inside, which is already there. It's access to the building, yes. Yeah. The outside. Thank you. That's what I understood. Yeah. Any other questions Councillor Kim? Um, if there are no other questions, I was actually going to move. I want to make sure we have all the questions asked for us. Council Coleman. You have a question? Yes. And through you to staff, I fascinated by the advisory design panels report. Does their recommendation resonate more with alternative option one or alternative option. Too. That's a bit of a leading question, but let's see whether anyone wishes to answer that question. I suspect because the recommendation is to decline that that would be the answer to that question. But Ms. Wayne, would you like to venture a well with respect your worship?

The ADP's recommendation was to accept. So it's, through the mayor, just rereading the motion from the design panel, um, as was just suggested, the recommendation was to, for minor revisions, which have been addressed, um, however, uh, it's not uncommon for, um, the advisory design panel to make a recommendation to Council and staff still have concerns remaining in relation to consistency with the policy and the guidelines. Thank you. But so it's more option too than option. Alternative option too, as opposed to alternative option one. That's correct. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Any other questions. Councillor Dell, you have questions. I was just also going to be prepared to move an option. If no one else was ready for that. My belief several people have indicated interest.

So let me ask the question. Wait, point of order. Just a short one. Can you ask the Councillor Police Trump is I couldn't hear him. Yes. Uh, Councillor Dell is willing to move motion. I'm going to ask the question as is our convention. Does anyone wish to move the staff recommendation. Councillor Dell, you have your hand up. Are you wanting to move the staff recommendation? No. No. Would someone like to move a recommendation? Councillor Kim? Uh, option one, please. Option one. Is there a second of her option one. I'm not seeing a second over option one. I suspect that would leave the option of option two since neither the staff recommendation nor option one have been moved or seconded. So would have someone would like to move option two. Councillor Dell has got his hand up. Is her second account, Sir Coleman. Councillor Dell, would you like to motivate an option too, please? Sure. Hopefully you can hear me properly. Uh, Councillor Dick, is there

any way you can boost your volume because you're very hard to hear. Uh, I don't think I, maybe I'll, uh, can you hear me now a bit better? That's a little bit better. Yes. Go ahead. Okay. I'll keep a quick. I think option two is the best option to move. It was recommended by the advisory design. And we've just lost your audio there, Matt. And yeah. Matt, we've lost your audio and you. So Matt, I'm going to come back to you and go to Councillor Coleman as the seconder. And then after Councillor Coleman, I'll come back to you and see whether we can get a better audio connection. Concert Coleman, why don't you take.

On behalf of the mover? No, it's, this is a fascinating one. And I think staff have done a fabulous job in a very unusual situation where we've changed planning and zoning. They've fulfilled their requirements. Um, and we need to understand our role. Our role around this table is to create policy, which we've done through the OCP. And staff then go through the implementation process. We bungee cord down when there are, um, some rough spots between implementation and policy. This is one of those for me anyway. I'm fascinated by the discussion that has gone on particularly with respect to the applicants, uh, desire to have parking for each of the units. And that doesn't fit with the policy that we have. I disagree with that policy.

I have a right to do that. I think that here is, uh, 12 units in three buildings that are set up perfectly for families. There may well be the market for, uh, those units to have. Parking associated with them. It creates for us then the discussion we're going to have to have about if we go with lower parking, we create basically an economic externality. People will still have cars and they'll park them out on the streets somewhere. And we know from two weeks ago, transit said one of the reasons there are roots are slowing down is because of CURB use by other people. So we just need to think about that in this context. Um, I think it's there. I've never met a perfect application, but I think that this is one that does deserve support. I hope that I captured at least the essence of what the mover wanted to say. And that's my perspective. I think that this does work. And I very

much appreciate that staff. Were boxed in to denial of this application because of the changing landscape. I will point out I actually opposed the OCP because I didn't think staff were given enough time to deal with it appropriately. We cut them from the five years that they asked for, we cut them down to three in the province made it to an a quarter years. This is one of those hard edges that's right in the middle of that process. So I support option or the alternative recommendation too. Thank you very much. And the mover has in fact indicated that he is quite satisfied with your commentary.

And we'll simply, um, vote to approve at time. Uh, Councillor Gardner. Thank you. And thank you to the comments already made. Now over the years is always involved in the Jane's Fay Kellock. There were five to 12 developments each year. And the population of neighbourhood grew by 3, 000 people. But during my 16 years on the JBNA board, I only once spoke in public at a public hearing against a proposal. And that's because I support and guided several proposals which I considered a benefit to the community. And I support development proposals that fit, that enhanced street and contribute to Community Living. And while I oppose the missing middle housing policy and the minimization and our elimination of Community and Council input, which has been mentioned by Councillor Coleman, and in a delegation, I found this application proposes development that will enhance the street and the connection between the streets. I walked the area yesterday. There are multi - residential buildings with a parking lot to

the south and unusual shaped lots to the north and to the east. This property is not within a nice rectangular perimeter block form. And I don't think it ever will be. This development will not negatively impact the neighbouring properties. It will add. It will be real family housing, which is very rare nowadays. And it's not going to be, it's not the common cookie cutter design. And it's going to have adequate bike parking and vehicle parking spot for each townhome. It's easy to see why this proposal breathes through the Oakland's Kellogg process. It's a very acceptable proposal. I hope that more thought can be given to spring finger water axis in case of emergencies. But I'm of course understand that the interior of, uh, block two is fully, will be fully, um, have sprinkles sprinklers. So I support this application to proceed as is. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you Councillor Lauton. Thanks. And through you mayor.

I also want to note that this is, it's in limbo, it's in between policies. And this is really difficult for staff because it, um, it doesn't align with the, with the delegated path and the guidelines. So it is, this is a hard one. To me, this is an anomaly. And, and it's a one - off. We're not, if a project like this came, this can't be normalized. This is something that, um, it's stuck in between, um, of the changes that we've been making. But I do want to note that, interestingly, um, the 2025 annual housing review is the next item on our agenda. And in that, the missing middle homes, we've hit our targets, but when we break it down into, into housing type, the missing middle is one that we've, we've, that it is unmet in the overall progress. We've only hit 46 percent of our target. So for me, it's really important that even though this, this isn't anomaly, this is the housing

type and form that we need. And on top of that, the fact that they're all three bedroom, we just don't see that. And for me that trumps the issues around the guidelines with it. So I'm comfortable with supporting this. And I know, mayor, this isn't, it's not, this isn't a conventional thing. We don't take the proponent into consideration when we're making, um, these kinds of decisions. But I do want to note for the public that this is a female - led development. And we very, very rarely see that. And again, not part of my decision here today. However, I think that we should note that, and I, because I just want to cute to, to see and encourage more, more women to get involved in the development process. So thanks, staff. I know this is tough, um, but I'm happy to, uh, support Option to you today. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kim. Thanks to the chair. I have sent very shoddily worded amendment to

staff and would appreciate grammatical assistance. Just put that up and see what it is.

So staff, are you, I wonder if you can pull it down so we can see the right place for that. I know you're, um, your system is struggling with the particular place on the description of its subsections. So provision of proposa. So it would be B, I think in staff you can planning stuff incorrect. I think this would be a B sub three and a B sub four. So under, under the B. There you go. That should be sub three. And then the next one, if I recall is a sub four. And I think those are materially different. So we're going to deal with them individually. So on the first one, which is sub three.

Supervised plans from the top. I'm not sure that you need the further attempts. I think it would be long technical items. I'm not sure that attempts can be to the satisfaction of the director of planning. That's when I'm struggling with. Yeah. I felt similarly. So I think correct the following technical items. Mr. Johnston, I'm going to ask you for your advice on this unless you want to defer to one of our year three able colleagues. But what I understand the intent behind this is that there'd be more work done to try and address the issues around fire safety in block. Two. How would you prefer that to be described. Mr. Handy. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. And, um, good morning, everybody. Jim Handy is acting assistant director development services. Through you, Matt. Just looking at the two bullets that have been added, um, the first one, um, I think that would be, um, part of building permit considerations. I see. Um, I think, you know, it's, it's

a useful to flog it in the recommendation, but it would be part of the conversations that the building permit stage. And if, um, FYI cord or building code issues weren't being addressed at that stage and necessitated amendments to the development permit, then that would have to come back to. So I'm wondering with both of these given what you've said, which makes sense. Um, Sef, you just scroll up so we can see the second part as well. I'm wondering if given both of these, I think. Could be a motion arising. To direct staff to continue these conversations. But what I'm hearing for Mr. Handy is that this is not the right place for that to appear because it isn't actually a contingent clause based upon what we're discussing, right? That's fair. Mr. Handy, thank you. Yeah, actually, I think the second bullet would be appropriate here.

We could have that conversation. Okay. And actually the benefit of having the further attempt piece in that bullet. It means it gives us an opportunity to go back and have those conversations with the applicant. But if we are unable to move the needle, we can progress with approval of the application rather than it being brought back to council. So I'm going to suggest if I've heard correctly that the one that's currently B sub three be pulled out can be a motion rising. But what's B sub four can in fact stand as part of an amendment under that section. Without any changes actually, according to staff, if I understand them correctly. So with that then, I will take that as a proper amendment with someone who wished his second debt. That's with regard to Stormwater runoff.

Councillor Loe is seconding that. Councillor Kim on your amendment. Thanks. Uh, question to staff. So to be clear, further attempts is helpful, but does that. Make it happen, happen. You know what I mean? Just win. Thank you through the mayor. Um, I think it does provide staff some clear direction to continue these conversations. These are things that staff have been asking throughout the, um, uh, stuff review process anyway. Um, so I think it does provide some, um, opportunity to continue these with the applicant. To be clear, if I heard Mr. Handy correctly, if that's unresolvable, it does not stop the application, nor does it return to Council. That's correct, yeah. So it's essentially directing for their conversation. Okay. Well, I at least want to say a tried. Um, so it was actually, uh, the, the reason for this particular piece is because of the Bauker Creek watershed. And the relationship to salmon, it was in fact in our own community that citizen science discovered that

it was, um, uh, off gassing of, um, like a chemical coming off of CAR tires that contributed to the mass die off of local, um, salmon spawns and salmon population and just seeing the relationship with the increased heartscaping and lack of consideration for, uh, the water quality entering the creek. I, you know, I just, I just want to say I did my part to protect the salmon. We have to do better. We just have to do better. And if this is a step forward in that direction, so be it. That's it. Councillor Cloutent is a secondary. Through you, Mayor, I seconded for conversation, but I think this does the, it will help further the conversation and, you know, the proponent and staff are listening to this right now. And hearing, um, what the mover would like to see happen. So I think at least some more conversations will happen around this. So, um, I'm happy to support it. Thank you. Anybody else on the amendment.

I'm not seeing anyone else from the amendment. Oh, Councillor Coleman, go ahead. Thank you. I mean, I think what we really want is a policy direction from the table with respect to Boker Creek. This is trying to backdoor that process in some ways. And I understand that. I'm supportive of the further attempts because I think it is a worthy one. But if we're going to be honest about the issue, then it's up to us to bring a policy statement about runoff from all areas into the watershed. You can't do it. One, one property at a time. Yeah, I still think it's worthy of support. Thank you. The direction is too. High. Right. Councillor Gardner on the amendment. Um, to staff. We're starting to get into kinder, I hate to say, I want to talk about a creek, the weeds. But, um, as to exact surfaces, because I can recall years ago that there was actually asphalt that was somewhat permeable. So what kind of surface

is, um, I mean, I saw the, um, accessible one parking spot. And it looked like it had those paper spoons with the gaps. It's from what I gathered from the diagram. So what kind of asphalt is there now? Is it the asphalt being planned? The one that is somewhat permeable or is it not. Ms. Wayne? Is that our question? Um, I believe it's just being through the mayor. I believe it's just being confirmed now, but my understanding is that it's just the regular asphalt, not the special permeable asphalt. Okay. And I don't know of course the cost differential. I guess no one else here does either. Cause that's not really our business. So I'm just worrying about the word again that you'd already started with when the previous number three, which was further attempts to, and tempt be a satisfaction. I'm more worried about it.

But I think that we have to again, as has been mentioned, look at all of the structures not pick on one, especially when I look at this light and how it fits in with the ones around it. Because it's, and it's also in a hill. Believe me. Hillside's called Hillside for a reason. And as I walk that property yesterday, it's obvious in the schematics showed the slant two. Uh, so I'm not sure if this is going to be actually that useful. I'm not sure what it really means. Thank you very much. Um, I don't see anyone online wanting to speak to the amendment. I can support the amendment because of the first two words actually as grammatically awkward as they may be, uh, because as I think was clearly stated by the staff, while this does generate a further conversation, which is always good. It does indicate desire by council to have these types of conversations. And this has been mentioned perhaps that's a future

conversation for Council. But I'm also very clearly heard that should this be unsuccessful or that the director of planning determines that whatever happens is satisfactory that this process will not be concluded, will not be stopped, not be delayed. And will not return to Council. So I'm okay with that. Olo's in favor of the amendment. Anybody opposed. No one is posed. That is unanimous. Uh, and Councillor Kim, you still have the floor. That's it for me. Thanks. Okay. Anybody else on the main motion as a man, you can Councillor Hammond. Thanks, Mayor. One of the things for me that is a concern is putting anyone at risk when it comes to fire safety. So the fact that we would have motion arising, I think is very important. I was very pleased to be corrected several months ago by the police chief when I had the mistaken impression that due to every education and changes, um, changes in just, uh, so many areas of fire safety that,

that, uh, fires were down and the chief corrected me and said, no, they're not. As a matter of fact, they're more. So this is not, this is not something, um, of a light issue. And therefore, I really hope that staff and the proponent, um, can make sure that they address this because no one under any circumstances would want to, if there was a fire and say, Oh my God, why didn't we do something? So that was the, that was the thing that was holding me back. The fact that it'd be coming forward, um, and I'll be supporting that is something that I'm willing to do.

So as I read this and I'm reading the decline and I'm always very, um, differential, as a matter of fact, to the staff, because what the hell do I know? Um, but the interesting thing is I was surprised by the lack of opposition to it when I looked at the density of this. And then of course when I saw that it wasn't out of line, at least for the character of the neighbourhood, uh, and even as staff had indicated its lower, the height is lower than the maximum that is allowed. And of course, one of the issues that I've got is a lot of people are going to be stunned when they find these very large four and six story buildings suddenly are coming beside them. This does not do that. The other thing that of course really caught my attention was about all three bedrooms. And we just don't see this. And I know this has been discussed before. And so this is just,

this is just something that without a doubt, because of the information that we're going to be receiving next on the next item of the agenda about housing is that we need more three bedrooms. Um, I don't know, uh, how affordable it's going to be. And as a matter of fact, it's not going to be, it's going to be a market rates. But the fact is that there are families who need this. So I appreciate the issues that the staff are bringing forward. And I think for me, the compromises, especially if we can deal with the issue of fire safety. I think this is supportable. So thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Thompson. Thanks, Mayor.

Yeah. I just wanted to maybe echo, uh, my colleague talking about, uh, rejecting staff advice, which we've, we've heard an awful lot about, uh, for the last few years. And I'm, I'm surprised to see it happening, uh, so broadly. When it comes to the perimeter block, um, I just want to speak to that for a little bit. I, as I mentioned, uh, earlier, very supportive of the perimeter block idea. I do think that housing should be pushed generally pushed toward the street and allow for that perimeter block. Um, this one's a bit unique. Uh, as a, as a hinted before, this isn't a mid block property that would, that would kind of put a barrier in the middle of a perimeter block. It's kind of at the corner. As staff mentioned, uh, the L shape would allow for, if it were adopted, would allow for a green area, um, in the sort of northern part of the, of the, uh, property. But I note that

there are some other properties that are adjacent to that that would make it quite a small space and probably not something, uh, similar to what, what is illustrated in our OCP diagrams of what a perimeter block is where you have, uh, shared space among many properties, uh, potentially all properties on the block. Um, this would be a quite a small hemmed space. It did also want to speak to, uh, Les parking. Unusual, uh, situation of a, of an applicant seeking to provide more parking. Um, I, uh, kind of, I support the staff recommendation on that one or at least the staff's thinking on it. You know, not every household has cars. I know that this is, this can be a little challenging as a statistic because a lot of people aren't familiar with that lifestyle.

But if we look at the data, uh, from the origin destination travel study in the city of Victoria, most, so most households do have cars. I have a car, uh, but a quarter of households don't. And I think that, uh, we need to sort of accept that and just, uh, sort of allow for the idea that, uh, parking requirements are going down, uh, the developments. And we've seen them in the, in the city and in this region, uh, that are car free. And they're going to appeal to, uh, those CAR - free households. I, as I said, I have a car and I have kids.

I've met some families without kids. Sorry. I had some families with kids who don't have a car. Um, and, uh, and seemed to be doing just fine. So, uh, just a couple of comments on those topics. I think my colleagues have covered the rest of it. Um, uh, I think it's important that the city support additions to our housing stock. Uh, this perhaps wouldn't be the, the ideal, uh, housing proposal from the perspective of staff. And possibly not from me. I might actually prefer to see, uh, some additional density, uh, on this lot. But we don't get to, uh, to pick what the applicant puts before us. Uh, as a city, uh, we have to kind of judge yes or no. Um, so I would rather see this go ahead than not go ahead. Uh, even though I think it could be improved in some ways, uh, but that's always the way it is. Thanks, Mayor. Those are all my comments. Thank you very much.

Anybody else on the amended motion. Councillor Hammond. Did you want to go again? Let's go ahead. I promise I promise this is nothing to do with my colleague Hallman Gumba parking because I realised beforehand I thought the one thing that I did want to comment about and I forgot to say it. And that's about parking. And I just wanted to say that there's a number of times where Council has said, Hey, look, there is a market for people without, um, without cars, what there are. And I've said this many times before. I went 22 years without a car. And so I reckon an early use of moto when it was called CAN. And so I recognise it and loved actually being car free. But I also want to say the market four cars. And especially if, if there's ever a group that's got it, if we're going to have families, um, there's a certain number of families who are going to continue to feel the

need for cars and maybe a different times in their lives. They can realise they don't need them. And I encourage that. But I think this is nice to think that when the application is thinking three, three bedrooms, lots of opportunities for families. There's lots of opportunities where they might want, uh, where they might want cars. And that was just one thing that I wanted to add. And I forgot to say something about that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the amended motion. I would just say that in addition to all of the positive comments that are here, I do want to thank staff for their work. I mean, they've done what they're required to do under the policies. And if we want to change those policies, that's up to us. The phenomenal presentation of having all of these units as three bedrooms is extraordinary and absolutely supportable. And while I do as others have said support in general, the perimeter block of

notion, I just don't think it's possible on this lot. And so given that it's not possible on this lot, I think what's being presented is the best that we can do and has some remarkable advantages. So I'm happy to support this. All those in favor is anyone opposed. That is unanimous. A Councillor Kim, I believe we could pull up your other amendment as a potential motion arising. Staff, could you pull it up on the screen and we'll just adjust the language to make it work. Um, there we go. So I think that should be something like, uh, direct staff to. Have further discussions with the applicant. To explore. Additional.

And then take out the word that. Our safety. And then you can take out the, um. Be improved. And just say, so I put a comma after road. Yes. Delete. And then leave it like that. Direct staff to have a further discussions with the outline to explore additional fire safety with post block to the satisfaction neuron. Councillor Kim, is that sufficient. Set, explain what you wanted to declare. Okay. Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Lotening that's emotionarizing Councillor Kim Dewich to speak to that. Oh, Councillor? Nope. Anybody else on the motion rising. Okay. Not seeing any other comments. All those in favor. Anyone opposed.

That is unanimous. Uh, okay. Folks, I think our next item is likely going to take a little bit, um, longer than 10 minutes. So I'm going to suggest we take a break now and, uh, it's 10, 18 by my clock. Let's return at 1030. And we'll move on at that point to H1.

Over to you folks. Sure. Good morning, Mayor and Council. I'm Andrea Hudson, assistant director of Citywide Planning with me today is Ross Sauerd, our manager of housing, and Michaela Montgomery, our housing planner. And I will turn it over to Ms. Montgomery to walk you through the presentation and the staff recommendation today. Excellent, thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Good morning, Mayor and Council. It's a pleasure to be with you today. This presentation is broken into three areas. The purpose is to present council with the very last annual review of Victoria's Housing Strategy Phase 2 and further provides counsel the opportunity to endorse the work plan for the next 10 - year housing strategy and approve the interim housing goalposts. This first section provides a snapshot of the annual review highlighting trends in the housing system and the City's Progress toward housing targets. While fulfilling the commitment to annual monitoring and evaluation. The 2025 annual review marks the conclusion of the housing strategy phase two and reflects

a period of significant housing delivery policy reform and strengthened tenant protections. Consistent with the City's adaptive management framework. The report identifies emerging trends and issues to help inform future actions. In 2025, the City successfully exceeded the six - year overall housing supply target. Major milestones in 2025 include the adoption of the OCP and comprehensive zoning modernization, which expanded housing opportunities citywide and embedded housing objectives directly into Zoning. The City became one of the first municipalities in British Columbia to adopt a tenant protection during redevelopment bylaw. Strengthening tenant protections, and seeking to mitigate the impacts of displacement by ensuring fair treatment of tenants during residential redevelopment.

Policy reforms were supported by development process improvements, increasing certainty and reducing timelines for housing delivery. And the Community Safety and Well Bean Plan was adopted in July of 2025, promoting housing objectives for the most affordable end of the housing continuum. Our record 1, 820 new homes were issued building permits for construction in 2025. This is far above the city's annual target of 1, 000 new homes per year, as well as the 10 - year average. At the end of 2025, roughly 2, 375 rental units were under construction, demonstrating the significant number of purpose - built rentals that have been issued permits over the last several years. 102 missing middle homes were proposed in 2025, which will add to the greatly needed supply of family - friendly homes. Increases in housing supply contributed to greater choice and improved mobility, particularly in the rental market. Roughly two and a half times more than in 2024. This is stained expansion of rental supply has contributed to the primary rental vacancy rate, reaching its highest level since 1999

at 3. 2 percent. Representing a shift towards a more balanced market and more choice for renters in 2025. Across 2024 and into the end of 2025, there was a modest decline in monthly average rents for both one and two bedroom units, and a decline of roughly three percent in average rents for bachelor units. This is in line with a national report finding that average asking rancing Canada have been trending down. At the same time, three bedroom units experienced a sharp rent increase, highlighting low supply and a strong demand for family - friendly units. Another indication of the rental market easing is the level of mobility in the rental market. Turnover reached its highest point since 2019, supported by strong growth and purpose - built rental supply. Indicating increased renter mobility. The moving penalty fell from around 40 percent in 2024 to improved rental conditions and more competitive rents in vacant units. However, limited three bedroom and larger supply continues to restrict mobility for Bigger households.

Victoria Supply of Affordable Housing continued to grow in 2025. One Affordable Building was completed, adding 158 new apartments, suites, and townhelms. Although fewer affordable housing projects were approved in 2025 than in previous years, the City continues to advance a strong development pipeline, with eight projects under construction and four additional projects under staff review in 2025. Given persistent wait list for affordable housing and significant rates of core housing need, the City must continue to encourage partnerships and investment in new non - market housing to create the next wave of affordable unit. Victoria's ownership market showed stability throughout 2025, even as major city centres faced challenges. While the market stabilized for condominiums and increased slightly for townhomes, single - family home prices increased and moved closer to the 2022 peak. Reflecting ongoing demand for ground - oriented housing. The condo market faced fewer investors and reduced speculative activity, as well as high interest rates. However, strata projects are moving forward in amenity - rich neighbourhoods where there

is greater demand for various types of buyers. This report marks the completion of the sixth and final year of the housing strategies housing targets. The overall target was exceeded, as were many sub - targets highlighted in the table. Strong performance was driven in part by the market rental category, where the target was nearly doubled, underscoring the city's sustained commitment to supporting renters. The Affordable Target reached 90 percent completion and exceeded the very low - income target. Progress toward low and median income housing remained more limited underscoring persistent funding challenges for housing, serving these earners. The Strata Housing Target was exceeded in 2024 and grew to 136 percent of the target in 2025. While the target for home suitable for families was also surpassed, continued efforts are needed to secure homes with three or more bedrooms.

The missing middle housing target was not met within the six - year timeframe. However, recent OCP and Zoning updates, along with development process improvements, are expected to support increased delivery of this housing type. Phase two of the housing strategy provided guidance and metrics to the end of 2025. Over the past decades, the city implemented Foundational Actions introduced new policy tools and advanced major regulatory reforms that have reshaped how housing is planned, approved, and delivered. With phase two now complete, the City is beginning to work on the next 10 - year housing strategy, proposed in this next section. The next strategy will establish a refreshed approach to guide progress towards safe, affordable, and attainable housing across the continuum. In line with the OCP's direction to maintain a responsive up - to - date housing strategy. Importantly, the housing strategy does not replace or duplicate OCP policy.

It is guided and informed by the OCP, translating its direction into implementation, priorities to targets and actions. It will also better align housing priorities and targets with the OCP, housing needs reports, community safety and well - being plan, and reporting cycles. While strengthening the Cities approach to monitoring prioritization and long - term implementation. The development of the 2026 - 2035 housing strategy is proposed to be structured as a phased work program progressing from research and alignment to consultation, strategy development, and approval. Phase 1 focuses on background research, policy alignment, preparation of emerging strategic directions and council endorsement. Phase 2 emphasizes targeted engagement and refinement of strategic directions. Phase 3 centres on drafting, final review, establishment of monitoring and reporting approaches, and presentation of the updated housing strategy to council for approval. Feedback from phase 2 of the housing strategy and robust engagement during the OCP update has helped to identify key themes for the next strategy. These will guide actions to improve housing stability across

the continuum from homelessness prevention to long - term housing forms. Staff will continue to refine these themes through research and targeted engagement in the next phase. Annual tracking of housing targets has supported accountability and informed acidity policy responses. A new housing needs report based on 2026 census data will be completed in 2028 and inform updated five - year goalposts aligned with the next 10 - year housing strategy. In the interim, staff proposed three - year housing goalposts from 2026 to 2028 to maintain accountability and continuity on reporting and monitoring. These proposed goalposts respond to Council Feedback by simplifying and aligning targets with the interim housing needs report, OCP goalposts, and provincial targets through 2028. The shift from targets to the proposed goalposts aligns with the OCP and reflects the city's role as an approval authority recognising that housing delivery is influenced by broader external factors.

Over the past decade, the City has made significant progress, expanding housing supply, advancing policy reforms, strengthening tenant protections, and achieving its six - year housing targets. These results reflect both tangible outcomes and the foundation laid for continued action. However, housing affordability challenges persist, particularly for low and moderate income households. And housing remains a critical priority requiring sustained focus partnership and monitoring. The foundings of this report will inform the next 10 - year housing strategy and support councils continued efforts alongside the proposed housing goalposts to align monitoring in the interim. To conclude, staff recommend that council receive the 2025 housing strategy annual review for information, approved the proposed interim housing goalposts and endorsed the approach to the next 10 - year housing strategy. Thank you, and I now welcome your questions. Thank you very much for that. Uh, we'll consider these all as a package unless someone requests any of them to be chucked out to be considered individually, but it seems to me that they're

proudly comprehensive and complementary. So without that request, we'll vote eventually on all three of them together. That will also mean though that we can have questions about all of them. So let's start with that. Questions regarding. Thank you Mayor, and depending on the answers and the questions, I may ask that the 3b Severed. Sure. Uh, and thank you very much for the presentation. And you added some more information that I didn't see in the report, and that's always useful. Not sure if I captured it at all. Anyway, I'm going to ask a couple unusual questions first, because... Just because it refers to a real person.

And what's wrong about name, of course. In need of housing. And while this is anecdotal for you, it's real for her. And, uh, divorced two young children. Income less than probably 20, 000 at this point, uh, but she of course got some asset from the sale of a condo. So she doesn't meet the deep subsidy. Or minimum, you know, because of the asset. And she doesn't meet the minimum threshold for affordable housing, because she doesn't make enough money. And so where do people like this go. That's a big question. Anyone like to try and take that one. Through the mayor. Relevance of that question to this topic is how does that person, how do you see that person fitting into all these ideas? Yeah, through the merit, I think. Yeah, so it's, I guess it's somewhat a unique situation where someone would have. Be an income that would be at that deep subsidy, but then also have assets that would be significant, I guess, from

essay hell of a condo. I think the intent of those deep subsidy units that often are included either within a community housing fund type project are really looking to serve, you know, people who maybe are at greater risk of homelessness or being on housed. Um, and people who may not have any assets to be able to speak to, and maybe on a very modest fixed income or on disability or something to that effect. Uh, that being said, it certainly sounds like a very precarious situation that this person is in. And I think it does highlight. The imperfect nature of our social housing system and that there are, you know, fundamentally these different forms of housing, whether it be deep subsidy, whether it be RGI, whether it be near market, ultimately have to be, you know, codified and identified for the people who are at the greatest need for those units. So I mean, I think at the end of the day, with like the city

doesn't design these programs, but certainly, um, you know, there's. You know, there is certainly a need for more units that serve that low end of the continuum. Uh, and that requires significant partnership with groups such as, you know, the provincial and federal government. Thank you. And I, uh, whoops. They're still on. Uh, thank you. And I don't think this is as rare as people think. You know, divorces or relatively young mother left with two kids and doesn't have a permanent job. Uh, I think, and that really worries me, especially since we saw all the CRD advertising for all this housing that she couldn't even apply for. It's quite worrisome because once you're into some of the social housing, you can stay no matter what your income is. Or whatever asset you have. But yet someone who is struggling and raising kids, I always worry about kids. I just find very problematic. Anyway, next question. The figure one focused on the 2020 data. I think you

stated was dating the report. And during consideration of the OCP 2050, the data use became an N issue. As population projections from Ireland Health having significantly lower. And the National Projections were lowering towards the end of 2024. And for the lowering during 2025. So during the OCP 2050 discussions, the issue, as a set of stale or updated population projections was raised. But the plan was not altered. Now you have just mentioned, when you discuss the interim strategy, number two, that you're going to be basing it on old data, I believe, until the new downer from 2025 comes in. Is that correct? That's Montgomery. Through the mayor, so the proposed goalposts are based on the 20 year OCP goalpost at the, um, the high end. So that is correct. It's based on, um, data that was used for those EP calculation for the goalpost. Sorry. It's based on the old data. Through the mirror, it's based on the data that was used to inform the OCP.

Yeah. And so we're going forward with data that we know was high. Is that, is that what the interim is going to be doing or will there be adjustments if we get more data or third. Through the mirror, that's, that's part of the intent of why we framed them as goalposts. So we've given ourselves a bit of a broader range to look at, recognising that there is a range of external factors outside the city's control that, that impact the delivery of housing. Um, and recognising that, um. Over the near term, there may be slight changes in external policy, such as migration. Um, but still recognising that we are, we do have that stretch goal of the OCP goalpost that is a, is a long - term goal that, um, that reflects things such as latent demand as well as, you know, historical patterns around immigration and things like that. So, uh, yeah, there's, there is, we're continuing to rely on the data that was used

for the OCP as well as the interim housing needs report, but we're also framing them as goalposts to give ourselves a bit more flexibility and recognition that there are short - term changes with different policies that may impact our ability to deliver the upper end of that housing. Okay. So that would be the 2020 data. And when you look at the lower estimates on your annual, I'm looking at the gold posts under attachment B. So that would reflect what in the data that you use for 2020. Because that 2020 was so much higher. But I think a greater percentage than I see in your spread.

So that's what I'm concerned about. Just I think part of the, um, consideration of your reply might be to consider whether or not, uh. I heard an assertion in the question that you may or may not agree with. So I feel free to respond how you like. Yeah. Through the mayor, at this point in time, our long - term goalposts for housing are identified in the OCP. So we're continuing to work off of that long - term goalpost. And then we've created an interim goalpost for the next three years. Um, that harmonizes with that and that reflects direction we perceive from council looking at how do we align with our OCP? How do we align with our provincial housing targets? Um, and how do we align our sort of housing strategy sort of goals for housing with those, those other targets that we have in place. So really, I think what we've tried to do is we've tried to harmonize around those different, um, kind

of housing goals and created these interim goal posts. And we continue to work with the most recent documents that the city has adopted for our housing need, which include the OCP and the interim housing needs report. Um, and those are, those are sort of, you know, key corporate documents that identify our housing need. Um, and there we will continue to monitor and review and update that and take the opportunity when the new data comes from the census, uh, and integrate that into the 2028 housing needs report. Thank you. And again, um, attachment B. Ownership is a lower number. When I'm looking at it, uh, and we now know from data provided two is by planning a few months ago. Well, I guess it was in December. That on ownership, especially on condominiums that twenty nine percent or higher in fact. And if we take that into account, are we therefore looking at your interim housing goals. Which is soured.

Through the mayor. If I understand the question, um, I don't think we have any, the level of certainty that housing that is created as ownership housing, whether it be Strata or townhouse or single detached housing will end up in the secondary market. We have seen historically, we've seen maybe higher levels of housing in the secondary market partially in response to the fact that we were not building a lot of purpose - built rental for many decades there. So, um, I don't know. Generally, we haven't been making any sort of major assumptions around the degree to which, uh, ownership housing would end up in the secondary market. And, you know, also, I think what we are seeing is with ownership housing that's been developed over the last year, uh, we're seeing maybe a greater proportion of that being, um, coming forward through things such as ground oriented housing in terms of missing middle and maybe also, so maybe that's also less likely to be, uh, purchased

for secondary rental, um, yeah, I think generally we're seeing, uh, the ownership housing is more serving kind of end users. Thank you and I appreciate you just mentioned the missing middle housing. And while we keep referring to family housing and especially with missing middle, a lot of them are just narrow townhouses, I know, because my daughter is in one, which is really tricky with all the stairs. But in Victoria, just staff of any idea as to the uptake of this type of family dwellings by actual family with kids, or they being bought by others. And I'm thinking of, I don't know what that's Samuel Flats and Vic West is like. And those kinds of things, are we actually getting families. Is it sour? Do you know that? Uh, through the mayor, I think that's probably something we would maybe look to dig into more, um, with the new census data that comes out in the coming years. Um, I think, you know, it's, I would

probably be more something to talk to folks on the development community as they've brought forward their, you know, brought forward recent projects. I can, I can speak personally. I live in a missing middle kind of townhouse project. And I've recently welcomed a child into, into my family. And the six or seven other households that have families in that missing middle housing. So I do think it's a viable alternative for people who are looking for ground oriented housing and have families. Thank you. Um, how many House and units are currently receiving tax exemption, including status of some kind, including affordable housing market revitalization and heritage. Does anyone have any idea of how many are getting tax exemption. Who would like to try and take that. Oh, I'm seeing some finance people leaning into their mics. Yes.

Uh, good morning Leila Monk, manager of revenue. And through the mayor in 2025, there were 53 properties that were classified as class three, supportive housing. Which means that they're landed improvements are not to a nominal amount of a dollar each. Through the city's permissive tax exemption program. There were. 29 properties that received a tax exemption under the support of housing category. Thank you. Do we have any idea how many units of housing were in those 53 properties or the 29 properties. Ms. Munk. Through the mayor, we do not have that data, but, uh, planning, uh, may have that information. I look to one of our able planning staff for that one. And at this point in time, I don't think we would have the exact number of units that are in the, in those support housing projects, but, um, we can certainly circle back and provide counsel with, um, with some more detailed data. I think, uh, thank you. I certainly appreciate that. Um, okay.

In the report, you mentioned 926 930 Pandora with 158 affordable homes and homelessness support. And, um, so can you please clarify what that means and is illicit drug use to be supported. Mr. Sauer, do you know any more details about the, uh, activities in the proposed 926, 930 facility? Through the mayor, I think it's more, uh, just speaking to the fact that the project is a mix. So it has, um, has a, I believe it's roughly 150 some odd units that are, uh, subsidized housing that would be sort of supported through Community Housing Fund type project. So that's going to be sort of a mix of income from very low deep subsidy units up to sort of near market units. That would be operated by the CRD. Uh, I don't have the exact number, uh, rate off the top of my head, but I believe it's 40 or 50 units that would then also be included in the project that our supportive housing that would

be operated by, uh, a different nonprofit operator, uh, which I think is still to be determined. And those would be housing with supports for, for people dealing, you know, at risk of homelessness. Um, but I don't know the exact level of, um, you know, on - site supports that would be developed that would be something that would be determined based on sort of BC housing and the operator and place. So I would, I would defer maybe to other staff, if I know Sarah Web is on the line, uh, assistant director web if she has anything to add to that. But I believe at this point in time from like the housing perspective, that's probably, well, I would say. Not seeing anyone join online.

Oh, well, Ms. Webb, go ahead. Uh, through the mayor, I would agree with, um, Manager Soward. We would rather wait until we have further progress on the award of the support of housing program in the design of that. And we'd be happy to report back to Council on that. Thank you. Okay. So, so it's unknown answer as to whether or not this is a drugs would be the only yesterday just by chance. I always ask about the cost of 926 930 Pandora. So what was the design and renovation cost and who paid for what. Mr. Seward. Through the mayor, um, the design and renovation cost, uh, so this is, we're talking about 926930, the new build. Yeah. Okay. Um, yeah, through the mayor, uh, I don't have the exact budget. Of that project on hand.

And the city's receiving funding from, um, you know, the city brought forward land and helped to facilitate the funding partnership there. Um, the project to my understanding is being funded by BC housing, uh, and then we'll be, uh, operated by the CRD. So, um, I don't, yeah, I don't have that, that budget information off the top of my head. I'm not sure if someone from the real estate team, Strategic Real Estate, uh, may want to chime in or add to that. But, um, certainly the capital budget would be supported by BC housing as well as an ongoing operating subsidy. We'd be provided and capital grants would have also been, would have been provided by BC housing to drive the deep affordability at the project. Okay.

Thank you. And of course no property tag on City properly. Correct. Thompson, is that correct? Or is Monk. Uh, my apologies. Could you repeat the question? It's a question of whether or not the new facility at 926, 930 Pandora will be property tax exam. Through the mayor, it will depend in the end. So, uh, BC housing properties are exempt, but we get a payment in lieu of taxes. Um, and in some cases, if the operator is, uh, and I know that CRD or the housing corporation is involved as well. So I'm not totally sure about the structure. If it is as CRHC, they would be exempt. And there would be no, uh, payments in lieu of taxes either. Um, and, um, so it's a little bit, um, complicated at the moment to figure out exactly how BC assessment will look at it. Great. So when we have some idea as to the costs and as to the operating model, what time period are we looking out to get that information that I've asked for.

Mr. Rantucci, I see you leaning into that one. Through, through the mayor. Um, we can come back with the costing. We just need to go back on our records here in the total cost of the project. In terms of the operating model that as staff has said, that'll be dependent on, um, or I'm sorry, the operator of the supportive housing will be dependent on BC housings, um, uh, RFP when they go out to seek, uh, an operator. And we would be able to give them further update at that time. Great. Do we have a timeframe. Through the mayor? Uh, we'll get back to you with that. Cost in time frame. Okay. Thank you. Um. On page 11 of the report, there's reference to the Community Safety and Wellbeing Plan. And gaps in delivery. Which I found interesting. But what wasn't mentioned was the gap in healthcare and therapeutic treatment. Is that covered anywhere in this report? I realised it feers onto health as opposed to

housing, but is it acknowledged or did I miss it? Because I could have missed it in the documents. Mr. Sehrk? I threw the mayor. I think that was just a road of the scope of this report recognising that this is about housing. And so there's overlap. And with the Community Safety well - beam plan and the sort of housing strategy with respect to some of the housing components of the Community Safety and well - being planned, but we've intentionally not waited into sort of the topics of healthcare for the purposes of this one. Okay. There's much I talk about latent demand for rental housing. What do you think would be the latent demand for home ownership. Mr. Seller. Through the mayor, you know, layton demand is. A, um, is a sort of a, as a number that we've generally estimated and generally looked to talk about at sort of more of a higher level. I think it's challenging to start to, uh, break down latent

demand into really sort of granular component parts. We've tended to look at sort of, uh, a high level latent demand number of a sort of a range of kind of eight to nine thousand units is what we've spoken to. And so certainly, um, there would be components of that latent demand that would probably need to be, uh, serving the ownership market. There would be components of that latent demand that would need to serve the rental market. There would be components that would need to supportive housing and subsidize housing. So I think there is certainly is needs across the continue. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just having trouble that we have specific numbers in one hand or rental and not on the other. And yet we're trying to put it into one document. So I just worry. Now what proportion, um, of the housing reserve draws have been for projects being done by other levels of government. Because I saw that one list, which I found quite interesting.

Do we have a real handle in that. Mr. Seller? Through the mayor, um, the nature of the projects that apply from the house housing reserve fund as typically nonprofit, uh, housing providers who are applying for, uh, to applying to the city to secure funding that helps them leverage funding from other levels of government, including, you know, BC housing or CMHC. And fundamentally the sort of subsidized, the subsidized component of subsidized housing doesn't happen without the federal or provincial partnership. So I would say almost all of the projects that have applied to the Victoria housing reserve fund would be some kind of partnership with another level of government. Yeah. Cause in the list, I saw a lot of CRD, which means we're already paying for CRD.

And so we're kind of getting a couple of wommy there. So that's what was I was concerned about. Okay. Interim goal post. I think we all discussed that the targets are based on OCP 2050. Okay. Okay. Hang on. I think I want to get a couple more questions, Mio. Oh yes. So this is with especially the 10 year housing strategy. Given the high proportion of residents with mobility challenges in our aging population will accessibility targets ever be created. Or was it going to be too late or is it baby boomers all going to be dead before we get there. Uh, we didn't see anything about real accessibility targets in here. And I don't mean adaptability.

So we don't seem to have any accessibility. Are we looking at that? Mr. Sir. Uh, through the mayor. It's a good question. Um, certainly it can be something that we can, uh, explore further with, uh, with the housing needs report. Um, that will be required to do as part of the new legislative requirements. And using the more updated, uh, sense of data that would be coming out in the coming years. Um, you know, for the interim housing goalposts, we did really look to curve more align to the sort of high level, um, categories that are identified in like the OCP and the, and the term housing needs report. And so we didn't get into that level of granularity in terms of accessibility, uh, targets. Um, but that, that could be, you know, that's sort of a level of analysis that would probably be well suited for that, that next housing needs report, which will be a much more fulsome analysis. Thank you. Uh, early engagement

is mentioned. Will advisory groups include neighbourhood associations. Mr. Sauer. Through the mayor at this point, um, we've largely been thinking, uh, our focus would be more on groups with serve subject matter expertise with housing. I'm not sure if, uh. Ms. Montgomery has anything to add in terms of sort of some of the, the, the parties that we've kind of identified is kind of Community partners with respect to housing. Montgomery. Through the mayor, that's correct. I will just add that we are also thinking of, um, nonprofit housing providers, um, sort of tenant advocates, um, developers and other organisations working on housing sort of across the continuum.

So just to confirm the Community Partners are those who are building the housing and advocacy groups, but not necessarily our taxpayers. Would that be. A special interest groups are running this or controlling this engagement. Through the mayor, you know, we did a lot of consultation on housing with the public during the OCP. So we certainly heard from the public that housing continues to be very important. Um, so at a high level, you know, we have heard from the public already. So I think what we're proposing here is we just need to, you know, have conversations with, um, housing providers, people who actually build and deliver the housing. But the intent is that as we move sort of through the process and as some policies start to shape up in some strategies start to shape up, we do want to bring this out to the public just to have their input as well. So, so that would be later on in the project. Yes, I'd seen

that. Okay. I'll just get what myself had note. Well, staff be considering the residential property tax impacts as these themes are forwarded. Cause I'm thinking again, remember I'd start looking at that coryolist report for many years ago. And really the impact on, um, who is paying taxes and who is injury. Is that, as you develop these themes is that shift, because we've seen this shift now, just remember in the change from business to residential, are we going to see even a greater shift, shall we say into a certain types of, uh, residential housing compared to others? Are we going to see a further shift. It's just soured. Through the mayor, um, I think at this point in time, I don't, I don't know if we really have any kind of, if that's a really organising principle for us, I think, uh, certainly there's, uh, and acknowledgement that we need to kind of balance the financial impacts of, um, of any recommendations that we bring forward.

Also thinking about the recommendations in terms of the impacts on the financial viability of housing. But, um, I think it would be more of a broader higher level kind of consideration as we draft recommendations related to the housing strategy. But at this point in time, we're, we're just looking for seeking direction to move forward with the development of the strategy and we're always away from identifying new projects or programs. And I would say that given the amount of programs, initiatives and foundational policy and regulatory work that we did under the last housing strategy, it's probably more likely that this next housing strategy would have a greater focus on maintaining, adapting, reviewing, uh, with some maybe targeted focus areas for new policy or programs. Thank you, Mayor. That's your questions right now. I may have commented later or questions. Thank you. How much time do I have left? You have fewer than two minutes left. Councillor Loughton. Thanks, SentiUmer. I just wanted to ask a couple

more questions about, and I'll just use, um, Caledonia as an example that the income rate to apply for that was 50, 000. I just have some questions on how that works. So there is deep subsidy in Caledonia as well. So am I correct in that if someone is earning less than 50, 000 in household income that they could apply for one of the deep subsidy. Units, but you have to make more than 50, 000 to apply for the rent geared to income units? Do I have that. Mr. Seller, I believe that's in your Bayley wick. Uh, through the mayor, I'm not sure of the exact, um, my understanding is the rank geared to income units would still be aligned with hills as the upper limit of the income. Uh, but that in practice, it's often people who have incomes fair bit below hills who are actually occupying those units. Um, and then the, yeah, there are 20 percent of the units at Caldonia that would

be the deep subsidy. But I think the, yeah, I would have to double check on what the exact criteria program criteria, but those are in terms of the limits. But certainly those are, you know, targeted for folks who, you know, may have beyond, you know, disability or social assistance rates. So that's really the deepest affordability that we have within the provincial housing sector. Okay. Thanks for that. I just wanted to, and I can look into this offline on my own too, but the question came up from and it also, I've seen other people talking about it online. What is hills. Apologies for the jargon and acronyms. So, uh, heels is an acronym that stands for housing income limits. Uh, and so for within the BC housing subsidized housing programs, uh, generally, um, that is the, um, income limit that gets reported on each year annually and identifies the upper income limit that, um, the like rent gear to income units can be rented out to

depending on the household size. So there's a income limit for one bedroom unit. There's an income limit for a two bedroom unit. There's a income limit for a three bedroom unit. And that is the highest income that somebody that a household that is looking to occupy, uh, rent geared to income unit can have. But in practice often what nonprofit operators have told me is that they often assume that the household who's going to be in those RGI units is going to have a fraction of that income because there's a lot of folks who are looking to access units within the substanties housing program that don't have the income at the upper limit of the hills.

That's the theoretical upper limit. But in practice, it may be somebody who's earning 10, 20, 30, 000 dollars less than what that hills income level is. And they're in there because it could serve somebody from a low to a median household income. But the, the hills, the housing income limit is the sort of. That's the top in terms of the income. But there's also a minimum. Too. Am I right about? Like you have, you can't make more than X amount, but you have to make it lease X amount. Or is that, I think that's where some of the confusion. And maybe this isn't a conversation for this for what we're doing today. But I think there is some confusion about that in some of these non - market housing projects. That there is a certain amount you need to make before you can apply. Yeah.

Through the mayor, I think there is a, there's probably a threshold of, of what the minimum they need, those units to pay in order to cover the overall, uh, operating costs of the building. So there's a, there is probably a range. And I just don't know off the top of my head what that is for the BC housing probably is adjusting it honestly for, for each project based on like whatever the final, final costs are and what the unit types are. And so we could, we could circle back on that and try to get maybe some more detailed information for what the exact limits were for Caledonia. But yeah, there is probably a minimum income level that they're needing to hit so that people are not paying too much of their income for housing. Right.

And that also makes sense because the RGI and the near market subsidize the deep subsidy. Anyway, I'll move on from that. Um, just, I just have one other question. And that's about the interim housing goalposts for the next couple of years, just 26 to 28. And when I'm looking at the housing types here and in one line, there's rental and it includes market and non - market. And there's the goalpost for that. And then there's a non - market rental and the other goalpost for that. Um, can you explain to me why, um, the non - market is included on its own and also why it's included in with the market rentals. Well, you're doing that. Can you clarify the totals because they don't always seem to match. Uh, through the mirror. So, um, we're just, I guess, is trying to acknowledge that the, um.

That the non - market rental would be contributing to the overall, uh, rental, uh, goalpost as well. Okay. Is, is sort of the intent there. Um, but that we do want to have a sub target for tracking and monitoring. The number of non - market units that we are seeing move forward. Um, and that those non - market could be across the continuum, everything from supportive hazards. Yeah, that makes sense. To near your market. Okay. That makes sense. And then my, the, my final thought on this is just around the non - market goalposts. Was there any consideration of breaking that down to near market RGI and deep subsidy. Can we. Can we set goalposts that are broken down. Into those categories. Through the mayor, I think that's the, that would probably be the intent for the 2028. Exercise when we're doing the housing needs report. I think we were somewhat hesitant to get into that level of detail just for these interim goalposts over

the next three years. Um, also just recognising the kind of current funding landscape. Um, it's a little bit up in the air as to just what, what the programs are going to be available to drive some of that deeper affordability. So, uh, we were kind of hoping to get sort of see where, see how things start to kind of shape up with some of the new programs announced at the federal level and sort of where we see things, um, land, I guess, with sort of provincial funding programs for housing over the next couple of years. And then, uh, and then also working with the updated census data, um, to maybe dive deeper for the 2028.

So I think we tried to keep it a little bit more high level for these interim targets. Recognising, uh, that there would be a more deeper dive to happen in 2028. Okay. Um, yeah, that, that makes sense. I have some comments about that, but I'll, I guess I'll, is this on the floor? Not yet. Okay. We'll wait until everyone is finished and then I'll, I'll comment on that. Thanks. That's it for me. Any other questions. Council Kim. Thanks. Through the chair, we received an email from a resident. With a question that I do with like to ask. The current strategies housing targets call for 6, 000 total new homes over six years. In other words, 1000 new homes per year. The new proposal calls for an average of about 400 new homes per year. Given that there's an estimated latent demand of six to 9, 000 homes, why are we cutting the desired building rate by more than half. Who'd like to take that. Through

the mayor? Uh, just to, I wonder if, uh. It's possible to bring up. We have. Maybe attachment. B. Is that possible to bring up attachment B leb services. Thank you. I think there may be just a, uh, slight confusion. So, um, the target, the goalposts that are identified below here are actual annual. So, uh, it would be these numbers times three, which would be the, the total for the three year period. So the annual is kind of a, uh, is a goalpost between sort of roughly a thousand to roughly, um, a little over 1300. So it is acknowledging that the OCP identified sort of a more, uh, slightly more aggressive growth target, uh, and so we are acknowledging that more, um, more aggressive growth target compared to maybe what we've done historically, which has been closer to that sort of a thousand. Um, but at the same time we recognise the headwinds, uh, head over the next couple of years. And the changes around things

like migration over the short term. And so we're trying to acknowledge that there may be some need for a bit more flexibility and also recognising that at the end of the day, uh, we're trying to shift away from the serve idea of, um, the city alone is responsible for these. It's a goal post. It's a, it's a tool for us to sort of monitor and keep track of how maybe our policies are working or not working. And maybe where there may be need for, for greater attention or greater adaptation of some of our policies and regulations and things like that. Thank you. Um. Funny how one word can be so important. Okay. So I'm aware also through the materials that there is a program that the City of Victoria has undertaken with landlord BC and another org about retrofitting. Current, um, older, now affordable rental stock. Um, and because there's this program in place, I'm wondering if it's possible to start tracking the data, not

just of homes that have been built, but also homes that are being preserved through retrofits. Who'd like to take that. Is Hudson? Uh, through the mayor, we could certainly do that. Um, we had that, the tax exemption program that you're speaking of, um, is a pilot program at the moment that has a limit of five buildings participating. Um, but, um, yeah, we could, we could certainly take that away and look at, you know, the buildings in the city that are being reinvested in and revitalized because they do very late play a very important role. So yeah, we can certainly take that away. I don't want to add to the workload. So I guess follow - up question is, is a report back coming on that pilot program anyway. Guess Hudson. Um, Sue the mayor. Yes, we are working on that now and hoping to have it too before the summer break. Um, but again, it's focusing on it being a pilot for a building. Yes.

Okay. Well, I would ask that you disregard my earlier question, um, because it is a pilot program, unless in your professional opinion, you think it is worth highlighting. In this type of reporting. That's all. Okay. Thanks. Concer Thompson. I think, Smaria, I had questions around Community Engagement and the Enter and Goal Post. So on Community Engagement, we heard a little bit of discussion earlier about who is going to be, you know, receiving targeted outreach, I guess you could say. But are we creating any barriers. To Community Associations or other groups or residents from providing input? Like could somebody just send an email saying, here's my input. Sudden. Uh, Susan Mayor. Yeah, we're certainly not looking to create any barriers and people can absolutely, um, email us at any time, uh, with their thoughts. And I think, um, I think to Councillor Gardner's question earlier about Community Associations, you know, when we're bringing this out, when we're getting to the point where we have something to

unveil for public feedback, um, we're certainly happy to alert the Community Associations to it, um, to, you know, we're anticipating what we would make this public on our website. And so yes, you know, we're absolutely open to receiving that information. And we would provide an avenue for people to be able to get in touch with us to send us their comments. Okay. Thanks. Um, I know with the OCP engagement, there was a formal quote unquote formal staff led engagement period, but, uh, I was certainly receiving a lot of input well before that and well after it. As with the OCP, will people be able to email or otherwise write letters or phone in and provide their input before any formal engagement period. Is that something.

Councillor Thompson staff are just amusing. Thanks. Um, through the mayor, I think we haven't got to that level of detail yet as far as our detailed engagement approach, I think for today we've brought forward sort of a high level timeline and a very high level engagement strategy. But yeah, haven't dove into the details yet with our engagement colleagues about, um, when exactly we would alert people and, you know, ensuring there's a proper email address for them to provide input two, but we can certainly have those conversations with them to iron that out. Okay. And just in terms of the format of people providing information, I know that with the OCP, uh, there was a great deal of, um, discussion and merryment made of the, um, of the survey, because the survey couldn't ask every single question under the sun. It only asked some questions. But I do know that we're organisations, including Community Associations provided, uh, sort of open - ended input as well. They

just kind of wrote in and said, here's our thoughts. They didn't feel constrained by any particular instrument. Uh, will it be the same in this case. Uh, you've already said that they can provide input, but I guess they can provide any input they want. Are we going to limit that. Through the mayor? Um, yeah, I think at this point in time, we've generally seen, I guess, the fact that we did have fairly significant. Engagement around housing through the OCP. Uh, we have a fair bit of, um, kind of insight, I guess, gain from kind of all the monitoring that we've done around the housing strategy annual reviews over the last, um, five, six years and generally, I think we're also just trying to be acknowledging, I guess, of the fact that we've, we've already asked the community a lot of questions around housing over the last four or five years. And so, um, I think at this point in time, we had not anticipated asking the community

to go out and do a whole nother survey. And as I mentioned before, it's an update. It's kind of a refresh of the housing strategy. Um, we're not necessarily looking to, um, sort of start from scratch. I think the great work that's been done already, uh, over the past, you know, eight or so years around housing that we would be looking to build upon. So I think from that perspective, that's why we were thinking more of a lighter touch around, uh, working with kind of community partners and things like that. Um, but certainly we can, um, and certainly using, using our website and our engage.

ca. Sort of platform as an opportunity to reach out to the broader community as well. So I think we can take some of this feedback. We've heard, um, from council and continue to think about ways to, to make opportunities available for the broader public as well. Mr. Johnson, did you wish to weigh in? I see you leaning in. Thanks. And through the mayor, certainly just to add to what Mr. Salard saying we did do extensive engagement on, on the OCP Council will remember, uh, over 20 plus public opportunities where people came to talk to us. We had our spaces and places, special, uh, events where we engaged with certain neighbourhoods as well. Um, that being said, uh, you know, we would work very closely with the planning department on finding, if the opportunities where, where the realistically just don't know. And that's when we would look to do any kind of targeted survey or something, but, uh, but certainly, uh, as I've said before, ways

to provide feedback to the city through our engagement platform, through email. We'll take any feedback that the public has and consider it as it has required. Thank you Councillor. Thanks. Thanks for that. Uh, just shifting to the interim goalposts. I guess for 2026 to 2028. So, uh, I had thought that I understood what the targets were until a question was recently asked about them specifically around, you know, something being cut in half to five or 600. So I thought that the table in Appendix B, which is still up. Straightforward, I just thought that's the targets. Or sorry, that's the goalpost. Is that not correct. It's just that I believe you clarified those are the annual go posts. Through the mayor, yeah, those are annual go polls. So we have three years, 26, 27, 28. So that would be the goalpost. For each year. So time's seen that by multiplying that by three would give you the sort of the broader total. So Councillor Councillor Thompson,

that would mean that your total net new homes goalposts for three years is close to 4, 000. Yes. It says annual right at the top of it. Yes. Like it's annual goalpost. Okay. So I do understand it correctly. Okay. Good. Um, when you came up with the goalposts, I take it that, um, you were looking at projected population growth plus chipping away at latent demand. Is that correct? Mr. Sauer. Through the mayor, uh, yeah. So that's, that was the, the sort of the foundation of the OCP goalpost. And so what we've done is tried to look at, you know, if we were trying to achieve the goalpost at, you know, one year at a time, like what would the sort of prorated version be? Um, so that's part of what has been included here for the intern goalpost of that, that 1, 330 number that directly relates to that long - term 20 year OCP goalpost, which integrates. Latent demand as a key component of

what, what we, how we developed that. Okay. Then I think you've answered my next question, which is, um, the time period over which the 8, 000 to 9, 000 latent demand would be, uh, eliminated, I guess we would be looking to bring that down to zero at the end of the 20 year period. Is that correct? Is it soard. Through the mayor, I think it's challenging to put precise timelines on sort of a number that is ultimately at best an estimate, uh, and so, um, but I think, you know, when we've been thinking about establishing goalposts and thinking about how housing need, um, and, and I might, I might see if, uh, if my colleague, um, manager close wants to add anything to this that I think we have been trying to think about the importance of trying to tackle that latent demand early in the, in the OCP timeline. And so, um, you know, the more that we, the, the sooner we're able to

tackle the latent demand, the sooner we're able to get sort of some of the challenges that we're facing that have been very persistent within the housing system, uh, around, you know, affordability and vacancy and some of those issues. The more we can tackle the latent demand early, you know, the more that I think we can help to relieve some pressure within the housing system. So I think we've tried to be more, I think more aggressive and, and, and taking action in the near term. But yeah, but I think the, the bigger goal would be long term that, you know, by the time the OCP comes to a conclusion at the end of the 20 years that we would see a significant reduction in latent demand, I think would be a goal for sure. Okay. Thanks.

Yeah. When I looked at the population projections, the most recent ones for Victoria, um, on the BC government website BCStats, uh, something like roughly a little over 800 per year for the next 10 years. And I think a little over a thousand per year for the 10 years after that. And of course that's all, you know, crystal ballgazing. I mean, it's better than Crystal Baldwin. I know that they have models and that sort of thing. Um, so, uh, even if population growth were less than that, uh, which that's not the projection, but even if it were less than that, we would still need to try to tackle that, um, latent demand, correct? Through the mayor, yeah, that's, I think that's, that's a good point. And, um, in the same way that we, the population estimates today are based on projections and the policies of the day, you know, they, they very well could shift based on, uh, policy shifts at different levels of government as

well. Right. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh, thanks everyone for your answers at all for now for me. Thanks very much. Anyone else with questions Councillor Coleman. Thank you. And through you, your worship to staff. Thank you for the reports. Um, I don't know if you have the original report. Stacked up. I did send Miss Rotor the continuum housing continuum. So when we look at the numbers, do we do a backward check that they actually fit the median, as an example, the median income levels for monthly rent. So if we build 700 or get 700 units in the targeted median area, do we go back and check the rent and say it's somewhere between 1100 months and 1750 a month? Mr. Sauerd. Through the mayor, um, we do do some tracking within the non - market component of the housing continue, I would say. So, um, we do when we're doing our, our target tracking, uh, through the housing strategy and we'll review, we do try

to, um. Sort of specify, you know, based on a, for example, the Caledonia project that, you know, So we do do some of that, um, but at the end of the day, I would say like, you know, these are the graphic is illustrative. It's a, it's a, it's, it gives us sort of a good working idea of some of these, uh, these different sort of buckets that we're working towards, um, but, um. Ultimately, I think like the, you know. A significant component of our housing is market housing. And so the price of that market housing is subject to a number of factors outside our control, of course. Thank you. And that, that's helpful.

I just think that we have targets, excuse me, for what we want to see growing out in the future and addressing latent demand. But there is a bracket creep. And I look particularly at the median level and below with respect to annual household incomes. And if it's the 30 percent rule from CMHC or the 45 percent rule, I'm not sure we're achieving those targets over time or they're stabilizing. So my, I guess the other way of asking a question is if you look at all the units we're projecting, where would you fit them on the spectrum. And are we then sure that they're going to stay there addressing affordability for the different citizens of Victoria.

She's our, I think that's a very, very good question. And I think highlights the challenges when we see major cuts to our, you know. Very, um, very critical programs such as the Community Housing Fund, which have been probably our greatest tool for advancing, um, housing that would cater to very low, low and median income, uh, groups, uh, because the level of subsidy in the form of operating subsidies and capital grants that's needed to drive that level of affordability and housing within that, that segment of the continuum just doesn't happen without a major investment from a provincial or federal partner. So, um, I think certainly one challenge that we could see, I think moving forward is as those programs. Are, you know, repaced or scaled back.

We see maybe more housing that is in, that is technically, you know, below market housing, but the starting rents are maybe creeping up into that moderate household income because there isn't the level of operating subsidy or capital grant to really drive that deep affordability right away and that over time at me serve median household incomes of the day. But to start, it may not. And so we, um, I think that is a challenge that, um, that will need to continue to watch and monitor and highlights the really important role of partnership in terms of delivery of this, this non - market housing. Thank you. And I think it highlights the increasing as we move to the left, the increasing level of the light blue tranche.

That seems to be evaporating these days. Um, and it puts some real pressure on the delivery and the maintenance of the lower end of that spectrum. So thank you. Any other questions from anyone who resnia asked one. Not seeing that. Councillor Loten for a second time. Sorry my apologies. Councillor Hammond first. Can someone please explain through you, Mayor, um, what is the reduction in moving penalty? I didn't understand where the penalty comes in. Ms. Montgomery, is that something you can answer. Through the mirror, so that's the difference in what you're paying versus what you'd be paying if you moved into a new unit. And so that has to be 50 percent. Through the mayor. So sort of the hit that you would take has been reduced. So you now would be paying, um, not as a significant gap between your current rent and the new rent. Okay. All right. Now that I understand that. So then does that mean you move and you're still going

up. Like this isn't a reduction, right? It's an increase. Like you were either paying what like, I don't, I don't know or 50 percent crew coming to leave a place and then pay 50 percent more rent. Is that what they were doing? Through the mayor, it is an increase. Okay. And so now it's a lower increase. And am I correct? Is there something of that? Anyways, it's small. So let's say, so, so I leave an apartment and then I move and I'm probably paying 17 percent more. Is that right? Through the mayor, that's correct. On average. Correct. Okay. How does that, how do we reconcile that with the fact that the upper end or going down.

Through the mayor, um, so I think, yeah, it's interesting. I think it speaks to the. Sort of diversity of, of circumstances within the primary rental market, um, so you could see, so yeah, we saw like a reduction in the moving penalty. So the moving penalty was about 40 percent in 2024. So yeah, Councillor, you're correct. So that could be someone who maybe has been in a housing situation for the last, you know, two or three years, but, um, and they maybe locked in at something that was, uh, at a reasonably high price, you know, a couple of years ago, but maybe are able to find something that's much better. And but they're willing to pay a bit of a bit more of a premium for it based on maybe being a newer product or something like that. I think where we have seen the sort of more modest decreases in terms of the housing prices, it's been, I think, smaller, some of the smaller units.

So certainly like bachelors in one bedrooms we've seen some modest decreases in that, um, and some of that has been, yeah, maybe sort of some more competition maybe within that, um, housing kind of that's been built in the last, the last five years. And then also just as, uh, that becomes a little bit more affordable. It sort of trickles down in there. It can be some, you know, more competition at other parts of the housing. Sort of stock within rental. But I think, you know, the moving penalty number, uh, yeah, sort of speaks to people who are, um, yeah, I guess it's sort of looking at leaving their current unit either because they've been forced to or because they choose to, uh, and sort of the, I guess, the premium that they're forced to pay by, um, by sort of, uh, going out into the open market. And I think what, why we use it is, it's, it gives a bit of an indication of

just how scary that is, I guess for a tenant. If someone has a 40 percent moving penalty, that's a, you know, that's quite a, um, quite a significant challenge for that person and highlights the value of things like our tenant compensation bylaw and things like that in terms of helping to mitigate that impact. Um, and so I think what we're seeing that is it's one indicator that gives us a sense that there's maybe some improvements in the overall, uh, rental housing market in terms of giving more choice and more options for people who are renters based on the fact that we've seen more supply. There's maybe more competition. We've heard from speaking with folks such as like Devin Properties, that then the rental market there's more competition for good renters in terms of whether that be, you know, incentives for people to sign up for, for rental units and things like that. So I think it's just one indicator that we use to sort of

give some sense of like where things are within the primary rental market. Thanks. And through you, Mayor, you, you mentioned that someone might be forced to leave. Well, that could be, uh, because of, um, personal circumstance, but it also could be that if there's redevelopment that they are, um, kicked out of their, um, their cheaper rents. And then they have to go to market rents. Is that correct? Through the mayor, yes, that's correct. Okay. And now in the report, and I might even make reference to it in my notes, in the report, it makes reference to the fact that, uh, places are getting smaller and yet people are paying more per square foot. So could it also be that if someone chooses to or is forced to move out of something that's bigger, they're moving to something that's smaller. And either it is a little bit less or could be, let's go with the average 17 percent more, but they're not getting as much. Could

that be also reality of what's going on now. Through the mayor. Yeah. I mean, yeah, that's, that's one scenario that could play out. Absolutely. Okay. Thanks. Um, I just want to read a couple of things and then ask a question from the report. On page 23, the rental housing vacancy says the overall vacancy rate in Victoria has reached its highest level since 1999 rising to 3. 2 percent. This marks a clear shift towards a more balanced rental market and reflects the high number of rental housing starts in recent years combined with lower population growth from 2024 to 2025. A week labour market shown by slower hiring and rising unemployment among younger workers limited the formation of households may also be a contributing factor according to the CMHC. Ongoing high demand for family - friendly homes remains due to the small number of existing three bedroom units, um, in the city. Um, isn't. Our trend in Victoria basically the same in many jurisdictions within Canada. Sehr.

Through the mayor. Yeah, I think there's certainly our macro trends that are playing out across the country with respect to greater investment in rental housing, increase in vacancy rates. But I think there is certainly, the nuance. And, um. Yeah, local context that's important as well. Well, sure. But also a huge change. Am I wrong is in the, um, number of immigrants that we're allowing in and also students and temporary foreign workers isn't like, unless I'm wrong. Isn't that a trend that we see amongst a number of markets across Canada, especially where housing was built up quite readily and Victoria, Vancouver, Toronto and other places like that. Through the mayor. Yeah. That's, uh, that's why we speak to the fact that we've saw some lower population growth from 24 to 25 because of that immigration shift. We still do see, you know, Victoria is still a desirable place. So we'll still see that sort of regional migration within, within Canada and within BC to people moving to moving to the Victoria region as well.

But yeah, absolutely. That's, that's what we're, we're acknowledging that there has been, uh, some lower population growth as immigration is scaled back. Thanks. So when staff go over, uh, the report and they say quote, more choice for renters is there more choice at the Affordable or deeply affordable apartments when vacancy rate is 3. 2 percent. So. Through the mayor, uh, you know, I would say certainly the greatest choice is probably, uh, within the new rental market supply is probably the greatest opportunity in terms of availability and choice. Um, I think there continues to be, uh, there continues to be a significant wait list for subsidized social housing. And so, um, that remains and that highlights the need for ongoing. And ongoing kind of commitments from all levels of government to work towards that. But yeah, I think there certainly is, uh, there's. Probably more choice and more available and more options for people who are looking for looking at sort of new rental market housing.

But I think there is also, uh, just generally, you know, looking, you know, speaking with our tenden assistance planner and talking with, you know, some of the rental housing providers in town that there is, I think there is just also just more competition, like across the rental, the rental segment. So you're telling me that at the, um, affordable or deeply affordable apartments, there's a substantial vacancy rate. Through the mayor. I'm saying that there is more options probably for older rental housing as well as the new housing, but probably the greatest choice and the, the most highest vacancy is probably on the newer rental housing stock.

Okay. And just to follow that, do we have evidence that in the affordable or deeply affordable or even in the older housing stock, that those, those rates are going down. Other than the market rent. Cause I get at market levels and new places. I get that you have better choices and maybe the rent's going down a bit. But can you tell me that there's actually rents are going down in the affordable and deeply affordable apartments. Uh, through the mayor, I guess I'm not, like, are we talking about, are we talking about the like subsidized housing segment of the market? Are you talking about more affordable like market rental housing stock? Yeah, I'm talking about someone who's been in their apartment for 20 years. And they move out. Are they going to also find a place that's going to be as affordable as what they've been at? Seward? Through the mayor. Yeah. I mean, I think that's, uh. Probably. Because we have a significant portion of

our housing stock that continues to be in the market rental housing. We've probably seen some slight adjustments to that, i. e. with the moving penalty reduced from previous years, um, and that rinses are not rising as much, but I don't think it's still those still units are still going to be, you know, still going to be driven by, you know, market rates. I mean, we did see from 24 to 25, we did see a reduction in the average cost of a, of a, of a bachelor unit. So I think that speaks to maybe some of those, you know, units kind of stabilizing not seeing the price appreciation that we've seen for, for the many years.

But yeah, I can't, you know, we, we do see, you know, buildings that have, you know, that were, you know, built in pre 1960s, uh, from the 1960 to 1970s, uh, even, you know, buildings that were built in the 70s and early 80s. We definitely do see that those, uh, rental housing and those units in the region are generally have, have much lower rents. Some of that is based on the fact that people have longer tendencies and they're protected by the RTA, but there may also be just to be clear slightly lower rents. They have lower rents, but the moment they move out, you're not telling me that the rent either stays the same or goes down if someone's been in an apartment from the 1960s or 1970s. Through the mayor, I'm not saying that the, the rent goes down, but I am saying that as there's more competition within the rental housing market. And we see more supply come on. It's more challenging for,

uh, for a landowner to say that they're going to be able to bump up the rent for a 40 year old unit to the same price that someone is maybe going to be paying for a brand new, uh, building, you know, downtown with nice finishes. So I think it just highlights that when there's more balance in the rental market, there's more competition. And that provides just generally more options for renters. I'm not saying that, uh, there's deep affordability provided. Though. Okay. Thank you. Um, on page 31, the progress towards affordable housing targets, um, you lay out, twenty, the target of 2, 100, 90 percent of the 2, 100 affordable rents. And so you note, um, a number of different locations such as, um, the roundhouse lime bay development in Vic West. How many of the 2100 affordable housing units are in the works or are, or have been completed. She's our.

Mayor on page 33. You'll see that there is a map with the different projects that are under construction in 2025, which may help, but I can pull up those exact numbers in just a moment. Sorry. What page is that? Cause I remember seeing that. And so I was just wondering of those of the 2100 how many of those are actually, um, built or soon to be built. You say that was page 30, what page was then? What page would that do? Page 33 of the. Right. It shows the little houses and whatnot.

So through the merit, there were 813 non - market homes under construction in 2025. Great. Okay. Are any of the 90 percent of those 2, 100 are they ready for occupancy now. Do the mayor I don't have exact numbers on occupancy at this time, but last time I looked, it did seem, um, just based on the projects that most of them are still under construction. Okay. Great. Thanks. Um, and then, and this covers some of the stuff I've talked about, but just to be clear, when it comes to rinse, we are told that rents are coming down. But all our indicators from 2024 housing report and then this, 2025 housing report, all the rents have gone up in 2024 with an overall rent increase of seven percent except for studio apartments, all other increases, um, with overall rents or up 5. 7 percent. How do we reconcile this. Any stuff like to take a stab at that? Through the American, you just repeat the question,

please. Well, sure. Is that, um, the 2024 report in the 2025 report all rents on average overall went up 5. 7 percent 2025 all of the categories in both those years went up with one exception of studio apartments that went down slightly. And so we are told, and I accepted it. It seems to be true. We are told that rents are coming down. But how do we reconcile the fact that our rents have gone up. Substantially over the last couple of years when people are told, Hey, you got a good thing going on right now. Yeah. Through the merit. This is a good question. So, um, yeah, the couple different data points that we use in terms of just sort of tracking what's going on in the housing market. And so, um, the chart in the housing strategy annual review on page page 25, uh, which, uh, which is the number that you referenced around sort of the overall increase of, of rents, um, being

about five, 5. 7 percent increases is based on the CMHC rental market report. And so that, that's data that's tracked annually. And it comes out, I think, you know, comes out in the fall and is usually based in like, I think it comes out sort of toward the end of the year, but it's based on data that sort of captured, I believe in the fall each year. And so within that, we are seeing, um, yeah, we are seeing that the overall, uh, increase has, has still been there. Um, but what we have also seen is that, um, there's other, other groups, such as like rentals.

ca that shows sort of asking, asking rents on a month by month basis. And so that's some of the, some of that, um, kind of commentary that we're sort of providing is that if you look at the, the sort of month over month pattern of, um, data that's being released by that rentals. ca report. You do see, um, you start to see that sort of, that chart. That's provided on page 24 of the report with monthly average rates sort of, you know, maybe kind of peaking. And sometime in kind of early, early 2024 and then sort of seen slow month over month kind of decreases, uh, modest month over month decreases since through the end of 2025, uh, and I would say anecdotally, we've kind of seen that continue through under 2026. So, uh, and that's more, uh, more of a snapshot of kind of, um, asking rents at the time on sort of a monthly month, month by month basis. Um, that's, that's provided.

And by that sort of rentals. ca. And that's based on asking rents. And then when we look at the CMHC annual report, that looks at the overall overall rental market report and COSL can capture, you know, also captures the increases that people pay based on just, you know, annual rent increases from the RTA. So, um, if someone is, uh, even if someone's paying a lower rent, um, the landowner may still do the, you know, the RTA allowable rent increase. And so they rent would still continue to increase. Um, but when we look at the sort of asking rent rents that are being kind of listed on, you know, different websites and things like that, the rental. cacts. We do see sort of a general trend of rents kind of flattening out or even declining a little bit. And we've, we've also seen that sort of reiterated by, you know, speaking with housing providers such as Devin properties and talking with, with housing providers who are,

you know, developers and things like that who are finding it more challenging to, you know, put together projects because they, they see sort of rents kind of flattening out. And it's harder for them to make their, their estimates and based on sort of, uh, a less. Um. Sort of, you know, the cooling of the of the rental market to some degree. So, um, yeah, I think it's going to interrupt you because we are now out of time. Okay. Uh, Councillor Heming, do you have subsequent questions? As does Councillor Lauton. And so we're going to break for lunch now. We are going to return at one o'clock. I will note that we have failed to complete two items on the Committee of the whole agenda today.

And I would urge all of us to be more discreet. And more concise in both our questions and answers. When we come back at one o'clock, we will attempt to finish the remaining aspect of the Committee of Whole Agenda. And then we will proceed with the daytime council. So you get one o'clock. Good afternoon everyone and welcome back to the Committee of the Whole Meeting of Junior 18th of Victoria City Council. We are on item H1, the staff report, which is the Victoria Housing Strategy annual review. And just before we broke, Councillor Hammond has the floor with some final questions. Thanks Mayor, I'm done with questions. I'll wait for motivation. Very good. Councillor Loton, I believe you had a question, did you? I had you in my notes here. So you mayor, no questions I'd just like to move the recommendation. Okay, so I'm going to suggest that if the second or further recommendation, that will debate all three, but I will seek the prophion

of council as to whether or not they wish to separate them for voting. But for now, we'll take them as a whole, and that way you can speak to all three of them. So Councillor Loton has moved all three of the recommendations. Councillor Kim is seconding. Councillor Louton, over to you. Okay, so I'll just motivate briefly. I want to start with noting what the standout thing. For me in all of this, is that our vacancy rate is now 3. 2 percent, and it was mentioned that it hasn't been that high since 1999. So almost 30 years. And I think this is a cause for celebration.

I think we should all be out in Centennial Square having a big party about our vacancy rate, because that is remarkable. So kudos to you staff for your role in making that happen. Also, you're coming to the end of a six - year plan. And you met the goals, the housing targets have been exceeded. Some are significantly exceeded, where some were still working on, but all in all, you set out the task that you set for yourself. So congratulations on that. We also, you know, it's good to see in this housing review that the OCP and Zoding Modernization has mentioned. The tenant protection during redevelopment bylaw is so crucial and important. The development process improvements are also really important to help developers save money and get housing built faster. And then I like seeing the way that the Community Safety and Wellbeing Plan is going to be integrated into this in the future. And Net New 1748 net new houses in 2025. Unbelievable. It's amazing

to see. It's a record year for building permits and purpose - built rental construction, which translates to more choice for renters and declining rents. I like seeing all the affordable housing breakouts in here. I mean, that was something I don't believe we saw as much in the 2024 and 2023 annual housing reviews. So I'm very happy to see that because we really need to keep our eye on non - market numbers and developments. So happy to hear the 158 that opened in 2005, and I'm happy to hear the eight more market projects coming under construction, which will equal 813 homes. So that's huge. But also I completely agree that the continued partnerships and investment, it's mandatory. This doesn't happen with that. And I know there's been a lot of advocacy around the community housing fund, the urban BC Urban Mayors caucus that our mayor chairs has done a lot of work to advocate to the province about what are we doing with the Community Housing

Fund among other things. So that is crucial to keep the fire under that advocacy. But we also need support from the feds. We need Bill Canada Homes money on this too. So that's, I believe, our jobs as politicians to do that advocacy work. We do need more three bedroom homes. We do need more missing middle homes. I mentioned this in the item before. We're only at 46 percent of that. But I mean, that's just, still to work on. And the new Affordable Non - Market Homes, like we almost got there. The 2100 was the target and we got to 90 percent of that. So we, you know, the Community Housing Fund and all those pieces are really critically important so that we can, um, meet those needs. And I was asking questions about the non - market breakout and really like critically for me is tracking the deep subsidy units. Because without those units that rent at 500 dollars or income assistance, we, we, um,

that's homelessness prevention. Right? That, that is absolutely mandatory. And if we're going to integrate the Community Safety and well - being planned into the planning department and the housing strategy, I don't think that we can wait until 2000, or part of me, uh, 2028 to incorporate tracking those numbers or having targets for them. Um, and I know that they're really difficult to build because they have to come with the RGI, the rent gear, sorry, the rent gear to income and the near market units as well. But if we have numbers, there's other things we can do in terms of providing rent supplements to help people bridge that the distance in money so that people that require deep subsidy can actually access it through rent subsidies.

So I'm not going to do any kind of amendment or anything around that today because I need to talk to, um, the city manager, cause I don't under, I don't have enough information about this. I may, if necessary bring a Council member motion at a future date around tracking those, those deep subsidy units. That's my only sort of thing that I think needs to be flagged here. But other than that, you have, I'm going to use one of the mayor's words. You've done Yeoman's work. And it's incredible. You've, you've, you hit your targets, our vacancy rate is at 3. 2 percent all of you. Thank you very much. Happy to support all of this. Thank you very much. Councillor Kim is the seconder. Um, thanks through the chair. I think my observations here are really more just thank you to you. For synthesizing a very difficult topic to synthesize. There are so many moving parts.

And as you have reiterated throughout your answers, there are so many external factors that we cannot predict either. And yet here you are trying to lay out a snapshot. Um, over a period of time. And this is a snapshot that is also, it's numbers on paper, but it's, it's people's homes. It's people's livelihoods. It's, it's where they find security. And well - being. And so, um, I think part of what I'm trying to say too is I also appreciate that you bring the people into this as well. Um, so congratulations, Planner Soward on your new addition to your family. And you bring the story alive of what we're trying to accomplish here. So thank you to each of you. Thank you very much. Anybody else.

Those are Coleman. Thank you. And through you your worship. I'll offer my thanks to staff as well. Um, there is a caution that goes with it. However, we get caught in the moment. And we're thrilled that the vacancy rate is 3. 2 percent. I'm one of those old timers. I remember Wendy Zinc sitting there when she was, uh, Senior Planner for social planning. Reminding Council of the Day that we were going to be in a housing crisis, anytime the vacancy rate was below four percent since 1982. So we still have targets to do. And I think in that caution, we need to recognise the different.

Units right throughout the housing continuum and the affordability function. Um, they're different. They are interrelated, but there's a whole slew of our citizens who can't afford life at the moment. And they're always being forced on the edge. So that led to some of my questions earlier. But I think that this is the right direction and it's, I don't know if all the goals will be achievable, but they're certainly aspirational and should be guiding us. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Councillor Thompson. Thanks Mayor. And I would, uh, like to echo my colleagues in thanking staff for the report and also for the amazing work that they've been doing, the housing policy picture.

Is a lot better than it was at the beginning of the strategy. And we're starting to see maybe some, some results from that. And I say maybe, uh, the vacancy rate is up. It's approaching a balanced level of four percent. Of that maybe due to supply, um, some of it is certainly due to immigration policy. Uh, and I would just note that that immigration policy changes on a dime, um, whereas, uh, building housing, uh, the supply side takes a lot longer. Um, also, um, that's a balanced, um, rate. It's not a, you know, a target to hit at once and then let it go. So, uh, while I think the policy picture is better, the results are still not, uh, fully hitting for people. We're still hearing, uh, people say that rents are astronomical and they're right. Uh, people are having to leave Victoria to find a place that they can afford to live in. So, um, we're not there yet. Um, switching over to population, projections, um, there have been a few

people, uh, online doing their own research, which reminds me of, of the sculpture and obey called modern man does research. I would encourage anyone interested in, in fact - based conversations to have a look at that sculpture. Um, but the reality is that the latest projections are for population growth of 800 to 1000 or more people per year in Victoria. So we're going to have to accommodate all those people with, uh, more housing every year. And we have to chip away at that, uh, latent demand of 8, 000 to 9, 000 units. Um, and I would like to see that happen sooner rather than later.

We did hear from staff that, uh, that that's their intention as well. So I'm hoping that the results will show that. We need to keep building homes. So, uh, while there's a good moment here to give ourselves a pat on the back or rather to give staff a pat on the back, um, we also need to not take our foot off the gas. Thanks Mayor. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Let's gardener. Thank you. The 2019 housing strategy targets have been met and exceeded in some areas. Thank you very much for the pork. It is clear on that. But now maybe the time to pivot. I'm very concerned about our elderly and those with mobility challenges. The game of adaptability instead of accessibility should end. I am also concerned with the data. We need more complete information going forward and more current data, which worries me in the, um, recommendations two and three. Going to the public for feedback after the housing industry has been involved in the policy development is

too late. I had hoped that the comments, the unrest and the divide about OCP 2050 would have meant something. That's really it. I guess my time's probably up. Thank you. You're welcome. Everybody else comes your hand. Thanks Mayor. I'm afraid I'm not celebrating the way others might be. In 2024 overall rents went up 7. 1 percent in 2025. They went up 5. 7 percent And so when staff write that there's quote a more choice for renters, um, there's not. There is at the higher end of the market. That's no problem. People can go and find something at the higher end. Um, but no one can point towards an older building where someone moves out and the rent goes down. The rent goes up and in many circumstances, it will go, um, up considerably, especially when you consider that one of the older buildings, you get more space. The new buildings, many of the apartments are tiny. So the difficulty is it's, no one is paying

anywhere near what the last tenant was paying. And of course we're not helping as a council when during our term residential housing taxes went up 35. 52 percent. Um, we're also not helping by our OCP where we invite builders, building owners to sell to real estate investment trusts and other developers where truly affordable housing is torn down, replacing it with much, much higher rents, even if some of those market rents have gone down slightly. And I don't get me started on laten demand. There is no such thing as if we had true latent demand, the moment at any, at any level. So as soon as a place comes available, it would be taken. That's not the case. The case is that we've got a lot of people who cannot afford market rents. And they are not, we do not need this kind of latent demand to be doing our work on that. We need to come up with affordable housing for them. Whether it's supportive

housing or affordable housing or deeply affordable housing or just stuff that's reasonable for people, the latent demand, if we look at it and they go, Oh, we just got to keep building. There's already a ton of those, um, apartments that are available right now when it's 3. 2 percent. And mayor, is there going to be an opportunity to separate and talk about number two or should I do that now? Uh, you should speak to it now, but we will vote on them separately. Okay. All right. So when it comes to the, um, when it comes to the population increases, they don't change on a dime.

Um, as a matter of fact, BC stats in their latest PEO PLE projections were released in December. The City of Victoria is now projected to add only about 2, 600 residents between 2024 and 2034. That's roughly an 84 percent reduction from the growth experience of the previous decade. So I got no problem. Like, you know, we could, if we want, we can say builders come in and do what you want. They're not going to build for places where they can't because it's so expensive, they've got to get market rents unless there's money or, or some deals that are thrown in in order to get less than market rent. And so the thing is no one is going to build the difficulty and it's in conjunction with our OCP is that someone suddenly comes next door to you and builds this gigantic thing that is not necessary. We do not need this kind of building that's going on our house. That was decided by the OCP,

the majority of Council went along with that. So it's not about, um, it's not about re - arguing that, but don't tell me that because of the wonderful work of our OCP that that's going to be good for people when they tear down affordable rents. And then there's way more expensive rents. And six months as the maximum for people to get compensation six months of rent, if you've been there 19 years or longer is that that's criminal. And my hope is when staff comes back, but no print. Well, no, lots of pressure on them. I hope that they'll come closer to the motion that I made in May of 2025 when I said it should be one month for every year that they've been there up to 19 months. So on this one, um, number one, I can certainly vote to receive the information. Number two, I would not be voting in favor of that because I do not agree with the housing goalposts. We

can put all we want. They're not going to build it. And yet someone can end up with a huge thing beside you. You're out of time. Thank you. Anybody else. Checking online? Nope. Okay. Oh, cancel. Yes, you have 58 seconds. By all means. We have thousands of units under construction now. And those number of units are probably larger than the real. Population increase of anticipated. Thank you. Thank you very much. I will just add a couple of very brief comments. I won't repeat, but I agree with all of the positive comments that have been made by my colleagues. I do want to comment on the, uh, extraordinary work of staff who have managed to, uh, execute the design that began by the previous council in 2018 and 2019. In creating this plan and the fact that it has come to fruition and then some over those years, uh, I think speaks primarily to what I hope was a logical vision at that time, but more

clearly to the ability of staff to actually execute those visions. Uh, my concerns, if I have any, would be slightly different tone in that I'm not actually certain that this is sufficiently aggressive looking forward. I do think there's some additional work that needs to be done particularly in pinpointing, uh, new policies that will accelerate and support, um, afford affordability, accessibility and the provisions of protecting existing renters. And I think those are all pieces of work that council is aware of staff is aware of and will likely be on the work plans in the coming months and years, which I know, uh, I would certainly support.

Mostly I guess we have to just think the persistence maybe that's a good word of staff who have lived through several councils now who have tried to bring some order to the desire to ensure that there is enough housing for people. And I think you've done an extraordinary amount of work to try and find those balance points, not necessarily always helpfully from the perspective of council's help because sometimes we've given you conflicting advice. Um, but you have taken the germs of that and made something that was achievable and which has been recognised across the country for its success. Yes. There is more to do. And certainly on those points that I've raised, but we should at least for a moment take a time to thank you for what you've done so far. And warn you that more is coming. So thanks for your presentation today.

And I thank you for your ongoing work. With that, we are going to vote on these separately because it was requested earlier in the conversation. So we'll do them one at a time. So I would ask someone to move number one, please. Just receipt of the report. Thanks Councillor Gardner, Second of my Councillor Coleman. Any discussion on receipt. Seeing nonovos in favor. Anybody opposed. And is unanimous. On number two, it's someone like to move number two, please. Thanks Councillor Lothan is moving number two. Councillor Kim is moving number two. A second name number two. Any further discussion to number two. Seeing none, all those in favor. I'll have to do this online. Councillor Thompson is in favor Councillor Dell is in favor Councillor Kim is in favor, Councillor Louton is in favor. I am in favor, Councillor Coleman is in favor. And opposition Councillor Hemmand and Councillor Gardner. Someone, so that is two noting two in opposition number two is also endorsed. Number three, would

someone like to move number three? Please Councillor Kim is moving. Councillor Lothion is seconding. Councillor Kimmer Load in any further comments. Anyone else any further comments number three. Not seeing anyone. All those in favor of number three. Councillor Dell's in favor Councillor Thompson's in favor Councillor Kim is in favor. Councillor Loton, myself Council Coleman Councillor Hammond. And opposition Councillor Gardner. Noting one in opposition. Number three is endorsed and adopted as well. Thank you, staff, for that able presentation and all the work that went behind it. That would take us to a closed meeting. Would we require when a committee? What we do not today. And so I will look for a motion to adjourn committee.

Thank you Councillor Coleman's second backcounser kit. All those in favor, anyone opposed. That is unanimous. We will just pause long enough for Council and staff to be able to be moved into their Council meeting and then we will start right away.