Transcript: Committee of the Whole - 2026/09/03

Council's Committee of the Whole. I can't believe I just said it was September 3rd. Uh, welcome back from our brief hiatus from meetings in August. We are a full complement today. Councillors Kim and Thompson are joining us online. Today we have for our consideration a late council member motion, 5 sets of minutes, 1 item of unfinished business, 1 land use matter, and 1 staff report. But of course, before we begin our work together, we always like to take a moment to ground ourselves and our work and all of the efforts that we make on behalf of the city, to reflect upon the decades and generations of work and stewardship undertaken by the 2 nations on whose territories our city sits in in its entirety, the Coast Salish Nation and the Songhees Nation. Both of these nations and their core families and members have literally spent dozens and dozens and dozens of generations ensuring that the lands on which we sit now and the waters that surround them here on southern Vancouver Island have been kept in

the best possible condition in some areas in pristine condition, in others in recovering positions, so that we can in fact have this wonderful place to live and work, raise our families and do our best. It is an important thing for us to recognize as we continue to navigate a complex relationship with the nations and with our residents, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and to renew our commitment to continuing that work in a collegial and egalitarian way. With that, we always like to say thank you in their language, and that is to say, "Hajjikasiem" or "Hajjikasiem nikolia." And that is simply to say thank you and to honor those folks who have taken a moment in each day to pause, to reflect, and to make a decision that will in some way cause an action to be taken that will hopefully increase the life, betterment of some individual's life.

So with that, I would say, "Hajjikasiem," and raise my hands and welcome and thanks. And offer our community's thanks to the nations. I'm going to depart momentarily in the Chair's remarks for something that is less to do with the city and more on a personal matter, which I rarely do. And that is to note the passing of Gloria Steinem, who at the age of 92 yesterday left us here, and who, for those of us of a certain age, would remember her as part of a remarkable quartet of women along with Angela Davis, Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin, and Audre Lorde, who among them made the life that many young women enjoy right now possible in the face of extraordinary opposition and in the face of a system which essentially began with the understanding that women had no rights to virtually anything. And when you fast forward through several generations through which they lived and in which they all created extraordinary change. It sometimes is impossible to even imagine a different life that is what we have

now. And in the last 24 hours, I've been actually randomly testing, including with some of our staff, whether anyone has ever even heard the name Gloria Steinem. And in fact, I have yet to find someone under the age of 40 who has. And so I think it is important for those of us who perhaps remember these people as icons, as certainly Gloria Steinem and all those other women have been for me, is to take it upon ourselves to recall that it is part of our responsibility to remind the people who enjoy the avails of their work of just exactly who is responsible. There are many, many more women than those 4 or 5 that I have just mentioned who should be thanked. And hopefully those of us who have that memory and that arrangement will do so. I had the great honor of meeting Gloria Steinem twice in my life, once as a young woman once when I was a young woman in law school, and the other more recently, just a few years ago, at a

conference back east, a conference that I attended specifically to be able to hear her and meet her again, and it was indeed a great, great honor. So I hope that just in remarking upon this today, it reminds us all that it is important for us to take the time to remember those people who have, throughout their lives, made an effort to change the way we have the opportunities to live. So, RIP Gloria. We come up then to the introduction of late items, which we do occasionally have, and today is one of those opportunities. There is a proposal to include in our agenda today a council member motion entitled the public statement and position on the federal designation of the West Coast Pipeline as a project of national interest. Since it has been proposed today, I just want to remind us and the public that there are a number of procedural applications that we need to consider. There are 3 sections of our procedures bylaw. They would be

section Section 19 sub 1 sub b, which requires submission of a late item at least 48 hours before the meeting at which it is to be considered. Section 19 sub 1 sub c, which requires the late motion to include a rationale noting the time sensitivity for its late consideration. And Section 15 sub 6, which requires distribution to council members before the matter is to be considered. All of those requirements have been met, and so in considering this item, there is one additional aspect, of course, as should we vote on this. Our procedural bylaw requires that under Section 15 Sub 5, that two-thirds majority vote to add it to a late item— as a late item to the agenda.

So having said all of that, I am going to ask Councillor Kim, who is proposing this, who's joining us online, to move that this item, which is entitled, as I say, Public Statement and Position on the Federal Designation of the West Coast Pipeline as a Project of National Interest, be proposed and added to today's agenda as a new item J1, which would be our sole item of new business Councilor Kim, would you make that motion, please? As you have decreed, Mayor. Very good. Is there a seconder to add this to the agenda today? Councilor Dell is seconding the adding it to the agenda. So, Councilor Kim, I'm going to ask you to very briefly motivate only on the time sensitivity of this and why it requires consideration as an item today. I'll just remind Council that that's all we're considering at this time, whether or not we wish to consider this as part of today's agenda.

Should it be added to the agenda, we will have time later in the agenda to discuss the substance of the actual motion. Councillor Kim, why do we need to consider this today? Thank you. Um, the deadline for submission to the federal government on this particular item is coming up, I believe September 18th was what I said in the motion, and, um, I wanted to provide enough time for not only the mayor's office to write said public statement and position if it passes, but also to encourage other municipalities in the province to take similar action. Very good. Thank you, Councillor Dell. Anything to add as a seconder? No, nothing to add. Anything else on the— just on the matter of whether or not to add this to today's agenda? Okay. Say— oh yes, go ahead, Councillor Coleman. Just a question of process, Your Worship. You said J1. J1 is closed meeting if required.

Yes, it would require us to actually adjust the entire agenda if this is added, and we'll do that next. If this is added, we'll add that next. Thank you. And propose an amended agenda. Yeah. Good catch. Anything else on whether or not to add this to the agenda today? Just checking online. Nope. All right. All those in favor of adding this to the agenda today? Councillor Dell, Councillor Thomson, Councillor Caradonna, Councillor— thank you, Lauten. It's been a long break. Myself, Councillor Colman, Councillor Hammond, and Councillor Kim. In opposition, Councillor Gardner. So noting one in opposition, we will add that to the agenda today. And as was noted, I will add that as a new item of J1, an item of new business, which will then add what is currently at J to fall to item K, and we'll we'll consider that as an amended agenda item next. Moving on then to item D, this is the approval of the agenda, and so I would ask someone to

move the amended agenda that will include the previous item as voted upon. Councillor Colman, would you like to move the amended agenda? Thank you very much. Councillor Cardona is seconding. Any discussion on the amended main agenda? No. All those in favour? Anyone opposed? That is unanimous. Moving on now to the consent agenda. There are a number of items proposed for the consent agenda. Just for the information of the public, proposed are all of the minutes. I will read them for the record. This is item F1, the minutes from the Committee of the Whole meeting held June 18th of this year. Item F2, the minutes from the Committee of the Whole meeting held June 25th, 2026. Item F3, the minutes from the Committee of the Whole meeting held July 2nd of this year.

Item F4, the minutes from the Committee of the Whole meeting held July 9th. Item F5, the minutes from the Committee of the Whole meeting held July 16th. And Item H1, the 770 Pemberton Road rezoning application and development variance permit from the neighbourhood of Rockland, which I'm aware a number of councillors would like to pull, and so I will, in fact, remove that from the consent agenda. So, in fact, our consent agenda is comprised only of 5 sets of minutes. June 18th, June 25th, July 2nd, July 9th, and July 16th. Anyone wish to add anything else or remove any of those minutes? Not seeing any of that. It's only to move the minutes, the consent agenda.

Thanks, Councillor Colman. Seconded by Councillor Loughton. All those in favour of the consent agenda? Anyone opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you very much for that. That would usually move us on to consideration of the minutes, Section F, but as we just noted, all 5 of those have been added to the consent agenda. So again, items F1 through F5, the minutes from June 18th, June 25th, July 2nd, July 9th, and July 16th, all approved as part of the consent agenda. They will come forward at a future committee meeting, or rather council meeting, daytime council meeting for final ratification. That takes us on then to item G.

This is an item of unfinished business, reporting back from staff on the proposal to establish a by-name list for the City of Victoria. I believe this is Ms. Webb and/or Mr. Rantucci, or perhaps both of them, who are going to provide a verbal report back response update. Let's just give them a moment to get settled, and then we'll hand the floor over, would appear, start— starting with Mr. Rantucci or Ms. Webb. Good morning, Mayor and Council. My name is Sarah Webb, and I'm the Assistant Director of Corporate Planning and Strategic Partnerships here with our Community Safety and Wellbeing Department. Last month, Council directed staff to reach out to BC Housing and CRD to get an update on the implementation of and communicate our support for accelerating the implementation of the federal HIFIS system. As a reminder, HIFIS stands for Homeless— Homeless Individuals and Families Information System. This is the national system designed by the Government of Canada, designed to support day-to-day operational activities and coordination of service providers and sort— support organizations to

help individuals experiencing homelessness access coordinated care and housing solutions. HIFAS is a comprehensive data collection and case management system. The system enables registered service providers within a same community to access, collect, and share real-time local data to ensure individuals and families accessing services are prioritized and refers to— referred to appropriate services at the correct time. While a by-name list is an important component of HIFAS, a by-name list alone has limited ability to connect people to housing. The effectiveness of the system comes from that broader functionality surrounding a list: assessment, prioritization, referrals, case matching, vacancy matching, and coordination amongst service providers. Together, all of these elements enable communities to match individuals in need to housing and support services. Here in Victoria, the Local Backbone Team is working on several items to ensure the capital region is ready, willing, and able to support the HIFAS implementation when provincial rollout begins.

The initial phase of this program is focused on partners, sites, and programs that are funded through BC Housing and/or the federal Reaching Homes program. Current activities include completing the regional system of mapping to identify all organizations, programs, and services, and staff who may require HIFAS access, establishing local governance structures to support coordinated access and HIFAS rollout, and the CRD has now hired a HIFAS administrator position. There are regional conversations underway with service providers to discuss practical topics like referrals, data sharing, and system integration. And all of this work right now is being done for ensuring a smoother onboarding process, providing clear roles and governance structures, and allowing for consistent practices across the region.

As it stands, both BC Housing and CRD report that their current focus is on HIFAS readiness. They're building the right foundations now to support a more successful rollout and coordinated access system in the future. Staff are expecting an update later this month on the HIFAS implementation at our upcoming Homelessness Response Leadership Table. We will keep council updated later towards the end of September. Until such time that the HIFAS system comes into effect, BC Housing has been collaborating with outreach partners over the last 2 months to develop a shared by-name list through data collection activities, cross-referencing existing information using the Housing Connection system, and while adhering to privacy and consent provisions. While it does have limited functionality, This work forms a basis for coordinated outreach schedule and more importantly can help to highlight the scale and diversity of resource needs to support individuals experiencing homelessness. So as it stands, CRD and BC Housing are moving forward with the HIFAS rollout.

We will be getting an update later on in September, but staff were encouraged to hear about the activities underway to help build the basis for the provincial rollout. I will be pleased to provide more information in the coming weeks ahead, and this just concludes So that's my verbal report back. Thank you very much, Assistant Director Webb. That's good news. And as someone who's been aware of the efforts to bring HIFAS to reality for the last 14 years, I'm encouraged to hear that you're hopeful. Anything else? Any more questions or comments? Sounds as if we will get ongoing conversation. Yes, go ahead. Go ahead, Councillor Gardner.

Questions? Thank you so much. Just a reminder, there's no decisions for us today. My continued— Questions are welcome. Okay, I'm sorry, my computer wasn't working. What time element was going for the rollout? When do you expect this to be underway? Ms. Webb? Staff will be getting an update at the end of September on the next steps with rollout, so I do not have that information today. So we don't know if it's going to be this year? I'm unable to comment on that. Okay, no, that's just what I wanted to try and confirm. So thank you for your report. Now, as mentioned, on July 30th, we had heard about building relationships with those on the streets in the city, uh, contracts, etc., or provided grants to several organizations to do this. Now, at that time, meaning in July, I had asked for a list of organizations involved with relationship aspect of identifying those on the streets and in our parks, organizations charged with attempting to get people on

this, uh, on the streets and in our park support or housing. And organizations funded to monitor those on the streets, or other organizations which have been delegated the task of relationship building with those on the streets and in our parks. And I've also asked where, uh, organizations on the list have received grant or contract funding. I wanted to see dollar amounts by year for 2024, 2025, and 2026, uh, up to June. So on July 30th, I was told this information would be provided with your report to this motion that's before us now. Uh, will you be presenting that today? Uh, through the mayor, my apologies, I, I'll be reporting back through, uh, in our community safety well-being update on October 1st. So I was bringing that all information forward.

Council asked for several items. I wasn't going to be discussing that today. Great, so I should get that on October 1st. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Luton. Thank you, through you, Mayor. Just a quick question of clarification. So we're going to be hearing back about HIFAS later this month, hopefully. But in the meantime, B.C. Housing is using a by-name list to— is that now just for with us, or is it with the region? And how is that working to help us with any prevention measures? Through the Mayor, so the BC Housing is working with several service providers in the City of Victoria. So it is focused on the City of Victoria, and they're using kind of combining their efforts both on outreach and cross-referencing data.

So that information is available now and has been the work that has happened over the summer, and so that is now part of the focus of as an activity to be able to continue implementation around homelessness responsive initiatives. So I would say we're in a better position than we were at the end of June. Okay, that's, that's good news. Are they, are they looking to work with any of the other municipalities in the region? Like, are they looking regionally on this, or is the focus just on us? Through the mayor, this is a specific request that the City of Victoria has put forward forward because we wanted to be able to have the increased access and confidence that we were sharing information amongst service providers just here in the City of Victoria. Across the capital region would be a broader initiative associated with that. Okay, thanks for that. And then just one final question, Mayor, if I may. Um, um, one of the main reasons why I, I brought this up was the prevention

end, because the by-name list helps with inflow and outflow. So we have created 242 net new spaces. We've moved 75 people out of the park. We've housed many people. We're visibly— it's not looking like we're making a difference out there. And it's because there's more people coming into homelessness. So my concern was really what are we doing on prevention. So is there Is there data being collected on why people are entering homelessness? And is BC Housing— do they have prevention measures that they could— are working on on their own or working on with us? Is any of that work happening? Ms. Webb. Through the Mayor, annually the Point-in-Time Count, which occurs every October, coordinated through the CRD with a service provider, I believe I believe it's a Community Social Planning Council delivers that, do do a comprehensive point-in-time count to understand who is out there across the capital region, but also what are some of their needs, how did they get into homelessness, and what are their— what are the supports that they're seeking

out. So absolutely, I think that each year the intention is to better understand what— how people do get into homelessness and then look for opportunities to support that prevention aspect. I think that as we are delivering our Community Safety and Wellbeing Plan, that is exactly the kinds of work that we need to be doing on the upstream side of things, which is how do we support people in experiencing risk factors and ensure that they've got the right safety net around them so that they're not getting into homelessness. So I would expect that we'll have updated data after the point-in-time time count again in October, and that would be used not only by the city but agencies like BC Housing or Island Health to determine how best they can deliver their services. Okay, thank you very much. And then just so we'll, we'll get another update on, on HIFAS with the Community Safety and Wellbeing update. Would you say October 1st? Did you say it was October 1st?

October 1st. Through the mayor? Yes. I don't know what information we'll get at that next meeting, so we will communicate whatever staff are given at the Homelessness Response Leadership Table. Okay. But in the meantime, we do have this sort of rudimentary by-name list with BC Housing that we're working with at the city and that will help us as we're— Correct. Okay. Thank you very much for this. Appreciate it. Any other questions? I would just note that at next week's Capital Regional District Board meeting, there is supposed to be an update from the CRD on their housing strategy. Which of course one would hope would also reference their progress in enacting an actual functional HIFAS system. So those of us who have the opportunity to be there for that meeting will, I'm sure, have a chance to ask pertinent and relevant questions. With that, I thank you again, Assistant Director Webb, for that, for that update, and we look forward to the next opportunity to ask you more questions when you come back on the first with your regular public

community safety and well-being update. Update. With that then, we move on to the one land use matter that we have on our agenda today. This was an item that was removed from the consent agenda. I think it would be helpful for us to have staff do a bit of a presentation to start, if they're prepared for that, and then we will go to questions. So once you're settled, we'll hand it over to you.

Good morning, Mr. Carroll. Good morning, Mayor, and good morning, all of council. For the record, my name is Patrick Carroll, senior planner with Development Services. The application under consideration today is a rezoning application and a development variance permit application for 770 Pemberton Road. The proposal is to amend the existing CD-14 zone to permit subdivision and construction of a new single-family dwelling within the comprehensive development area. There are covenants on title that will require amendment if council chooses to move the application forward. In terms of the matters for consideration today, they are limited to the supportability of the rezoning as well as the development variance permit application, the supportability of those variants.

As there is no development permit required for a single-family dwelling. Here is the site. You'll see it at the top and its location along Pemberton Road close to Rockland Avenue. The surrounding area is largely single, single-family development as well as a high concentration of heritage designated and heritage value buildings. You'll note the red outline that shows the full extent of the CD-14 zone. And there is currently 4 lots. Zooming into the aerial of the, uh, subject property, you'll note the existing building is tucked right to the back of this property. Also, the heritage conversion is immediately to the south, and it contains 8 units, and there is a coach house at the back as well on the same property, and it contains 2 units. Here is the 3D aerial just to give you a sense of the architectural expression of the, both the main heritage development as well as the contemporary buildings surrounding it.

Here is a shot from the street looking inward up the property, and again, you'll see the existing building is set far back from the road. Now, moving into the official community plan. The site is identified as within the residential infill area of the residential fabric. So moving into OCP policies, in terms of land use guidance, the OCP envisions the full range of residential forms, including ground-oriented residential buildings, such as what is proposed, up to 4 stories generally in height. The OCP also places emphasis on both the preservation of heritage assets, as well as heritage responsive designs, which is more applicable in this application. The OCP further informs design, uh, most notably encouraging, uh, perimeter block form of development.

This is where development is oriented towards the street and generous open space exists generally in the rear lot. This proposal does diverge from this concept as it is inward facing and centered around the heritage asset. However, it does meet the broad objectives of this concept, particularly in terms of generous open site space as well as new and retained trees along the street. The guidelines also support variances to setbacks to enable alternative siting for heritage-type development. Moving to the rezoning and development policy, the policy encourages that built form, design, and exterior materials complement nearby cultural landscapes. In this case, there is the abutting property at 750 Pemberton, but more notably, Government House is located approximately 100 meters to the south.

As reflected in the council motion, the proposed design will be consistent with, uh, the guidance provided in the OCP with a recommended revision to relocate the building, uh, specifically further south and/or west. The intent is to improve the success of retained trees on the site and particularly in the municipal boulevard as well. As noted, there is a need to amend existing covenants to permit the development. These were registered as part of a previous rezoning application. And most notably, there is a tree protection covenant and there is also a design covenant. In both cases, they prohibit development or construction on the lands except for in accordance with the plans attached to these documents.

Here's the master site plan. Here is the center of it, which is the heritage conversion. Here is a preserved green space, which is also reflected in the covenant. And there is also a coach house at the back, already noted. And here are the 3 single-family dwellings constructed to date. Zooming into the site plan more specifically, here is the proposed building. You will note the patio, which does face onto Pemberton Road. There are the street trees, you can see little Xs there that denote them, and there are several of significance. Here is the main entry for pedestrians off of the driveway, and here is the vehicle entry into the garage.

In terms of setbacks, this is the front yard setback and it is 1.94 meters. The north side setback is at 1.5 meters. The rear setback is 3.3 meters. And finally, the largest setback is the south side setback, which is 5.42. I would note that the building was originally placed in this location, uh, in response to input to maximize the view to the heritage building from the street. But as noted, as additional Arboretum Report information was received, staff are now recommending that the building shift in a moderate way south or west, as shown, and it would be expected it would be somewhere approximately a meter in each direction.

Here's the landscape plan. You can see that the plantings are clustered along the edges of the property and also around the pedestrian entry. Open lot space overall is generous at over 62%. Site coverage is at 31— just over 31%. So here is the front elevation. This would be facing inward towards the heritage-designated building. And the total height is 7— just over 7 meters. Here is the rear elevation, and it is facing north to the abutting property. Here's the east elevation, and this faces Pemberton Road, and there's the patio to activate that space. And here is the west elevation, and it faces inward towards the existing building on this property. Passamaquoddy. In terms of materials, there are— there's a mix of wood, painted stucco, stone veneer, and concrete.

And here is a rendering showing the existing situation, and the below is the new proposed building in behind the trees. And here's just another view to show the proposed new dwelling and its relationship to the existing single-family dwelling. So in conclusion, the proposal is considered consistent with the OCP's use and built form guidance. And further, the site and building design do respond to the heritage context. The recommended motion includes the plan revision already noted to shift the building south or west, and therefore it is recommended that the application be advanced to bylaw readings subject to that revision being completed. Thank you very much, Mr. Carroll. I think that there are a number of questions that council will likely want to ask, in particular with regard to the impact of this on the covenants. Do you have any comments that you could offer at the beginning, specifically with regard to that impact, before we go to questions?

Uh, through the mayor, thank you for the question. Yes, so as noted, the The covenants, there are actually 4 in total. So 2 of the encumbrances are actually service related to external service providers. The 2 of note that I had highlighted were passed as part of the previous rezoning and the intent was because there was no development permit required and therefore design wouldn't be reviewed in that context, the application instead recommended and there were registered these covenants to basically design, put in some control over the design. And so that includes building elevations as well as a master site plan as well as individual requirements for the lots. And it would be fair to say that with this recommendation from staff that you are, from staff's perspective, satisfied that the resolutions you're proposing do not have a precedent-setting impact on the covenants?

Uh, thank you for the question. Uh, so staff, um, have taken in the application and assessed it against the current policies, and the proposal from the existing landowner was that, uh, their view was there was additional space to accommodate a new building, and staff assessed it based on the current policies and believe that, um, if, if as council, we would recommend that council consider advancing the application because it is consistent with our current policies today. Thank you. Questions? Let's start with questions. I'm sure there are many comments, but let's start with questions. Councillor Carradine, how to start? Thanks. I think I only have one, maybe two. Uh, through the mayor, I actually met with this proponent a couple of years ago when they were thinking about doing some kind of missing middle multi-unit entity here, and we— that person wanted to pick my brain. I handed it off to staff. I haven't talked to the person in probably 2 years, and then it comes back as a single-family home

proposal. So I'm trying to understand what happened, and I noticed somewhere in the report, I think it's maybe on page 5, that the property is limited to single-family dwellings. Home Occupations and Accessory Buildings, which is probably why this ended up as it did. But I want to get a better sense of why this relatively large lot would not be zoned for missing middle and what the barriers would be to doing some kind of multiplex here, like a threeplex or a fourplex. Why, why couldn't this be a multi-unit? Mr. Carroll, uh, thank you for the question, and through to the mayor. Uh, the applicant engaged staff early and quite a few years ago, as you had noted, and they were They were exploring all options, but they did indicate their preference was to construct a single-family dwelling. So when the missing middle regulations were active, staff did recommend considering a houseplex type of development and just indicated that adding more units in a compact form would be

consistent with our policies. The applicant did respond that they weren't— were not interested in a more dense development and that they felt a single-family dwelling would fit the character of this development. Okay, that's helpful to know. And, but in just in terms of the zoning, the property is limited to single-family dwellings, home occupations, and accessory buildings. Why? That's the part I don't understand. Like, why is this plot not zoned with the rest of the city to be applicable for Missing Middle? Thank you for the question, and through to the mayor. This is a CD-14 zone, so a comprehensive development district, and as such, it was not included in the modernization of our zoning that occurred in 2025.

So we do anticipate the CD zones will be reviewed in later phases. But at this time, this development is still CD-14, and that CD-14 zone is quite restrictive and limits you in both use and density. Okay. So I guess the— if what I'm hearing is that we just— not all of the zoning was completed that was envisioned in the OCP in 2025. We essentially haven't gotten to this neighborhood yet to think about what small-scale multi-unit might look like. But what if, what if a neighboring property that's much larger wanted to do a fourplex? Would they be allowed to do that? Mr. Handy. Thank you. Good morning, Mayor Altom, members of council. Jim Handy, Acting Assistant Director, Development Services. Um, kind of two answers there. So the first part of, uh, the answer relates to the phasing of our zoning bylaw modernization um, we have several comprehensive development zones in the city. They're often complex zones that deal with certain unique sites and site sensitivities.

In this instance, this site has a CD zone because of the heritage building and the unique circumstances around this development. Um, it was determined that the CD zones would be tackled as a later phase of zoning bylaw modernization, so that still on our program, and that will come forward at some point in the future. Um, my understanding is the majority of the adjacent properties are zoned general residential district, so they would have those opportunities that would be afforded by that zone. Okay, so it sounds like it's part of the unique characteristics of this actual spot, and what I'm also hearing is that the proponent landed on wanting to have single family. That's all clear? Okay, thank you.

Councillor Hammond. Thanks, Mayor. I'm— maybe I'm not understanding this, but I don't know that when you asked the question that it was actually answered by Mr. Carroll. And I know you gave the answer you thought best, but what does something like this— what impact does this have on other covenants and our concern about precedent of a covenant that was discussed at great length, from what I'm told, less than 10 years old? Mr. Handy. Thank you. Thank you for the question. So I think I'll start by saying the purpose of the covenants that are registered on title is not to prohibit future development. Just to give a bit of historical context, Um, you know, when I've dealt with several of these over the years where we were approving, um, developments where, um, the proposed developments such as a single-family dwelling would not require a development permit and therefore we would have no future design controls, we would register these design covenants on title so that we did have some control.

So we talked about the unique circumstances on this site, some of the sensitivities around the heritage home. If we— if this design covenant was not in place, then essentially, you know, an owner of one of the single-family dwellings could, you know, change the colour materials of the buildings without review from the city. So we wanted to retain an element of that control. The purpose was not to then prohibit any future development, any future development. It was just to allow us to review proposals. Um, in terms of a precedent, we look at each application on its own merit. Um, so an application has been submitted, we reviewed it against the current policies and design guidelines, and we feel it is supportable with some minor changes as, um, uh, as described by Mr.

Carroll. And if a future application came in which required a review of a design covenant, that would be reviewed on its own individual merit as well. This would not set a precedent in terms of that decision-making. Councillor Hammond. Thanks, Mayor. I received— all of council actually received from Ms. Hudson a response when I was asking about this, and Ms. Hudson noted that the covenant relates to the design and finish of the buildings and landscaping of the 2017 approved to development, and the other covenant relates to the tree protection measures, and we were told that these wouldn't be a problem. However, how do we deal with Article 4, Section 4 of the covenant, which reads the owner further covenants and agrees with the city and that from and after the date of adoption of the zoning amendment bylaw, the owner shall not build on the lands or design site, construct or finish any building or structure on the lands except in strict accordance with the site plan and the landscape plan,

including without limitation the finish of the buildings. And it goes in a little further about where you find those. And also B, the location and nature of all landscaping. So how do we deal with the fact that you've got something in there that said shall not build on the lands or design site? Construct or finish any building or structure on the lands. I believe you're leaning into that one. Thank you for the question. Charlotte Wayne, Manager of Neighbourhood Development Planning. Thank you for the question. Through the Mayor, the covenant in its simplest terms, what you quoted in that particular article, it restricts future development only in such a way that the covenant has a site plan attached to it, and the site plan that's attached to that covenant shows no building in this location. So that aspect of the covenant requires amending. Um, the, the language that you quoted doesn't preclude any amendment, only insofar that the site plan needs to be amended to reflect this building. And there are other amendments to the

covenant, um, as, as described by Mr. Carroll. Um, but I think that's— I think that's maybe the simplest way to answer your question. Has— okay, thank you. And through the mayor, so there's this covenant, there's this article in there amongst others in which it's being really clear, at least to me, that it's saying you can't do anything. And the mere fact that they hadn't anticipated that someone said, well, no one thought about putting a building there, so that isn't covered under that article, doesn't, doesn't that mean that they would have to anticipate every possible nuance that they hadn't even considered at any time in order to put it in. And I mean, I know 4 of us on this council have legal training, so you want to make sure that there's proper protections in there. But it seems to me as though this covenant was trying to be very clear about the negotiations and the work that was done beforehand and supported by the Kallik

very strongly. Is to say this is what was put in place for these purposes and that they did not anticipate anything like this. Is that possible? Who would like to try and answer that question? Through the Mayor, I'll see if Mr. Cowell has anything further to add to my response, but my understanding was the covenant was in place mainly in relation to maintaining an open appearance through the heritage building. Um, the, the design that's been put forward before Council today has been, and as described in the staff report, has been oriented, um, in such a way to maintain that, those views to the heritage building.

Um, I don't think we can speculate in terms of, in terms of the, the intent of the covenant was, was not to prevent any future development. It was what was prevented— what was proposed at the time didn't show anything in that location, but it also did not preclude any further development coming forward at a later date. Okay, so just to be clear then, so it says when the owner shall not build on the lands or design site, construct or finish any building or structures on the lands except in strict accordance with the site plan and the landscape plan. You're— so you're saying that that that on its own was not enough to prevent any construction or changes of buildings. That's correct.

And through the Mayor, I think it's worth reminding Council that Council has the ability to rescind covenants as they see fit. Of course. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. And I'll try to be clear. Which will be hard for me in this case because it's going to be a tough one. First of all, uh, what was the date of the arborist report, the one that, uh, is causing the shift of the building? Mr. Carroll, do you know that? Through to the mayor, just one, uh, give me one second. I just got to scroll through a little.

June 18th. June 18th of this year. Yes. So it is June 18th of this year, 2026. Thank you. That's important for me to know. Now, we've also been informed via communications from Residence in one hand, one of you— what, excuse me— and others, including Don Luxton, who wrote the report that set up this whole system— or not system, but the report which he called the Statement of Significance in a Heritage Impact Assessment in November of 2026 that set up this whole agreement in the first place. And so his correspondence to us is dated April March 23rd of this year, which means even before the shift in the house was being proposed. Now, the shift going south will, of course, further reduce the emphasis or the view of the heritage house by moving it further south when you look at the angles. Now, Mr. Luxton also suggests that Section 31 of the Property Law Act gives a court the power to modify or to cancel a restrictive covenant if the owner can satisfy

the court that any one of 5 different conditions referred to in Section 35 exists in favor of the owner. And then there's, of course, a list of them. Now, one of them happens to be the court may make an order under subsection 1 on being satisfied that the application is not premature in the circumstances and that a) because of changes in the character of the land, the neighborhood, or other circumstances the court considered material, the registered charge or interest is obsolete. But really, the, uh, there was the whole purpose of this Lot 1 being really quite open was for highlighting the, uh, to the public as they go up and down Pemberton that whole heritage site.

So, um, I'm just going to read from, uh, the correspondence we got. It appears that the conditions outlined in the Property Law Act cannot be met as the covenant assured a general public benefit with no specific time limit. The public benefit that was agreed upon in 2017 will be taken away if the covenant is cancelled. Could we have an opinion on that from our legal? Mr. Handy. Through you, ma'am. I heard the question was directed— I believe the question is whether or not we've had anyone from our legal staff have a look at whether or not any of the changes being recommended have any legal impact with regard to the covenants in particular. Okay, just very simply, yes, our legal team have reviewed the application, the report, and they haven't flagged any issues. Very good, thank you. Pardon? I didn't hear the answer.

The legal team has reviewed this and has approved it. —has approved it. Okay. And says that that particular thing may not apply. Correct. Because that there is no change to the public interest. Is that right? I think the answer is the legal team has reviewed the application and the recommendations and has found no issues. No legal issues. Correct. Right, but there may be other issues. Okay, I'll have comments later. That's my questions. Very good. Any other questions? Councillor Dell. I would just like to move the staff recommendation. Okay, let me just check and make sure there are no other questions first. Just checking online. No questions online.

All right, Councillor Dunn, you'd like to— Councillor Dell, you'd like to move the staff recommendation. Is there a seconder? Seconder for the staff recommendation? Councillor Carradonna, go ahead. Councillor Dell? Sure, so I've reviewed this file in depth and understand the issues with the covenant, which are designed to protect the green space, the trees, and particularly the views. When I first saw this, I thought the views were going to completely block the home, and when I looked at it, you know, this kind of smaller home is tucked away quite far on the north side. It seems to preserve most of the views of the heritage home Which the photo that we had there shows.

So I did receive the information from the neighborhood association, which was concerned about the views. So we're trying to find that balance. But for me, I'm just going to read a letter. All the letters for this project were in support of this project. Every single letter was from someone in the area, including some on the site and some on Pemberton who said, this is actually what we want for this site. So I normally don't read letters, so I will read a couple of them. I'm writing as a nearby resident to express my support for 770 Pemberton. Victoria needs additional housing within established neighborhoods, including ground-oriented homes that accommodate families and residents at different stages of life. The proposed cottage would provide one additional home in a desirable, well-connected area while introducing a building form and scale that is consistent with the surrounding community. I also support the sensitive approach taken to the site. Rather than maximizing the size and density, the design has been reduced and carefully

positioned to preserve the visibility and prominence of the neighboring heritage residence. The modest two-story scale and residential character appear appropriate for the area and should allow the new home to complement the surrounding properties. That one goes on and on. There was one I wanted to leave. This is someone who actually lives on the site. As long-term residents of 770 Pemberton, we support the proposal to build a new family home. This is a quiet, safe, and welcoming residential area that provides an excellent environment for family life. The neighborhood offers a strong sense of community with family, friends, low traffic, access to schools, parks, and transportation. So it seems like the neighborhood on Pemberton— I understand it's probably one of the most beautiful streets in the entire city with some of our most majestic heritage homes. That said, as these letters say, this area is going to evolve. We can't just cram density in Burnside Gorge and other areas and allow Rocklands to not change at all. I mean, if there's a problem

with this is that it's a very low-density proposal where I think initially something to accommodate more residents was proposed, but I understand the desire to preserve the trees and I think they've really found the right balance. I hear those who don't want to see much change in Rocklands, but I think this is actually a good proposal and I'm willing to support it. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Carradonna as a seconder. Thanks, Mayor. This one is a tricky one for me because we don't often have subdivisions and single-family homes proposed. I can think of a couple of other examples this term. There's one in Dysbard. There is one here and there. It's, it's fairly uncommon these days, as most new development is, is multi-unit. For me personally, I'm not passionate about adding new single-family homes to the city. It's not why I was elected. It's not what I think is going to solve our housing crisis.

I think it's a missed opportunity to build some type of small multi-unit residential building here, but it doesn't really matter what I want. What matters is what the zoning says and the OCP says. And staff's interpretation of the rules. And so I'm deferring here to staff, and in their reading of the zoning and of the OCP, this does meet our rules and regulations, and I think therefore it should be approved. What I want personally doesn't really matter. I understand that it is the desire of the proponent to build a single-family home. That's what they want to do. It meets our rules and statutes, and therefore I think it should be approved. But I do I still think it's a missed opportunity to add a little bit of density to a site that, that could have accommodated it. And there is actually some pretty nice density already at 770 Pemberton. I walk by there all the time.

So on balance, this is about interpreting the rules and deferring to staff's interpretations of the rules, and it's not really about what we around the table want as a vision for the city moving forward. So on balance, I'm able to support it. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Councillor Gardner. Thank you. I viewed the property earlier this week. I'm driving around a lot these days, so I managed to stop by there to have a really good look at it. The real question before us today is the covenant and whether the council will alter or in effect abrogate the covenant. The Rockland Neighbourhood Association has clearly objected to the proposal before us. Donald Luxton, the heritage consultant in the application, which was to conserve the main estate house, has recently summarized his report done 10 years ago.

He did that in April. Lot 1 was to be left vacant to allow open public views from the street through to the heritage house. And it's not just straight on, but to see it as you come and go so you don't just get a quick little glimpse glimpse of it as you go by the driveway. The framed views and open space were part of the negotiated public benefit of the development. Today, as we learn, when the development is moved further south from the arboretum, we learned this because of the arboretum report, that will further decrease the view which will be protected. And again, it's not just the view when you look up the driveway, it's the whole ambience of the area. Both Mr. Luxton and the Rockland Neighborhood Association identify the abrogation of the covenant as a dangerous precedent for all Section 219 covenants. We are part of a living council. While council cannot bind future councils, we must at some point respect commitments with

the public, and a lot of these commitments have been made through covenants. The act of altering this covenant would be akin to council approvals being written in pencil. We've seen a lot of that recently in the country south of us. I will not support the staff recommendation. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Councillor Hammond. Thanks, Mayor. Um, it's true, we heard from staff that council can change any covenant they want, but then this basically means that Anyone entering into a covenant with the City of Victoria knows that these covenants can be worthless. I can see important reasons to change or rescind covenants or other documents on land title. And when I thought about this one, I thought about the British properties in West Vancouver, where unless you were white and Protestant, you could not actually own any of those properties. And then of course it was in 1978 where the BC government said that those covenants are void and of no effect.

I remember learning about it when I was going through the Bar Admission Course about these actual covenants that you'd still find, well, back then, that was a long time ago, so you could still find some of these covenants on the documents that people had held the property for a long time, but they were of no effect. So I can see that, and as a matter of fact, there's a part of me that would think that All right, if for public purposes, public policy, but a real public purpose, we were to give affordable housing or housing that more people could afford, I could appreciate that. But this is a single-family home.

And I got nothing against that, but I just don't think that's the reason why you strike a covenant that is less than 10 years old. Now, part of the reasons that we were told with recent correspondence and others is that it impacts the view. So I cycled by there and I thought from the— actually from the renderings that we got, I thought, oh, you know, does it block the view that much? And when I went there, I can completely see it. It's not like it's this gigantic tract of land, but I can see why they said this was the purpose on having this for these views. And, you know, I live in Rockland and so a lot of people could think, oh, this is just rich people on rich land. And yet Rockland is full of tenants living in these old mansions. And I remember when the Rockland Neighbourhood Association a few years ago told us that Rockland is actually 70% multi-unit.

So people have taken these old mansions and turned them into something. But my biggest concern as a councillor who's also still a non-practicing member of the Law Society of British Columbia, that contracts should mean something. And if there's real big purpose for changing it, that I get. I don't think putting a one single-family home on this property is enough of a reason. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Yes, Councillor Colman, go ahead. Thank you. We've got two different components here. The land use actually doesn't bother me. It's the legal aspect of covenants and how they are perceived. Having been involved in applications for this property writ large in the past, I do remember the discussions.

And covenants are seen— you know, there are 4 non-practicing lawyers at this table. Covenants are seen in different ways. They are legal instruments that can be adjusted if you have a legal background. But in the earlier iteration of this property's development, it was seen as a contract with the public, and it's seen differently in that context. When the land use committee of this area supported earlier applications, they saw this area being protected from development. As I say, I'm not particularly flummoxed by by the development application, I think it looks quite good. But if we go back to Stephen Covey and the speed of trust, what we're creating is a conundrum within the community where no future covenants will be trusted or legal minds will narrow them and make them harder to break. So that's the conundrum that's in front of us. And we've all gone by the property, we've all taken a look, It doesn't take away the view of the traditional stately home, but it does narrow it. And that, I think, is the conundrum that

we need to face. I have a real problem trying to cast my mind on how I deal with an application that I think makes sense from a land use perspective and the adjustment of what the public saw as a legal entitlement or a legal form of protection. How I deal with that will be shown in the next few minutes, I suppose. Very shortly. Anyone else? Yes, Councillor Thompson, go ahead. Thanks, Mayor. Um, yeah, I just wanted to ask staff if they could comment on the, um, idea that, uh, um, that this effectively means that all covenants are nullified and meaningless in the future. Can staff weigh in on that?

Who would like to weigh in on that? I mean, that's partly, I suppose, an illegal opinion, which I think has been answered previously by the answer to my question of have— has legal looked at this? The answer was yes, but feel free. Go ahead, Ms. May. Thank you. Through the Mayor, um, I do concur with your assumption that, yes, a legal opinion will probably be more advisable, but what I could, could contribute is that, um, the— as Mr. Handy mentioned earlier, each application is viewed on its own merits. The application before Council today has been evaluated against the Council adopted policies of the day, including the corporate plan, the strategic Plan, the OCP, um, to name a few. Um, I think that's as far as I'd like to go with my answer. Very good. Mr. Handy, you'd like to add something? Just, just add one comment. Thank you, Mayor. Um, it's just the decision that Council make today doesn't set a precedent for future decisions. So if we receive another

application on a different site with a covenant and, um, it's not supported, then making that decision is fine today. It does not set a precedent. So if I understood your comment, what we do today doesn't necessarily fetter any future decision? That's correct. Thank you. Councillor Thomson? Thank you, Mayor. No further. Okay. Anybody else? I'd just like to ask one question or maybe two of our staff. Did I correctly hear you say that the— from staff's perspective, From staff's perspective, the purpose of the covenant back in 2017 was to ensure that any future possibility of development would require oversight from staff and that a design would need approval. Is that correct? That's correct.

Would I then interpret the fact that you are recommending this proceeding is the fact that you have in fact had the opportunity to review a design and based against all of the policies that are applicable, it meets that design except for the provisions that you've added as a variance or an amendment? Yes, that's correct. So in fact, the purpose of the covenant has been met. Is that correct? I believe that's correct, yes. Thank you. As others have said, this is both a land use policy consideration as well as a consideration of the application of a covenant that was made 9 years ago. And from what I have understood from the presentations and the materials provided, the purpose of the covenant in fact was very intentional and was very required at the time. And the purpose that it was designed to meet has in fact occurred by virtue of the fact that the development that is being proposed could only have been put forward once it had been considered by staff

and presented to council and is therefore subject to a council decision based upon the fact that the covenant's purposes have been met. Given that, I do then revert back to then the land use consideration, which I do agree, as others have said, is actually quite elegant. It is, I agree with some of the comments, perhaps not as dense as some would like. However, there is a very unique feature about the land use in Rockland, which whatever you may think of it, is in fact quite remarkable. And indeed unique. I think this fits that unique character, and therefore I'm quite content to support this application at this time. Having said that, Councillor Gardner, yes, go ahead. Thank you. Having read the covenants, I hope everyone else here has. Yes, the design aspects are there, and that also applies to any changes to the buildings going forward, and I get that. But there was also the whole landscape to understand that no other construction on that site. But really what this boils

down to beyond the legal is trust. And broken trust is really hard to regain. And frankly, the city and council is in trouble in that regard regarding— especially with the OCP. And even the whole argument of the OCP might be used to rationalize this further actually destroys trust with our general population. And I just want to raise that, that that's what this has always boiled down to. This one is the trust. The word was used, and the councillor used it. This was part of the negotiation with the public. So yes, the covenant can be changed legally, no question, but can it be changed and keep integrity with the public?

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Councilor Kerodono. I'm sitting here feeling puzzled because I'm hearing from another councilor that a covenant was changed. I, I don't— I didn't hear from staff that a covenant has been changed. What I'm hearing as a member of council is that the covenant has been satisfied, that this proposal is consistent with the covenant. So I would like some clarity because I'm hearing different things from councilors than I'm hearing from staff. Miss Wayne, any comments on whether or not there's been any changes to the covenant? Thank you for the question. Through you, Mayor, there have been no changes as of today to the covenant that was adopted, that was registered on title.

However, the application before Council today does require amendments to the covenant to allow for the development to be included on the site plan, and amendments to the tree covenant to, uh, update the proposed development as per the plans that are before Council. Thank you, appreciate that clarification. Thank you. Anybody else? Councillor Thompson, your hand is up again. Do you wish to speak a second time? Uh, sorry, that's a legacy hand. I'll put that down. Thank you very much. All right, I'm not seeing any other questions or comments. So on the matter that is before Council, as you can see on the screen, All those in favor of the staff recommendation? Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim— thank you— Councillor Cardona, Councillor Loughton, myself, Councillor Thompson. In opposition?

Councillor Coleman, Councillor Gardner, and Councillor Hammond. Noting 3 in opposition, that recommendation is approved. Uh, that moves us on to item I, a further staff report— or rather, a staff report on the Noise Bylaw review. I believe there is a presentation on this. Just let our staff come forward, get themselves settled.

Uh, thank you, Mayor. If I may, just, uh, quick, and just to introduce, uh, the staff today, it's— we have with us today our policy analyst Barry Nichols, and shortly Monica Fetichkowski will attend as well, and they will be, uh, presenting the noise bylaw review that we've done as long— along with the staff recommendations. Might I ask, Mr. Kingsley, how long is the presentation? 10 minutes? Okay. I suggest then, given the timing, that we proceed with the presentation, but we will likely take a break before questions.

Pardon me while I catch my breath. I was just running up the stairs to get here. That's okay. Um, good morning, Mayor and Council. I'm Monica. This is Barry. We're also joined in person and online by an army of staff who have helped us come to these conclusions and develop these recommendations. We will be answering your questions, so will they. Monica, can you pull your microphone in just a little bit? It's just a little bit— yes, thank you. How's that? Much better. Perfect. Today we are bringing forward recommendations to simplify and clarify the city's noise bylaw regulation framework. We are aiming to streamline enforcement, address common sources of noise complaints, and support a balanced approach— sorry, support a balanced approach to residents, businesses, industry, construction events, and city operations.

The city's current noise bylaw was adopted in 2003. It serves to protect quality of life, balance community needs, provide standards, and provide enforcement— provide for enforcement. It regulates through noise districts, decibel limits, permitted hours, and general nuisance provisions. It also contains exemptions mainly for noise sources outside of the city's jurisdiction. Jurisdiction. It also works with other sound mitigation tools and approaches. We would like to note it is primarily a reactive tool that addresses sound after it occurs through complaints, investigation, and enforcement. So the bylaw works well in many ways not represented on this slide. Uh, it explores land uses and it, uh, it sets decibel limits that were established by an acoustical engineer, and it has time-based restrictions that work very well. There are also issues with the noise bylaw.

The first that we arrived at was that the noise districts are outdated. They were established in the land use patterns developed prior to 2003 and have not changed since— or primary— sorry, the noise districts have not changed The use has certainly changed. We— there's issues with the different decibel limits across 4 districts, which creates complexity. Measuring decibel limits are complex and resource intensive. They must be done by our staff, by calibrated equipment, and correction factors must be applied. It must also— the decibel limits must also be measured at the time of the complaint. Decibel limits are useful for some sources but not useful for others. Uh, the hours of operations.

Another issue is that our hours of operations vary for similar sources, some starting at 7, some for at 8, some at 9. There are conflicting rules, there are incomplete definitions, some of the times do not reflect current business context and operational realities. The bylaw is notably not effective for addressing vehicle noise, something that comes up through our engagement as a key issue. And a staff finding is that we overly rely on the noise bylaw to address our noise issues where other tools may be better suited, and we'll go into that later. The city sought a comprehensive understanding of our current community and business experiences with sound and noise. From December 2025 to February 2026, the city invited community members and businesses to share their experience. We received a lot of engagement with a high response rate. We launched two online surveys. The community survey received a response rate of 1,639 responses, and the business survey received 59 responses.

And there were six engagement— business engagement sessions held with 31 organizations attending from various sectors. Now, there is an engagement summary attached to the report that's far more comprehensive. This is a small distillation of what we heard that we wish to highlight. So from residents, we heard that they value quiet, predictability, and protection from disruption in the morning and in the late night. We heard concerns about vehicle noise, construction, waste collection, power equipment, and amplified music. And we heard that they would like— that residents would like rules that are easier to understand and more consistently enforced. From business and operators, we heard that they need flexibility to operate in the day and the night. And they, through this engagement, they highlighted the normal operational sounds that they wish for us to be aware of as we drafted the regulations. And they asked for clear communication about rules, simpler permitting processes, and more context sensitive enforcement. Between the two of them, there were some common themes. Both wished for

predictability. Operators further wanted some flexibility. Excuse me. Both had a desire for balance, for clarity, and for enforcement. And in general, most of our respondents and attendees were satisfied with the rules that were there but wanted them to be clarified, wished for them to to be communicated better and asked for more consistency with their enforcement. Core challenges that we identified through Victoria for our noise bylaw was achieving balance between residents and businesses, as well as, uh, consideration for our resource constraints and our ability to enforce the bylaw. So Victoria is a growing mixed-use city, some sound is to be expected as part of our urban life, uh, but citizens, residents need protection, and businesses need protection from unreasonable disturbance.

Businesses, construction, industry events, and services require workable hours and operating conditions so that they can be successful, and the bylaw must be understandable and enforceable with the available resources. Now I'll hand it over to Barry to go over the recommended regulatory approach. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Mayor and Council. So the core of the recommendation is use the right tool for each sound rather than one method for everything. The bylaw has three core tools: decibel limits, permitted hours, and a general prohibition. Each has very— in different— each has very different enforcement costs and resourcing. Time-based rules are the easiest to enforce, while decibel limits are the hardest.

We're looking at keeping a general prohibition as it catches disturbances that don't fit a category, and it's the backstop for everything else. We want to keep decibel limits where sound can be turned down or contained. This includes things like amplified music, HVAC, commercial premises. These also can be mitigated with soundproofing and barriers. We want to use permitted hours where sound can't be reasonably reduced. There's no dial on a chainsaw or an excavator. Decibel limits there just create expectations that can't be met. Better definitions also matter, as they need to match the rules. The report flags gaps around industry, construction, commercial vehicle activity, and the point of reception. So we want to improve those definitions.

So this is a quick overview, a little snapshot in a table form. This table is really just our logic test. We're matching the tool to the sound so the rules are enforceable with the resources we have. Decibel limits will be used for amplified sound. You know, volume can be adjusted, equipment can be relocated or screened. Permitted hours for power equipment such as leaf blowers, chainsaws— these routinely exceed the thresholds in normal use, so hours are simpler for everyone to understand and apply. General prohibition for certain categories that might not fall in, you know, or easily be, uh, reviewed. So an example there may be a house party.

And permits for construction and special events where solutions are things like public notice and certain other conditions. So what does the regulatory, regulatory approach do? Noise districts are out, and instead, use-based rules are in. In a mixed-use city, residential, commercial, and industrial can sit in one building or one city block. So boundaries no longer track reality. Use-based rules update themselves as property uses change. Decibel limits stay where they're practical, and we move the point of reception closer to the source. The bylaw currently measures at the complainant's location, and it often makes it hard to separate the affounding sound from ambient noise. We want to look at clear permitted hours for construction, power equipment, and waste collection, better definitions for industrial premises, including things like loud, loud work and quiet work with construction, as well as waste collection and commercial vehicle distinctions.

A faster, cheaper exemption process. The current one takes 10 business days, an acoustical assessment, and letters of support, which often costs more than, uh, the fine for non-compliance, as well as complimentary work with things like education, reviewing land use compatibility, and waste collection review. So here it is in practice. We want to look at residential, commercial, and industrial rules that replace districts. We want to have construction with definitions for loud work and quiet work. Uh, currently we're also looking at, uh, keeping the hours for construction and actually extending them for Saturday by 1 hour. We also want to have, uh, power equipment use hours of operation.

Consistent rules for waste collection and commercial amplification on outdoor premises. We want that to actually match existing rules around public use, public use of patios. So talking about outdoor amplification till 10:00 PM and, and also actually aligning with other jurisdictions like Toronto and Vancouver. We want to have more rules and clarifications around HVAC, as this is a growing concern for some residents. And we want to improve the exemption and permit process so that's more efficient and effective. Lastly, what else can complement the noise bylaw? So what we're proposing are measures that will more broadly address noise issues in the city. There's many things that we can do to address noise that don't just only fall within the noise bylaw. Firstly, we want to look at education and communication. This includes things like a better webpage organized by, uh, noise sources covering what's permitted, what's exempt, how to complain, and what happens next. Engagement showed us that many people assume rules exist but don't understand them. We want to look at a simpler exemption

permit process so compliance is cheaper than a fine. This also includes broader things like land use review for things like industry and residential compatibility. Lastly, the, the top noise complaint that we heard from the members of the public and residents was actually vehicle noise. So there's other things that the city already does that actually addresses many of those conflicts, and the city could look at doing more of that work. So that may include things like traffic calming, corridor redesign, and road resurfacing. We'll also continue to explore waste collection strategies in residential areas. So to conclude our presentation, the current framework is complex, contradictory at times, and outdated, and it's very difficult to enforce consistently. Engagement confirmed there is a desire for a balanced approach between businesses and residents.

Residents. The recommended framework improves clarity and enforceability. It balances residential livability with the realities of a vibrant mixed-use city. For those reasons, we recommend the following, and we're happy to take any questions from council. Thank you both very much. Given that, as I indicated earlier, it is now 10:25, it is usually when we take a bit of a break, so we will rise temporarily until 10:35, and then we'll return with questions.

Good morning, folks. If we could take our seats again, please. I know, it's great. That's true, it is like goldfish. All right, thank you very much for that excellent presentation. Let us begin with questions. Questions? Go ahead, Councilor Kerodono. Thank you, staff, for doing this incredible work. I know it's been a long road and there's been a lot of consultation. And I appreciate all the insights from the public and all the work that you've done to make this pretty comprehensible. I have a few questions, maybe starting with the one about the construction noise, because in the version I read, it said 9:00 AM onward. And then we got a bunch of emails about it, and the small-scale builders were freaking out. And then apparently it got republished. So I just want to clarify what exactly happened.

Mr. Nichols. Thank you for the question. Um, the body of the report always said that the hours were going to remain the same for construction on weekdays. What happened was there is a table summarizing various changes and a typo was in the table. Staff noticed it and changed it. So there was essentially in one spot of the report it said, uh, you know, Monday through Friday would be 7 to 7, which is the current rules, and we're not touching them. And then we would actually be extending from 10 to 7. We'd be changing it from 9 to 7 on Saturdays, and that was supposed to be summarized in the table, but the table just said 9 to 7.

It only summarized the Saturday change, so it came across like, uh, Monday through Friday was changing. Staff noticed this and corrected it during republishing, and that's probably why some questions were received around those changes. Okay, that is helpful. So I guess that settles the issue for the weekdays, and I'm not going to read these emails now because it sounds moot, but the upshot of that, of those emails, was that folks working in the trades and sub-trades generally start working at 7 AM, right? To start work at 9 would be profoundly disruptive. But that's weekdays. Do we have a sense of whether or not folks in the trades and sub-trades are also tending to work at 7:00 AM on Saturdays?

Yeah, through our business engagement, that's what we were hearing, is that on Saturdays their employees, the construction company's employees, do wish to work earlier and that it would facilitate the work moving along faster. And for that reason, we came back with a proposal to at least drop the hours from— move it from 10:00 AM to 9:00 AM. Okay, so if I can clarify, what, what does the bylaw say right now? For Saturdays it says 10 to 7. Okay, we're suggesting 9 to 7. Okay, so it would sort of loosen that, so to speak, on Saturdays, but the bylaw currently says 7 AM for weekdays, so that is unchanged?

The weekdays are unchanged, 7 to 7. Okay, so then can you just help me understand what the difference is then between the loud and the quiet, the loud and the quiet permits. How does that work then? Yes, so the way the bylaw's currently written and seems to be understood, something we've gained through engagement is that there's this expectation in the public that construction is only occurring between the permitted hours. With good reason, that assumption is out there. But work is still, by the bylaw, permitted to happen outside those hours. They just can't be disturbing. Okay. So, so just to clarify, so if you're on a job site, presumably the loud, the loud hours would be 7 to 7.

But one could, in theory, start work at 6 or end work at 8. But that, in those, in those shoulder hours, one could not be loud. Is that correct? So the way we understand work to be happening right now is it can happen 24/7, and it is happening 24/7 in some cases. And yes, we wish to continue that. It's just through seeking better definition and clarification around quiet and loud noise, then we would be able to articulate to the public what is currently happening better. Okay. By saying painting, drywalling, whatever could happen at night, so long as you're the neighbors are not bothered by it.

Okay, that makes sense. And then in terms of the permits, definitely we heard some of the feedback that it's complicated to get the permit and time-consuming and it adds hassle. And how are we streamlining the permitting? If you are— I'm particularly thinking about the small-scale builders. I'm not as worried about the big players who have a lot of resources. But if you're doing a deck or a reno or something like that, how do we streamline this permit? System around the loud and the quiet permits? Because presumably they're different permits, or you're ticking a different box on the permit, or maybe you can help me understand, help us understand. Is there actually a different permit for loud and quiet, or what does that mean? Um, through the mayor, right now there is a noise exemption permit for essentially loud work, um, where businesses can apply to do certain loud work on certain days of the that they may not be entitled to, or certain times. We're looking at streamlining

and making the noise exemption permit process more efficient so that we can encourage businesses to use those processes, because those processes provide clarity to the public. It also allows us to establish certain guidelines and transparency transparency around why noise might be occurring outside of hours. Right now we receive complaints around businesses that might be doing work outside of permitted hours and they may have actually received a permit and the public doesn't even know that. Right. So part of the pro— so what we're looking at is more transparency around that process and encouraging businesses to use that process. Okay, that makes sense. And just to clarify, if you are doing a deck or whatever it is, you're a contractor and you are operating within the bounds of the law, that is to say you're making noise only between 7:00 and 7:00 and then doing maybe quiet work, whatever, do you actually need a permit related to noise or are you just automatically compliant with the bylaw?

A noise exemption permit wouldn't be required for that type of work. Okay, so you only need a noise exemption permit if you're, if you're proposing to do something outside of the hours that are proposed. There's not like a superfluous permit that you need even if you're compliant? No. Okay, thank you. That is, is helpful, and I think for me satisfies the concerns I had around construction. Moving forward, um, maybe talk about vehicles next. It— for me personally, the number one complaint I hear around noise, it comes from vehicles. It comes up quite a bit in the report. I know it's hard to enforce because the motorcycle has left or the car without a muffler has left, and How do you possibly track that? So I get, I get why it's challenging, but for me, it does gesture back to this conversation we've been having about noise enforcement cameras.

And I asked the Chief of Police about this when she was here a month or two ago, and she said she would go do some research on it because I think there's a bit of a lack of clarity around jurisdiction. I mean, do we like— does the MVA supersede our jurisdiction for the noise bylaw? And if so, So let me back up. If the city were interested in pursuing some kind of noise enforcement cameras, would that require provincial approval? Can we do that under our own bylaw? How does that dovetail with the MVA? What are our options? Vehicles? Generally speaking, vehicle noise is best regulated under the MVA. So police enforcement, essentially. Um, when it comes to noise cameras, that's also really, uh, something that would require municipalities to work closely with the province due to the jurisdiction around the MVA. Um, there actually has been UBCM work on it, some, uh, resolutions recently, and the province has said that they're open to discuss it further with municipalities.

And I believe Port Moody is leading a lot of work on that. So if that's something council would like to explore further, I would encourage council to review some of the UBCM work around it and maybe provide some council direction to staff to review that further as well. Okay, so it sounds like that would have to go through advocacy or UBCM or something like that. I mean, we couldn't install a noise enforcement camera right now through the mayor? That's my understanding, yes. Okay. That's helpful. So I mean, I'm just trying to figure out what else in the short term we can possibly be doing about loud motorcycles, vehicles without mufflers, because I hear what you're saying around traffic calming and paving roads and things like that. And that's all well and good. But if you don't have a muffler and you're ripping around at 5:00 AM, I mean, there's been studies on this, I think, in Paris and elsewhere, with one really loud vehicle can

wake like thousands of people. It's a huge disruption. What can we realistically do right now? By the time you phone police, that person is ripped off to wherever else. So are we just— are we just stuck around vehicle noise? Really, practically speaking, like, what can we possibly be doing? Either one of you want to try that? To answer that, it would be— historically, there was a role once played by the municipality to inspect vehicles to make sure they're in proper maintenance and not exceeding noise levels. To our understanding, that's not happening anymore. Um, that was provincial as well, under provincial jurisdiction. Is that in our MVA?

Yeah, uh, under the MVA. Sorry, I'm just wondering if that was— that was probably provincial jurisdiction, I assume. This was happening through our police to my understanding. I'm not entirely sure what happened to that program, but it isn't happening anymore, and I'm not sure about the feasibility of it either. Okay. Yeah, through the mayor, if I may add, um, vehicle noise is always best addressed through the police. Our bylaw officers are not the appropriate resource. They don't have the same training around traffic or resources to do traffic stops that the police do. So when it comes to, um, you know, certain vehicle noise issues under the MVA, which does actually regulate things like muffler noise and, uh, you know, loud vehicles, uh, municipalities often rely on the police to enforce.

Okay, I'll let residents know that. Last question for me is around gas-powered blowers. I know that Oak Bay has banned them. There's a couple of allusions in here to the fact that local governments do have the regulatory authority. What would council need to do in terms of direction to staff to actually ban gas-powered blowers? Mr. Nichols. Through the Mayor, yes, municipalities do have the authority, from our understanding, to regulate gas-powered leaf blowers. What we would require is probably new direction from council to make it explicitly clear around timelines. Typically these processes are obviously phased because they have significant implications on businesses, but also municipal operations.

So that's something that staff could certainly— staff's already done some research on before in the past. Staff could certainly present a report to council with options, with new direction. Would that be— through the mayor— would that be best coming forward as an amendment today to work towards phasing out gas-powered blowers, or would it need to be a motion arising and separate work? Noting that there's— looks like there's been several reports on this in the past, 2021, 2023. It sounds like you've been down this path before. Uh, through the mayor, there's been previous direction that's been, um, squeezed into the noise bylaw around gas-powered leaf blowers, if I could put it that way.

So, um, you know, it may be helpful to have separate direction just so that staff could move forward with the recommendations today, but I might pass over to, uh, Kingsley. Mr. Kingsley, uh, thank you, Mayor. If I may, the gas-powered leaf blowers, it certainly does intersect with the noise bylaw, and I guess my general suggestion would be if council wishes to regulate them through the noise bylaw, it can can certainly give us direction to do so, and we could report back on, on any implications of doing so. However, I would suggest more generally, if it's just a general prohibition of the use of them that council's interested in, the noise bylaw may not be the appropriate bylaw to do that under. And so a general direction to staff to just bring you bylaws that would prohibit them is what I would recommend, and we would approach it through that lens. Okay, I guess I'll do it as a motion arising then. Get there. Thanks, Mayor. I'm not sure, just FYI, that I

would consider that a motion arising given what Mr. Kingsley just said. Oh, because it's not necessarily— would it be necessarily beneficial to confine it to this workaround, the noise bylaw? A separate recommendation around whatever bylaws, policies, changes might need to be made in general to achieve the outcome of prohibiting gas-powered blowers would be something that wasn't shouldn't be tied just to this. That could come forward separately. Any more questions? I'm going to go to Councillor Hammond first and then Councillor Loppen, and then Councillor Lopes. Great, thanks, Mayor. And I know I'm not alone when, when I say that as a councillor we get a lot of comments about noise and a lot of complaints. So I've got a few questions. When companies violate the times that they can create noise, often early in the morning.

It's been very clear that some businesses thumb their noses at our time restrictions and do the noisy work and take the consequences. At the moment, what are those consequences? What are the penalties? We have staff from Bylaw Services who would be best suited to answer that. Very good. Hello. Adam Sheffield. Um, well, it depends on the violation. Um, if we're talking, um, for example, if construction was happening outside of permitted times, uh, the fine is $350 for that. Is that per incident? Yes. Yes. Okay. Well then, while we've got bylaw mayor through you, um, are you able to give an opinion whether you think let's say, for construction, that this is enough of a deterrent?

Mr. Sheffield? I would guess that as the violations continue to happen, perhaps the answer would be no. However, we are exploring additional tools to be able to be more effective with our enforcement. Thanks, Mayor. And on that same vein, then I'll continue with that, then through you, um, why is it that we don't see anything here in these recommendations about improving on, or say, let me put it this way, creating penalties that will be effective so that people won't do it as a cost of doing business? Through the Mayor, the key of this work is making the bylaw more enforceable, which means it's easier to enforce, which means we could, you know, hypothetically issue more penalties if there are issues that are continuously arising. So through that vein, the key is to be able to enforce more frequently and more efficiently.

Now regarding fines, um, staff are, you know, open-minded to reviewing fines. When we update our bylaws, we often review the fines along those side, and we will certainly, if we can take direction from council regarding, uh, the fine amounts as well. Thanks, Mayor. And just to be clear on some of these things— oh, sorry, you were going to say something. With the way the bylaw is currently written for waste collection services, there are some, so to speak, loopholes that enable activity that we're not able to properly enforce. So I don't think we have a proper picture right now of what fulsome enforcement would look like until we're able to fix those loopholes.

Once the loopholes are fixed, uh, we get a better picture of how enforcement would work if the system worked. But then also what Adam said, we, yeah, it clearly isn't a deterrent at this point. Can you give us a couple examples of loopholes, please? Yeah, it's the definition of waste collection vehicles doesn't include the majority of the vehicles that do the waste collection, right? So there's the large vehicles we're all very familiar with, but then there's the support vehicles that are allowed to operate outside of that. Now I understand that Adam's team's been working hard to close that through other means, but we hope to do it through this bylaw as well. Thanks.

Sounds like more of a loop cave than a loophole. Okay, that's really good to know. Thank you. Um, yeah, and just to be clear on something like this, I could see, I could see some of the changes, but I really need to see a deterrent Better return. So, um, yeah, just a second. Okay, I already asked that. Can you give us some scale of how often people ask for exemptions to start work earlier, as in percentages or numbers or anything along those lines? Uh, through the mayor, we don't track that through our department in Legislative Services. We do have planning staff here that may be able to answer that question.

And who might that be? Ah yes, hello, Mr. Mohart. Come join us. Good morning, Mayor and Council. Uh, Ryan Mohart, um, Assistant Director, uh, Building and Inspection Services. Excuse me. Uh, we see on average maybe 1 to 2, uh, noise exemption applications per month. Thank you. Thanks very much. Okay, it's not that— it's not that many then. Um, and through you, Mayor, if someone asks for a permit for time exemption, are the people close enough to be affected by the noise— are they being given input? Yeah. And, and, and you also— someone mentioned something about transparency. And I was wondering if you could also say what does that mean for input before a permit is given and then information to the community after?

Who'd like to answer that question? Through the mayor. So the current bylaw allows the Chief Building Inspector to issue a noise exemption with no further instruction. And so what we currently do is require a a report from an acoustical consultant, so an expert that knows noise, and who's going to be affected. And we also seek input from those neighbours that are within that, that area identified as likely to be affected by the increased noise. And so that is, that is the current process for seeking neighbour, neighbourhood, neighbour input. And therefore, through the Mayor, would that mean that if I'm living in an apartment building or a condo or some— something, or even, I suppose, businesses, is there a better chance that I would get some sort of notice, or is it— is it something stuck on a wall, or how are they given information about this?

Mr. Warhart? Yeah, through the Mayor. So the— the current— so once the noise exemption is issued, on our permit tracker technologies, you would be able to see that there was an exemption issued at that address. But otherwise, your notification that one had been applied for would be through that contact. There's not a system or a structure that exists currently other than the requirement that the applicant reaches out to those that are likely to be affected based on the acoustical consultant's report. Okay. Then maybe I've missed something. Are, during the permitting process, which is what, a 10-day process that is now being recommended to go to 5, are people in the area who would be affected by the noise, are they, um, are they given information about this? Are they consulted at all about this beforehand?

Mr. Nichols? I, I got this one. Through the Mayor, yes, there is requirements from the applicant to reach out to properties that they feel are— would be affected. So usually properties within the immediate vicinity are contacted. What we're proposing as an improvement is more transparency around the noise exemption process so that we could even publish active exemptions online so people would actually have a source where they could go online and see. So let's say if someone was not contacted, maybe they're 2 blocks away, they could go online and could see when something might be coming or why something might be coming. That's part of the— one of the improvements we'd like to make.

So right now the noise exemption permit process is seen as too cumbersome by business, and that's what staff's experience is, what we're seeing is that they're not receiving applications for a permit where it would otherwise be required. So while the current process does require residents to be notified by the business, that's not happening. Um, and we— if you're not applying for a permit, then you're also not doing that communication piece. Um, we're trying to streamline that upfront process. So there's a few things that we want to cut down, make easier for the business to apply. And we also propose that the city step into a role where we're playing more of a communication role about the permit.

Um, right now the businesses are saying we don't know how to properly reach out to the residents. How— what, what do we give them? What do we tell them? How is this best conveyed? How do they believe us that this is true, that the city did give us this permit? And so we're suggesting that once we fix the actual permitting process to get more permits on board, that then the city would be publishing those permits online after we've approved them. And then at least the business would be able to go out to residents and say, look online, we have a permit, it's been approved by the city. And then our hope is that this would become a familiar tool for the public who are experiencing noise from construction to go to this place and to seek if there's a permit. Of course they're too late, aren't they? Because the permit has been given. If they, if they, if the public, someone in the public makes a

complaint after the fact, we, we just get to say, well, we're being transparent, they were given the permit, you got to put up with this loud noise, thank you very much. Yeah, the sort of the underpinning concept behind a noise exemption permit is not to restrict the work from happening, but to communicate that it is happening. So the role of the residents not like the way that this noise exemption permit is designed currently is not to stop the work in its tracks. Otherwise, work would often not happen at all. It's— we're looking for the best way for residents to be aware that this is happening as soon as possible so they can plan for it. Okay, and to be clear, it's not like the work is not happening, it's just not happening an hour or two before they requested.

Okay, so then this is really useful for for me, as in if the public were to be given information, and it sounds like they're not, prior to, there's no process now for the public to say no. Is that correct? Someone's made a request to ask for a permit for early, uh, for early work that's noisy, early work and potentially noisy, and the public, like, we would not take into consideration concerns of the public now. Is that true? Question is really, is there input or is this simply information sharing? Much better put, Mayor. Um, thank you. Through the Mayor, um, so currently we do, we do receive input from neighbours and it's not always in favour, but that doesn't necessarily translate to us, uh, not approving exemption permit. And through the Mayor, has it ever led to not issuing a permit? I can't think of a specific occasion, but I'm sure there would have been occasions when just there's an overwhelming amount of feedback, or maybe the request was too

excessive or something. But we do use the feedback, and often, if not— if there aren't cases where we've rejected outright, there have been cases where we work with the, the applicant to maybe meet somewhere in the middle to offset some of the impacts, but, but we still would issue an exemption. And through the Mayor, if I may build off that point, what we're seeing when we get noise exemption permits, it's not because a company wants to work at 3 AM for the sake of working at 3 AM. It's they may need to do something on a Sunday, right? So it could be erecting a crane due to traffic.

It could be some cement pouring. Those are the types of requests that we typically see, right? And, and to be clear, I'm, I'm sympathetic to the needs and the flexibility of the business. Also, when we look at this, and I'm sure every one of us as councillors get to say it's a balance, everyone says it's a balance. I'm just concerned that there's not enough balance on the side of the people who are the residents who are affected by the noise. Um, okay, so I can make other comments about that that, um, just one second. For garbage collection, uh, in the activity district, the pickup is 6:00 a.m., and you were suggesting that the 6:00 a.m. start time should be throughout the city. Do we have a map showing where that activity district is versus the rest of the city?

Mr. Nichols, do you have any kind of a graphic that would show that? At the break I was shown one. Through the mayor, I can get the map. I just need to flip it to the Deputy City Clerk. Okay, great. Do you have another question, Councillor Hamilton, while they're doing that? Sure, sure. There was sort of a list when I went through one of the tables and— When it was commented that 70 dBA, I was wondering, isn't that kind of high for nighttime? Yeah. Ms. Fedaszewski. With regard to the decibels, we're not suggesting any changes to the decibel limits. Those limits were set by an acoustical engineer back in 2003 and as far as we're aware, are still relevant.

And just to ascertain that, we went and did a jurisdiction scan of typical noise decibel limits for various sectors, and this was consistent with those. Okay, and, and I know it's tough to, um, tough to quantify or qualify, but to, to my, to my, um, original question, isn't that— isn't 70 decibels still high for nighttime? It appears as though that would be what, up to 10 o'clock, or does that shut down at 10 o'clock even? You want to answer that question before we go back to the map? Is that typical? Is it loud? So again, those decibel limits are typical for that use. I would say that any perception of decibel limits is entirely subjective.

Okay. Mr. Nichols, do you want to explain this map, please? Through the Mayor, what you're looking at is the map established in 2002, adopted in 2003. I think actually 2001, it says in the bottom right there. This is the noise district map that establishes various decibel limits across the city for essentially all types of noise, and it's broken into 4 districts, but essentially really 3, because the Harbour Intermediate District is actually now residential. You have the Quiet District, the Intermediate District, and the Activity District. And the Activity District is in red. Through the Mayor, that is correct. The Activity District is red, the Intermediate District is yellow, and the Quiet District is green. And at the moment, the only garbage collection is it garbage collection and/or commercial, um, uh, collection or commercial use that makes noise by vehicles?

It's only, uh, it's, it's at 6 o'clock in the activity center and then 6:30 for the rest of the city. Is that correct? Through the Mayor, that is correct. And again, just to be clear, because I was bumbling about this, it would be for waste, any commercial activities, commercial, sorry, waste or something else that makes noise, or, or, or trucks or other vehicles perhaps. Through the mayor, the intent for those times is garbage collection, waste collection, and private garbage and waste collection. Okay, thank you. On the special events, there's no changes suggestion, but I hear from several people, uh, about these concerns. Is there anything that we can do to ensure that the DBAs are quickly enforced in real time.

We have special events staff. Oh, perfect. Go ahead. I think that was you. Yeah, we do have special— or Nicola Reddington or the staff related to special events who are here to answer that, I believe, online or in person. I don't think she's here. Through the Mayor, is Mr. Day there online? Oh, yep, there he is. Hello, Mr. Day, how are you? Good morning. Through the Mayor, just a quick answer to that inquiry. We have done sound monitoring at events where we have a history of complaints, but no, we don't have staff at every event that receives a sound bylaw exemption for a special event. We simply don't have the staff capacity for that. Okay. Thank you. And so if anyone makes a complaint, then what happens?

Mr. Day? Through the mayor, we, we get— collect feedback from community members on special events through our event feedback email, and those are reviewed on Monday morning when we come back if it's a weekend event. Or the next day if it's a weekday event. Some people complain through the police department. They're referred to provide feedback through the event feedback form as well. There's also notification, both broad notification, specific neighborhood notification to those areas that are impacted, and that notification is required to have a phone number for the event organizer for any affected community residents to reach out directly to that organizer and provide feedback or make an inquiry about the sound. And through you then, this is always after the fact? Mr.

Day? Uh, through the Mayor, the, the notification of an event and, um, an exemption being provided, that, that happens prior to the event. So residents, uh, should have a copy of that notification and how best to reach out to the event organizer or reach out to the city to provide event feedback, um, that would be reviewed following the event. Yes. Right. So everything that you get notice about this, someone, let's say, violates the noise, it's too high, and you have no— the person has no repercussions, and you, you review it afterwards. Is that right? Mr. Day. Uh, through the Mayor, yes, our staff aren't available, um, for calls during the event.

Um, bylaw might comment more on their availability, but my understanding is they're also not available during those hours. So beyond being referred to the event organizer directly, and the phone number that's made available for them, their course of action is to leave a message with our event feedback system, and we'd gather and get back to the event, to the complainant afterwards. Great. And so it's the, I've got a problem, I happen to have a contact for the person who's putting on the event, they say thank you very much, they don't do anything about it. Is there, are there any penalties for for them? Uh, through the mayor. Often event organizers, if they're getting, uh, sudden feedback on, on an event, uh, the first thing they'll do is check the boards and ensure, uh, they're in compliance. I'll give an example of a large music festival will have to do sound readings, uh, at intervals throughout the event from prescribed locations, uh, to ensure that they're under the decibel limits that they're given for those times.

And that's if they're getting a number of complaints, they'll often take proactive measures to ensure that their sound readers are measuring sound that they're within compliance. And then they usually give that information back to the community member. Sometimes the community members are not satisfied with that response and wish that those thresholds were lower. And at that point, the event organizer would refer them to the event feedback, uh, process. Thanks. And, and Mr. Day gave me a very good education lesson a little while ago that was very understandable, um, so thank you very much for that. I think I only have one other question, or there's two others, uh, when it's to do with H— the HVACs. I'm under the impression it's air conditioning, heat pumps, and other mechanical devices. Is there anything that's exempted in this? Or, or first of all, am I correct that when we say HVAC, we're really including anything that makes noise outside of the home? Mr. Nichols.

Through the Mayor, uh, yes, uh, the report speaks more generally at this point around the concepts of it. Uh, if council endorses our recommendations, when we go into bylaw drafting stage, you would see more, uh, uh, specifics around what you're saying there. Um, when it comes to HVAC and exemptions, is that— was your question, uh, Councillor Hammond? What's included in— or what's included? Or generally speaking, we're talking about residential HVAC systems as well as, uh, you know, maybe a commercial property. Okay. Oh, okay. Thank you very much. And my last question, I believe, is On page 15 of your report, Table 5, I didn't quite understand this. Could someone explain exactly what this means?

Page 15. Something specific that you're looking at, Councillor? Well, I just— when it's got the— I wasn't sure why that's in here to complement the noise bylaw. Evaluate current land use policies. What will come of this? Right. So our work was focused primarily on a noise bylaw review, looking what we could do to improve that instrument to enforce what came out through the review, that it's not the perfect instrument for addressing all sources of noise and that there could be better ones. Uh, through our work with staff, through Jurisdiction Scan, and through engagement, uh, with both residents and businesses particularly, uh, we learned of other opportunities opportunities outside the noise bylaw that the city could be exploring to address noise through— in a more proactive method. And so the, the table that you're seeing there are some of the suggestions we have that could be explored.

Still very much early days, but looking at those to see what options exist there for addressing noise outside of the noise bylaw itself. Thanks very much. Thanks, Mayor. Very good. Councillor Lhoten, followed by Coleman, Thompson, and Councillor Locatin, up to you. Thanks to you, Mayor. I just have a couple of follow-up questions. One around the, the vehicle noise. We'll start with that. There was a resident who reached out to me about the speed limits on, on Dallas Road, especially between Erie and Montreal. I'm just going to read from them. It gets super busy with cruise ship visitors plus residents and deer. So 40, the speed limit of 40 seems high. Well, people, um, when people are even following that, but people are driving faster coming around that corner by the Coast Guard gate, and it's dangerous.

Fast drivers coming from Erie to Dallas at that corner also tend to veer into the oncoming lane when flying around the bend. So I'm wondering, um, they also Note that noise from the motorcycles and cars revving, usually classic or tuned-up cars, it's extremely loud and frustrating, especially after 10:30, 11:00 at night, not limited to weekends but certainly worse then. Now I know you've already just— you've already mentioned this, and it's for the speed, it's up to police to enforce. We don't have a way to enforce that, but I'm wondering if, if there are ways to mitigate some of this, like it's mentioned in the report, like speed hump or lowering the speed limit or some kind of traffic calming. Has that ever been considered for that sort of bend around Dallas Road? And you should know, Mr.

Nichols, that Mr. Kenney is lurking behind you, likely intending to answer that question. Morning, Mayor and Council. Ross Kenny, Assistant Director of Engineering, Public Works Transportation Section. I, I could speak to speed limits, but I might let Barry and others speak to the comments around vehicles revving and, um, these other issues. Again, I think that's been covered, um, regarding speed limits. Um, that's something that we could go proactively, um, review again. Um, we're still rolling out, um, speed limit reductions citywide that council approved, uh, last year regarding, you know, um, reductions on many collector arterial roads to 40 and 30 kilometers an hour. That work's expected to finish this year. But regarding specific public requests, I mean, the best place really is to have them, you know, they could be forwarded to the engineering department at eng@victoria.ca, and staff are reviewing these, and we also look at collecting data, and we can follow up, you know, with Victoria Police if we do see issues or ongoing challenges. Regarding traffic

calming on, say, Erie, Montreal, Dallas, generally speaking, we, we do look at traffic calming solutions on our collector arterial roads, but it's a very different type of solution that we deploy often. Things like speed humps can be problematic on these roadways, as you know, we have more larger vehicles like buses and emergency response vehicles, and those— when there's higher vehicle volumes, those— some of those features like speed humps actually create significantly more noise for those residents, um, than they do on a local street with low volumes. But definitely, yeah, we take, we take that feedback and prioritize our programs all the time. At that location next to Fisherman's Wharf Park, we are looking— I believe we are upgrading the crosswalk that's mid-block at Erie Street. At which street? On Erie, I believe it may have already happened. We're adding, but again, we're adding flashing lights and RFBs at that location and looking at other locations on Dallas Road. So we're always looking at our road safety

programs, collecting data and public feedback, and looking to how we can ensure that people are driving at safe speeds and keep pedestrians and cyclists safe as well. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. I'll just take that information and forward it to the department. So that would be wonderful. Yeah, okay. And then the other thing I just wanted to follow up on, it's about the construction industry. So the correction in the report really helped, but there was still a question here asking that to please confirm that the proposed bylaw will continue to allow industry to apply for exemptions when work must reasonably be performed outside the prescribed hours as permitted under the current bylaw? And I think the answer there is yes, we've already discussed that. And I just want to— I just want to note that there's an example here. Once concrete pour begins, it must be completed and may extend beyond the permitted hours.

Similarly, assembling a large crane often requires road closures, and Sundays may be the only practical time to undertake this work while minimizing traffic and community disruption. So just sort of for the public's information, why that's important. Um, I think that this has all been covered, is— but just for this, this, uh, resident's understanding, is there anything else you want to add to that? They just wanted clarification that, that that's included. Mr. Nichols, through the mayor, I don't think there's anything more we need to add. Okay, perfect. Then, uh, that's it for me. I just wanted those points of Thank you, and through you, Your Worship, my thanks to staff for developing this. I know it's an ongoing process. A couple of things that come up. One, one of the metrics we used to use was duration of noise, particularly as it applied to moving complaints. So think of motorcycles that have taken the baffles out of the rods There was a time that boombox cars were particularly problematic. Not so much anymore.

And it used to be that the threshold we had was consistent 5-minute annoyance would then trigger some. Is that still the case or do we have a timeframe for So this bylaw— I would say this report was an effort to bring here because there's so much we we could talk about. We limited it to what we were asked to talk about, um, and tried to bring it to you in a concise way. What we didn't touch on are the things we're not suggesting changing. And so one of those things is the way a decibel measurement would happen, when it is to happen. We've asked to revise when a decibel measure happens, but not how we do it. And we wouldn't continue to do duration correction factors You'd still use, you know, approved and calibrated instruments. So hopefully that settles that. Super, thank you.

Um, on a different topic, and it was brought up earlier about leaf blowers, is there a DBA difference between electric leaf blowers and gas leaf blowers, and, and what is that difference? Yes, it is. It's about 5. It's through the mayor. It's It depends, uh, obviously on the technology, but it actually could be as high as 15 dBA. Okay, thank you. And then the question that we have to follow up with is, do we use— does the city use leaf blowers, and what are they? Yes, Mr. Nichols. Uh, through the Mayor, um, we could probably get back to you with more specific information around that. I am aware that the city has been looking at electrifying as much of it as equipment as possible. Mr. Doyle, I believe you have something to offer there. Through the Mayor, there is a large variety of small electric— small equipment that the city uses, and there's been a sustained effort over a number of years to convert that to electrical for a number of reasons,

including cost, noise, and emissions. Some of the equipment has been electrified earlier as the products had matured earlier, while some products are taking a bit longer. The air blowers are sort of in that in-between stage where, where there's some good options, and increasingly with time, the hope would be to phase out the gas ones. Super, thank you. And finally, with respect to concerts particularly, have we an intuitive sense of complaints that come forward, and it's not just based on the volume of sound but the type of music. Is there, in the complaints that have been brought forward, do we find more antagonism towards certain types of music as opposed to other things?

And the reason I ask, years ago, knowing that a complaint would be coming up, I went to the house of the person who was known to be upset, and it was during Rifflandia, and I listened to a brilliant version of Serena Ryder singing "At Last," the Etta James thing, and that fostered a complaint. And it wasn't terribly loud from my perspective, but I'm not a technician. So, it was the fact that there was music when I didn't want to hear something. Do we have some assessment of people have just hit the threshold and they're now mad at any type of sound? I'm happy to start with this one, and other staff may chime in. So through the engagement, it was not clear that there was a specific type of music that was bothersome to residents, but then I'm also hearing that when, when there's heavier bass, that's what we're hearing about more.

Mr. Day, I see your hand is up. Would you like to speak? To speak to this? Oh, through the mayor, I didn't realize my hand was up, but I'm happy to offer my perspective, what I've seen in the past. I too have visited the addresses of some of our more frequent feedback providers and done specific measurements from their addresses and had conversations with them on the doorstep and followed up with them afterwards. And I would I would say that yes, certainly there are certain genres of music and certain types of music that maybe elicit more of a response from certain demographics in the community. But I would concur with Councillor Colman in that most people, it's just the fact that they can hear anything at all in the evening sometimes is enough to prompt a phone call or an email.

And it's the thought that I'm far enough away from the venue, I shouldn't even be aware that it's happening. But I have to say that those kinds of complaints have become fewer and further between. So I'm happy to report that. And Rifflandia in particular, we've had weather events that can drastically change the type of feedback that communities have. Wind direction, water reflection, atmospheric pressure, that all plays a role. And we work really closely with those event organizers in the past to adjust speaker position and etc. That said, if we have an event, perhaps it's even a smaller event that has an impact and we're not there to measure that sound, or we've collected some feedback that it's been disproportionately impactful, we share that with the event organizer and we do let them know that now that we've received some feedback, we'll be doing— we'll be providing some closer attention to their event in the future and that if they're not complying with the sound bylaw thresholds that we've given them

in the exemption process, they could be jeopardizing future permits. And at the very least, what we have done in some instances is hired third-party sound monitors to come and measure sound independently. And then we charge them for that service. So all costs are recovered, but then we get some data from on the ground. Thank you, Mr. Day. Thank you, Mr. Day. And just if I can confirm something, I believe I heard you say, I concur with Councillor Colman. It's not something I hear very often. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Colman. Councillor Thomson, you're up next. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, and I just wanted to thank staff for the report and also thank the staff who are out out there responding to problems. I'm often brought into those discussions because I'm the downtown liaison, and I know that staff do a lot of hard work around these problems that come up in the complaints.

Actually, most of my questions got covered. I just wanted to follow up and go a little further on an earlier line of questioning and ask staff, are you finding that there's a significant number of construction firms that are actually, you know, receiving noise enforcement action, whether that's fines or other actions aimed at compliance, and are just ignoring that and just continuing and carrying on with the noise and treating it as a cost of business? Is that a— that's probably bylaw, isn't it? Yes, for you, Matt. Generally, the construction noise is pretty widespread across the industry. We see an uptick of complaints as projects near completion and there is pressure on timelines and possible financial consequences for developers and contractors.

It may seem as though some Some of the companies are subject to more complaints if they're larger companies, and that would be expected, but it's a pretty widespread phenomenon. Councillor Thomson. And then, so if, if bylaw staff are involved, become involved, and, you know, approach the company and say, hey, you've got a— we've got complaints here, you're actually in violation, and maybe advise them of the violation or issue tickets, do they just carry on and continue with the violations? Is that common? Through you, Mayor, I think that there are examples of that for sure, and there are examples of the opposite where people come into line with the bylaw.

Okay, any, uh, any sense— oh, sorry, thank you, Mayor. Yes, and through you, Any sense of what percentage? Is it like most of them just carry on and, and continue to make the noise after receiving fines, or do the fines bring them into compliance generally? Mr. Sheffield, um, I, I really wouldn't want to make the generalization that everybody just carries on because that's, that's not the case. Um, as I say, it definitely does happen. I don't have a sense of percentages. And of course, a lot of the times it happens, we don't even ever find out about it because residents put up with it or get used to it or feel as though nothing's happening when it does keep happening. So it's very hard for me to say and provide you the answer that you, you, you have asked.

Okay, fair enough. Okay, thanks for that. I do think all my other questions were answered, so again, thanks for the Thank you, Councillor Gardiner. Thank you. And I'm going to just start with a quick little comment, which is leaving behind the noise districts and moving to a noise framework that encompasses the whole city, I think, is very almost daring and a very strong move, and we will all hope it works. So thank you for this report. I have several questions. When you were discussing the whole thing, did you look at community noise and did you see a target that the city should be aiming at, as most European cities have done now, to have a particular level of community noise or to meet a certain level so we can have a quiet city?

Who would like to try that one? Through the mayor, through this work, we didn't evaluate the level set within the bylaw. We haven't reimagined them at at this point. We are aware of other communities, few and far between, and internationally we have to look far for this. They have done community assessments of noise levels, and that is helpful information, but to our knowledge, there, there have not been actionable items that come from that information for municipalities So while we did look at that, when we reviewed it with staff, it wasn't clear that doing that work would lead to what outcomes would come from that and what work we could do. And in consideration of the cost that it would take and the endeavor it would take to do, we didn't put it forward here. Okay, um, most of my questions relate to Table 4 and the residential and special event categories, and you've already discussed it a bit, but I have a few more questions. Um, who determines if noise is

too loud if there aren't any decibels really identified in public places, uh, and in events? Shickles? I don't mean special events even, I just mean a regular event, like, you know, uh, through the mayor There are restrictions that will be— there will be decibel restrictions for certain commercial premises, for example. So if let's say there was an event happening on or within a commercial premise, there would certainly be rules there, as well as generally staff have viewed that let's say if something was happening on a residential premise, there would be some staff discretion there around the limits. And then obviously through the mayor, what Council Gardiner said, is there are, there are decibel limits established when we're talking about special events.

Okay, are all the summer ones— and I don't attend them, so I don't know which ones, I believe. Well, please clarify, uh, the ones at Ship Point. I don't mean a great big huge events, but the small ones. Does the city actually pay people to create music or whatever there? And if so, are there any noise limits? Mr. Nichols, I think part of that is an arts and culture question. Yeah, through the mayor, when we're talking about Ship Point, I would actually defer to Mr. Day. Mr. Day, are you still with us? I am. Through the mayor, yes, we have city programming at Ship Point.

Regulated through the high season. We do have staff and contract staff present to ensure levels are within the guidelines. It is a very small venue, and it's important to distinguish the difference between events that take place at Ship Point on that AstroTurf area with the Sea Can and then other events that take place on the weekends in the 814 Wharf Street lot. Which tend to be larger festivals like, uh, Ska Festival, for example, or Island Festival. Those festivals have special event exemptions. City programming does not require it. Yeah, I realize that, and I was going to deal with those other ones later. We've had comments that, uh, in the letters we've got in the last little while, for example, in Ship Point, and I think they were meant the city, the city arranged one, what noise level is there, because some of the letters that we're getting in say they go up to 90 dBA. So I want to know, and that's not at Ship Point, because of course

you have a, you have a bit of a bowl there, so the noise at ground level may be less than the noise above, you know, because that's what happens. So what is the noise level on the city paid-for taxpayer, paid-for entertainment? What, what is the noise level? And who can answer that question? So, through the Mayor, maybe that question is for me. Our city programming that happens, for instance, at lunchtime or shortly after work, those programs generally are of such a small footprint, their sound wouldn't violate the existing sound bylaw levels. I should point out that other events do use the Ship Point Turf Area, Seacan area in the evenings.

I'll give an example. The Victoria Beer Society in Lamppost ran a series of 3 events down there in the evenings from those locations, and they would have a special event exemption, a noise bylaw exemption with prescribed thresholds there. And I've also read some of those complaints from the, uh, residents, particularly from Customs House. Okay, so what is on the little ones? Because we had comments about some of the little ones that maybe draw 10 or 20 people according to the people who are watching it. What is the noise level permitted for the ones funded by taxpayer money at Ship Point? And what is the, uh, level of exemption that is forgiven, or you want to say, for the example you gave? So that's two different numbers I'd like. Mr. Day, do you have that information?

I'm going to defer to our team in Bylaw what the exact threshold is at Ship Point on a day-to-day basis. Certainly it's higher than what City programming would, would have, but I can tell you that the not-for-profits that make use of that venue in the evenings and other days on the weekends The Seacan in particular, I'm talking about that smaller stage. Their threshold would be the 90 decibels at point of reception. Sorry, how much? Just a second, please. 90 decibels. Several of our staff here are looking for information. Okay. Which one would like to share first? Through the Mayor, so where special event conditions do not apply, then the city noise district rules apply.

And those are, uh, so that's 60 decibels heard from 3 districts and 65 decibels heard from the activity district. Therein lies the complexity of the noise districts. It's different, the rule is different depending on where it's heard. What will it be going forward? The Ship Point ones that are paid for by city taxpayers, what is the noise level that's permitted? I believe you just said it would be 65 in the activity. Is it going to change from that? That was my question. Mr. Nichols. Mr. Mayor, generally speaking, when we're talking about— because this is public property and generally speaking, there is, uh, certain the city and public property and city works and city things are actually exempt from a lot of the rules in the noise bylaw. With that said, generally speaking, when the uses don't apply, it would be— it would be relying on what was already previously established. So we're talking around 60 to 65 dB.

Thank you. Now for evenings and exemptions for Ship Point, say, and for market Square when we get the whistle boy. It is. What are the exemptions? What's the, what's the height? Nichols, through the mayor, through my knowledge, typically those would fall under the 90-decibel threshold established through a special event. Can we have, um, you— I don't know what emails you folks get. A lot of them where people are showing us the measures that they've been taking. And they're not on site, they're off site and they go up to 112, 108. Now that's not for the overall, that would be the peak, the L max would be about 104 and those kind of levels. So is that based on a 90 down below a few hundred meters away that they're getting 110?

Mr. Nichols, would you know that? Through the mayor, I don't have this data at my fingertips right now, so I can't really comment on where the 100 is coming from. I'm sorry, I apologize. Yeah, okay. Has anyone considered separating events into categories, especially events? I'm thinking of a community event. We're talking Symphony Splash, David Foster, and if we ever had a January 1st. In other words, special events that are community versus ticketed events where someone's making a profit or trying to make a profit, whereas the neighbors may not get sleep. So, so anyone thought of differentiating those different types of events that are giving exemptions for noise? Mr.

Nichols. Through the Mayor, our feedback has been we have a pretty robust special event process already in place. In terms of your comments there, I can't say if that's something that's being contemplated by our arts and culture staff. I would defer to them on that. Yes, I'd appreciate that because in some of the research and just quickly doing on the internet with other cities, because I looked at 3 or 4 other cities because we are familiar with the Byward Market, but I checked other cities. They have, for example, they'll name the 6 big community events that are different than the others. Okay. You mentioned that one, hang on.

Okay, we got 90 there. So for outside events, which I mentioned already, Ship Point and Market Square, going forward, where are you going to measure it from? Because as I said, the actual noise when you have a canyon effect, which is what you got in Market Square, square, and then of course you get the bowl effect down in Ship Point. So at ground level may not be the peak noise at all. Mr. Nichols. Through the mayor, um, a complaint through the noise bylaw is The point of reception is what we're talking about here, and the current noise bylaw defines the point of reception from the complainant's location. Now, when we're talking about events, generally speaking, the readings are not done from— when they're talking about monitoring the sound levels of a special event, for example, or, you know, large-scale event, those are done typically on site at the location. Of the event.

Okay, I'm quite worried about this, and I don't know how we can ask to look into it. I'm just going to give you an example. It's not of today, it's an old example. I was at Ogden Point, and there was terrific noise coming out. People could hear it over James Bay. You couldn't hear it in ground. Could not hear it in the ground level because it was a different kind of activity down there, plus the noise came from above. So noise travels. When you're— when they did the Helijet noise studies years ago, the noise was not loudest across the street. There was a lift because of the land, because of the berm there, and it went over and Lady Smith got the noise.

So are we going to be looking at that at all for the special places, especially Ship Point and Market Square? Because that's where most of our complaints come from. Mr. Nichols, through the mayor, I'm going to defer to bylaw enforcement because they take on they do the hands-on work around measuring these decibel limits. And I'll pass it over to— Mr. Sheffield? Apologies, I am going to intercede here. I was just discussing through chat with Mr. Sheffield that I would quickly offer some comments prior to him speaking as well. So through the mayor, point of reception is one of the key things we're looking at through this bylaw review. It's been the most problematic piece of it from the point of enforcement.

We have purposely been not clear about precisely where that point would be moved to because we need to do that work once we have this conceptual approval from Council on the framework we're suggesting. What we do hope to do is to bring— we find that the point of reception is dramatically far from the point of emission, and it's often inside residences, and that for many reasons is not good, right? And so we are— and punitive to people who do want to make a complaint but are not welcoming bylaw officers in their home at all hours of the night. So our goal is to bring that point of reception closer. Now, I won't say that we would have the same consistent point of reception for all different types of noise. I think we need to evaluate what the appropriate point of reception would be based on the source of noise. We're just not there yet. We have a lot of ideas about what other jurisdictions are doing. Now with that said, I would love

to hand it over to Mr. Sheffield to follow up on that. Mr. Sheffield. Through you, Mayor. Yeah, Monica covered most of that. It is a really tricky point for us in terms of enforcement because a point of reception is currently defined as being on real property. So the noise bylaw cannot be violated on a street. So that, that obviously does impact some of the things that you're talking about. And as Monica said, standards have changed. People are less willing to allow us into their property. And if a person tells us that they've been woken from their sleep 4 times this week, the point of reception is in their bedroom, and that's it's not a comfortable thing for many people to let us into, and so that often is a barrier to enforcement. And so the fact that this is going to be looked at in the new bylaw is music to our ears, pardon the pun.

Yeah, thank you. I think the objective is to not get complaints. So when we've had the liquor licensing going on before and we explored what was going on downtown at Strathcona, or not Strathcona, strata— well, the different pubs in that. That's when we discovered that— I mean, just doesn't make sense that someone has to come out in pajamas to try and get some inaction. So the idea is we don't want any complaints. We want it resolved through our regulations. So we now have a very extended, expanded staff in bylaw. So will some bylaw— therefore, and we understand there's going to be extended hours now for bylaw So will that bylaw go forward into the evenings to at least 10:00 PM since 10:00 PM is a lot of your business cutoff times?

Mr. Sheffield, are you able to answer that question or would we defer to Director Jones— Assistant Director Jones or Mr. Anticci or— Through you, Mayor, are you able to repeat the question? Will your bylaw staff have the capacity to extend through the evening until the time when most of these complaints begin to accrue? Through the Mayor, the only section that we currently have that works into the evenings is our feet on the street. Program. We have had some discussions with Manager Lisa Forcier, who runs that team, about supporting our investigative team, as they currently work regular day shift hours. So that is in discussion. Just of note, through you, Mayor, that the Feet on the Street team during the wintertime works until 8 o'clock not 10 o'clock. And so that is from October through until April.

Thank you. Okay, just a couple more questions. Again, on special events, and again, looking what you're looking at down the road. So if we have a special event, 90 dBA, we know that WorkSafeBC, you got to start wearing earphones over 85 5 dBA, yet for some reason the city thinks it's okay, our policies, for residents who are trying to sleep to have to face 90 dBA. Now, um, is there any— what is the time— is there a timeline for special events? I don't mean the big community ones, the half dozen we have during the year. Is there any timeline with the special events? Is that going to be a 10 PM close-off?

Mr. Nichols. Through the Mayor, generally we have a sound policy around special events and it does generally restrict events to conclude at 10 PM. Generally, or do we have more specifics? Through the Mayor, I think it makes a few exceptions. I would have to pull up the policy in front of me, but more often than not, when you see an event happening running past 10 PM, it has to apply for an exemption permit. Can we have, before we go forward, I don't mean today, data on all of that, please? We really do need it. And again, I'm separating out your David Foster, your Symphony Splash, your, you know, the real community events. And I'd really like to see the— how many of those exemptions are given and whether or not they're ticketed events or open events. Mr. Nichols. Through the Mayor, certainly could rely on our colleagues to provide you with more information. Thank you. Okay, my— I hope my last question.

You talked about this today is to get the conceptual, so are we going to have more coming back to us before we go into bylaw or anything? I would hope so, because I realize your discussion of gaps is very important. Through the Mayor, you mentioned the word daring earlier. Yes, we are proposing some daring changes with what we're bringing forward to you, and because of that, we thought it was prudent to come forward first with the concept, then confirm with council that's where we should be headed, and after that, we would have enough to begin bylaw drafting. There would certainly be more coming back to you. You would be seeing a bit more content fleshed out, I think, through that process.

Okay, before we get to bylaw? Before any form of adoption, absolutely. Well, I mean, adoption is usually too late when it comes to us. So are we going to see you once more once you get more of the gaps before bylaw? I don't mean let's look at it now and therefore have to argue against something. So I'm looking for more input rather than— yep. Mr. King, can you remind us a little bit of the process of what happens next? Thank you, Mayor. Through you, generally speaking, the intent of what staff are presenting today is just to to get council's approval of the recommended approach to re— to developing and drafting and amending our current regulations. In the event that council endorses those recommendations, we would move to develop the bylaw and then introduce it to council for initial consideration and readings. If there's anything that council wishes specifically that we report back on prior to a bylaw coming back, we would respectfully request for that direction so that we know, and then we will certainly take any direction

of that sort and report back to council before the bylaw is complete— draft is completed and introduced for initial consideration by council. So if I'm not correct, Mr. Kingsley, then you would return to us based on today's conversation with preliminary readings, at which point, should we find something that we did not believe was supportable, we could directly to adjust at at that point, uh, under our typical process. Yes, Mayor, confirming that would be the intention, unless, uh, I just wanted to clarify that part of the intention of this, of the discussion today, is to see if council has any specific direction for us other than proceeding in that manner. If, if there is anything else council wishes us to take another look at, or any other activity council wishes us to report back on before introducing the bylaw. Thank you. So I would need to do that today to find some motions then, would I? To try and get some report back, especially on special events and then missing data

and all of that. So, Gardiner, if you wish to have something specified that is not in the generalities of what you heard, you would need to provide some direction either today or when it returns for its first reading. Okay, I'd like direction today then. Have you concluded your questions? Uh, Yes, that's the questions, but I don't know. Yeah. Thank you. Anyone else with questions? Councillor Thompson, your hand is still up. Do you have further questions or is that a residual hand? Residual, and I think I've lowered it now. It's showing up that way at my end. Sorry. That's oddly— it's still up on my end, but there you go. Such is life. All right. There are no more questions. And so the question before us is is the recommendation that is in front of us, which is, as has been described, the approval for work to continue towards bylaws, including the substance in Table 4 and Table 5. Does anyone wish to move that at this time? Councillor Kerner,

do you wish to move that? Does someone wish to second that? Councillor Dell. So in the context of this conversation, if in fact you want to amend this with specific directions, you may. There is also an opportunity, if if you can, in fact, provide an alliance to this particular recommendation with regard to the noise bylaw, you could indicate something that is complementary to this in a motion arising as long as it is, in fact, referencing the noise bylaw as a component. But let's start first with the mover and seconder. I'm aware that we have 7 minutes before we will usually take our lunch break. I suspect that we will not be able to resolve this in that time from the sounds of the early commentary. Start with the mover and seconder and see how far we get. Thanks, Mayor. I will indicate that I do have a motion arising that is, that is directly related to this, but we can get to that later. I have no amendments to make

to this. I had come into today intending to make amendments around the construction noise, but that turns out to have been a typo. And, and I think the folks who are concerned about it in the community, it's easy to explain there was just a mix-up, and that not only will construction be allowed 7 to 7, but actually it's a little bit more liberalized on Saturday, allowing it to come to 9 AM. I think that the general direction that's proposed by staff makes sense in moving away from a fairly clunky and complicated system to something that is easier to comprehend and more streamlined. I also really appreciate the comments not only from staff before us, but staff online from Arts and Culture, who I think do an incredible job of balancing two very difficult things. On the one hand, we want this to be a lively, activated city where there's events downtown and there's Canada Day and there's Ship Point and there's Symphony Splash and there's many other smaller events that

aren't the marquee events. And we want people to enjoy themselves. We want people to come downtown. And we also need to be mindful of the fact that people live downtown and excessive noise can adversely affect your lives. We had a conversation today about vehicle noise. I don't think we've landed anywhere really that satisfactory. We all— we're also somewhat limited in, in our, in our levers in being able to, to address that one, which is probably the number one noise complaint that is received. I'm hoping to hear back from the chief on this next time she comes to council, and I'll follow up with UBCM and just see what the advocacy is there and see if there's anything else that we can do to start to have a conversation about noise cameras enforcement, at least have a conversation about it and see if, if that yields fruit, because those loud motorcycles and vehicles without mufflers are a real problem. So I appreciate the balance and thoughtfulness that it was brought to this proposed direction towards

bylaws. I support it moving forward, and at this time I don't have any amendments. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Dell as the seconder. I think that— anyone else on this? Councillor Hammond, Councillor Gardner. Thanks, Mayor. I guess I was wrong. And just a quick one on Table 4, under construction. Why are we exempting the city work? And if you've said that already, my apologies. Mr. Nichols. Uh, through the Mayor, uh, those exemptions already exist, um, and we did not receive previous direction from our very previous direction from Council to review city work exemptions. And I think— do you have anything else to say? I would only add that there would be operational implications that we'd have to look at before we could look at exemptions or removing an exemption, I think. Knowing that we want to set a good example, can you give me— I'd like to think that we don't float these things. Can you give me examples where maybe we, we would be— I don't know, flouting because

we're allowed to do it— examples where we would be different that we would not allow under private construction? I think this might be a Mr. Doyle question. Mr. Doyle, please go ahead. Uh, thank you. Through the mayor, uh, night construction work is generally limited to emergency work, critical infrastructure repairs, specialized activities that require continuous operations, and situations where overnight work is necessary to reduce traffic disruption or improve through Public Safety. For city projects, contractors, or our own teams requesting night work, or where a contract specifies that work must be completed out of— outside of normal hours, we require the contractor or our internal teams to demonstrate the need for the proposed schedule. We review the plans and ensure reasonable measures are in place to minimize noise impacts, and, and we require the same kind of advanced notification to nearby residents at businesses, uh, that, that would be done by private, uh, outside parties.

Now that's a good answer. Thank you very much, I appreciate that. Um, also under power equipment, um, no decibel limits for power equipment. Why are we not including decibel limits on power equipment? And my apologies if I missed this. Yeah, in some cases the current bylaw does have decibel limits, and in our review in an effort to reduce where decibel limits are taken. This is one where we propose removing decibel limits because it would hard to be practically— any sort of reduction in sound levels would be hard to practically implement. The equipment operates at the level that it does, particularly outdoors. The only things that an operator could really do would be to erect some sort of sound barrier, but It doesn't seem very practical to ask that for, you know, some lawn mowing or something of the sort. Okay.

Thanks very much. Okay. On— oh, Table 4, commercial vehicles. I would like to make an amendment. Go ahead. And basically, I guess it's just to keep it the way it is. So as opposed to changing it from 6:30 to 6:00 throughout the entire city, I guess I'm just in favor of removing that and keeping it the way that it is. Can you specify, please, what it is now? It would be more appropriate as an amendment for you to frame the actual facts of what you're proposing. Sure. Oh, sorry, Mayor. Yeah, it's just under Table 4. 'cause that's what we're voting on, right? Yes, the first part. Yep.

Yeah, so under— oh, where is it? Sorry, I had a commercial— yeah, there it is. Under commercial vehicles, um, basically I guess for the expand the waste collection service hours on weekdays, um, I would not want that expanded. I'm interested in keeping it, or, or the amendment would be 6 30 throughout the city and 6 o'clock in the— what's that zone again that we saw? It's not going to exist in a while. I know, I know. Sorry. But basically what we've got now. So question for staff. What I understand Councillor Hammond is essentially doing is wanting to remove a particular recommendation that's in Table What information do you need to specify that removal? You don't, unfortunately, have numbers or letters in either of this— any of the section boxes that's in the table, and so it's difficult to identify exactly which section that he would like to neutralize.

I'm wondering, given the fact that it's noon, whether it would be possible for us to hold on this matter right now and have staff actually reframe the— tables with some type of a table numbering system? Because I expect that there will be several amendments regarding a number of different sections here, and it might be easier for us to keep track of them if there was a way for us to refer to the different sections in the actual tables themselves. Is that possible? Through you, Mayor, we— excuse me— we certainly could Remove the bullets and change them into numbers. We'll try and do that over the lunch hour if that would assist council's deliberations. I just have a general comment that if there is a desire for something to be status quo, simply directing us to remove that— Yes, that's correct. —from the table would do that. It would have that effect because we would interpret that as drafting the new changes to keep whatever that provision

was we wanted to change— Mr. Kingsley, that's what exactly I'm trying to get you to do, because without a specific specificity in the numbering system, we can't describe what it is that we wish to remove. So if you can identify a manner to simply label each of these sections, when we return, I suspect that there will be a number of amendments to do just that. But it would be helpful to be able to identify which one without having to go through a lengthy explanation explanation and narrative as opposed to simply say remove item X. So if you can do that over the lunch hour, we'll come back and we'll start again with Councillor Hammond and then Councillor Gardiner also has, I think, some suggestions to make. I would point out just for the information of council that the majority of speakers so far have used over 80% of their time in narrative as opposed to question leading to the questions. So I would urge us to be perhaps a little bit more succinct when we return.

Let us now take a lunch break, and we will return at 1:05.

Welcome back, everyone. Here we are back in our seats for the continuation of our September 3rd Committee of the Whole meeting of Victoria City Council. Before we left, we were in the midst of a discussion around the staff report at item I.1, the noise bylaw review and recommendations from staff. Staff recommendations have been moved and seconded. We've moved through the mover and the seconder and are now up to Councillor Hammond who wishes to make an amendment. And in a way to facilitate the ease of following along with what I expect are a number of amendments, I've asked staff to, I guess, reformat is probably the best word, the tables that are part of the recommendations so that we can— thank you so much— refer to the specific areas that we may wish to amend. And so, Councillor Hammond, since you have the floor with an amendment, can you direct us please to the section that you would like to delete, which I believe is the easiest way to deal with

your intention? Yes, Mayor. Number 6, commercial vehicle. Number 6. Let's pull that one up. And you would like to delete just D? Yes, unless that's going to cause a problem that I'm forgetting if there's another amendment there. Sorry, another change from the 9 to 7. Well, let's ask staff who would know the best for this. If we were to delete 6D, would that have any consequence for the rest of number 6 that would need to also be included in an amendment? Always good to ask that. Could A, B, and C continue? Looks kind of like they could to me. You're just looking at definitions and dealing with service hours on weekdays.

Mr. Nichols. Through the mayor, our understanding is deleting D would essentially mean that it would actually be instead of 6:00 AM to 7 PM on weekdays, it would be 6:30 AM to 7 PM on weekdays. I believe that is the intention. Yes, that is the intention, correct. But the question is, if D is adopted by council, does it have any impact on A, B, and C in the same section? Excuse me. Through the mayor, it would only have an effect on B. On B. So I think that's what I was wondering. So, Councillor Hammond, I wonder if you wouldn't mind expanding your, um, amendment to indicate that you wish to delete 6B and 6D. Because D really does have an impact on— Thank you, Mayor. Yes. Okay, so the amendment on the floor then, Councilor Hammond is pro— is proposing that council delete the references now in 6B and 6D.

And once we do that, I think that's pretty clear. Is there a a seconder for that amendment? Oh, okay, that's a surprise. I'll second it for discussion. Sure, absolutely. Councillor Hammond, understanding that you have 2 minutes and 10 seconds, anything you'd like to say to support your amendment? Yeah, I think at 6 o'clock in the morning there's a big difference between 6 and 6:30. We hear from residents wanting to get their sleep, don't want to be disturbed from their sleep. That's very important. And when we looked at the map, that's a huge change from the activity district to the whole city. And I think, yeah, I just think it should stay the same. So 6:30. Okay. And I seconded that just to allow for a discussion. So I don't have anything to add.

Anyone else have anything to add on the amendment only? Councillor Carradonna. Thanks, Mayor. This is one where I don't know. For me, it's a question mark. I would need more information. Have we had conversation with, I mean, we presumably, we contract mainly with, is it GFL or Waste Management, one of them? And also the CRD is contracting for recycling services. So this also affects CRD potentially. So I guess, have we heard anything from the third-party operators about when they would like to operate and how it would affect their operational models? Mr. Nichols. Through the Mayor, yes, we did public engagement and that included with some of the third-party large-scale operators and what we heard from them was that they would like to operate earlier due to things like traffic and just being able to deal with waste collection in a more timely manner. But at the same time, we did hear a lot from residents that they are are, you know, they do find waste collection services to be quite noisy, especially very early in the morning.

So the 6:00 a.m. was a compromise or a balanced approach that staff took. And through the mayor, and thank you for that, did they want even earlier? Were they asking for 5:00 or 5:30 and you landed on 6:00, or did they ask for 6:00? Through the mayor, they did ask for earlier, and staff did float the idea of 6 to them, and they seemed amenable. Okay, and just if I could drill down a bit more, like, let's say it's 6 AM on a Tuesday. Are, are there staff arriving and getting onto trucks at 6 AM, and then after whatever, loading up their trucks, driving out, they're actually getting to addresses around 6:30, or are they actually getting— would they be at— well, let's say currently, are they actually getting to houses around 7 or are they getting to homes at around 6:30? I'm assuming their shifts start at 6:30, but I don't know, so I'm saying I don't know.

Through the mayor, um, that starts earlier. I think they do the soonest pickup possible, so getting into the vehicle, arriving at the site happens before, but the first pickup would happen at the first permitted hour. Now that's all to say that it's all within compliance with the regulations. Oftentimes this is all occurring way— it's happening before the current hour is set in the bylaw. And is there any other— okay, is there any other labor dimensions here? Like, is this a unionized environment? Is there collective bargaining agreements? Are they trying to get their workers off work half an hour earlier? I This is why I don't like making these things up on the fly, because I just don't know. Through the business engagement, there are lots of reasons that they cited, and it's in their report, for why they prefer to work earlier hours. Public safety was one of the ones they noted— just less vehicles, less people, less cyclists, less traffic in general to maneuver around. I think other elements of that were just the efficiency

of operations Again, with less other users on the road, it's easier to get from site to site and do the pickup as quickly as possible. Um, I hope I've answered your question, but I'm happy to keep deliberating. Thanks. All right, anyone else on the amendment? Councillor Gardner on the amendment. Large complexes very often have to get their setup very, very early because it's too hard to get through the city, and I fear that we have not consulted with large housing complexes. Thank you very much. Yes, go ahead, Councillor Hammond. Just one second before you finish off. Anyone else want to speak on the amendment? I'm not seeing anybody online either. Go ahead, uh, go ahead, Councillor Coleman. Question through Your Worship. In the discussions with the service providers, did they suggest that if we stayed at the 6:30, they would be increasing their fleet as one of the responses?

Through the mayor, they gave us no indication of what would happen to their fleets or how they would adjust their services. They simply said it would be challenging and get in the way. Well, and I guess the context would be we are increasing density, um, particularly for some of the large service areas, service facilities. So the only way, if you have a constricted time frame, the only way to address some of those issues is to have a larger fleet. Am I correct in that supposition? Do you know? Maybe you can't comment on that. Mr. Nichols. Through the Mayor, I would say you're correct on that assumption, especially— That's twice today.

It's a good day. Especially as larger, you know, buildings require the use of private waste collection services. Thank you. All right, Councillor Hammond, do you want to comment? Close up here. Thanks, Mayor. I just want to say my particular motion is— amendment is not on the fly. This has been in place. It's supposed to be 6:30. We're moving it to 6:00, um, and when we have compliance throughout the city at 6 o'clock, we're going to hear from residents. And I doubt that the general wanting to sleep public has been asked this question about the time, and I think it's going to come as some of a shock to them. Thank you very much. Anybody else on the amendment? I don't see anybody online.

Okay. All those in favour of the amendment, which is delete, as you can see, the bolded language struck through to delete under Section 6, 6 to expand the waste collection service hours on weekdays and 6 to change waste collection hours to 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on the weekends and holidays. Holidays. All those in favor of the amendment? Councillor Dell, Councillor Kerodona, myself, Councillor Coleman, and Councillor Hammond. Councillor Lauten, Councillor Kim, and Councillor Thompson. In opposition? Councillor Gardiner is in opposition to that amendment, but noting that opposition, the amendment is adopted. And Councillor Hammond, you still have the floor.

Careful of my time, not to start too soon. Mm-hmm. So, Mayor, the only other thing I've got is about penalties, and is that later for a motion arising or is it now? Penalties, oh, the one that we discussed earlier? Yes. Oh, that's a motion arising. Okay, thanks very much. That's right. Are you concluded? Up next is Councillor Gardner. Councillor Gardiner. Oh, okay. Does anyone else have any— Staff, can you delete that bolded language there? Thank you. Just so we know what we're talking about. Great. Any other comments on the now amended recommendation? Checking online. Nope. Okay. Councillor Gardiner, over to you because there doesn't appear to be any other commentary on the recommendation, although I do believe I believe there will be two motions arising.

Go ahead. Add number 3. Add number 3. Direct staff to bring forward the outdoor special events sound policy to council with data— or with details concerning permits for exemption permits and any possible recommendations for change. So I'm just curious, are you specifying this in relation to the noise bylaw? Number 5. You're referencing— Number 5. Okay. Can you pull up number 5 for us, please? Is it possible, staff, for you to clip what Councillor Gardiner just said and place it into the right-hand box as a new number E, new letter E. Thank you, Mayor. Staff suggested that it be up in the recommendations, but that's fine.

I think it's more appropriate here because it actually— it does reference some specific aspects of the noise bylaw. Otherwise, it would need to be a motion arising, which I don't think is As I understand your intent, I don't think that would satisfy. Mayor, if I may, it would be helpful for us if we could possibly hear it one more time. We didn't quite catch the entire amendment, the word. Councillor Carter, could you read that again? Okay.

Isn't it great how technology was supposed to bring such efficiency to our lives? In fact, we wait for it so often. Having difficulty? Aha. All right. with data relating to use of the exemption, permit exemption, and any recommendations. I don't think you need to include to council because that's what staff would whether staff would bring it. So you could just say direct staff to bring forward. How about, this is what we usually do, direct staff to report back with, to report back with. And so you can take out bring forward and that and put in an, an. Outdoor special event sound policy, take up to council with data related to use of exemptions.

And I think that's pretty clear. Is that what you intend? What's— what is it you're trying to clarify? Okay, so then just put the instead of an. Yes. Okay. Is that what you're intending? Prior to the bylaw being created. In other words, do this earlier. Okay. I'm sorry you didn't say that earlier. If you do that, then in fact this is not the right place for it. I didn't realize that you were making it a contingency. So, yeah, I'm sorry, staff, that I didn't understand that this was going to be a contingent clause and so you'll have to cut that as it is but don't lose it. And as you cut it out, then you will have to bring it back to the main recommendations.

So you just want to replace that with what it just was. Did you have a question? Sorry, okay. Oh, I see, yes, sorry, sneezing, yes, gotcha. Okay. Yeah, there's a— Prior to the bylaw returning to council? Or the introduction of bylaws or something, yeah. Prior to the bylaws returning to council for preliminary consideration, for preliminary readings, returning to council for preliminary readings. Okay. Now I understand that, Tareed and staff, correct me if I'm wrong, that you, if this is adopted and becomes part of the whole motion, then you will go off and prepare the bylaws. You will assume that we've approved both Table 4 and Table 5 as they have been amended, or one has been amended, but that before you do return to us with those two pieces, that you will do number 3. Is that what you recommend? Is that what you understand? Mr. Kingsley, you're nodding. Is that correct? Yes, Mayor, correct. So you'll do the work, but you won't actually bring that work to

us until you do number 3. That's correct. Number 3 we would need to report back on before we could finalize the bylaws. Gotcha. Okay. So on the amendment, is there a seconder for that amendment? Oh, you did. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Yes, we're looking down. Okay. All right. Councillor Hammond is seconding the amendment. On the amendment, Councillor Gardiner. No, you have 2 minutes. I don't— I think as soon as we get the information that is being requested, we will know whether or not we're really having a problem. And I would hope that, well, if staff does this, that we'll also look at the different types of special events because, again, we don't want to, I think, interfere with the real huge community events that are so valuable valued in the city.

So the idea is to get a handle on them as to, uh, who's actually bearing the cost of different kind of events that are going on at, uh, especially at, uh— it doesn't name it, but especially at Ship Point and at Market Square. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hammond. Anything as the seconder? Nope. Anybody else on the amendment? Councillor Caradonna. Thanks, Mayor. I'll oppose this because I personally don't feel like I need more data to move forward with the bylaw law, but I wouldn't mind seeing the data, but I don't think that the data, at least for me personally, is not contingent upon my ability to support the bylaw. I want this bylaw to move forward.

Having that data could just be something that gets emailed to council for their own consideration. So actually, I will amend the amendment if possible. Yes. And put a period after exemptions and erase everything else. Just hang on one sec. One moment, please. Yep, that would be appropriate. Is there a seconder for that amendment to the amendment? Essentially, that would mean that the work would be done but it would not need to be returned to council before 1 and 2 were actually committed. Councillor Dell, you're seconding that amendment to the amendment? Councillor Kerodin, on your amendment to the amendment? A lot of work has been put into this bylaw, including thinking about, uh, the special event sound policy, which I support.

I would not mind having that data to understand how things might be changing. We have activated ShipPoint more, but I don't want the data to come back and then there's yet more delays to the bylaw and, and more attempts, frankly, to, to squeeze out these kinds of activated events that we've brought to the city. I want those events to happen. We have very talented staff, some of whom we've heard from online. They are on top of sound issues, they know how to deal with them. And, uh, so I don't think that we need to slow down the process anymore. That said, having the data is always a good thing. So if this amendment to the amendment passes, maybe it just gets emailed to all of council or something like that, and then staff can continue along with their work of updating the bylaw.

Councillor Dell is the seconder of the amendment to the amendment. Yeah, I think at this point I'm just worried about how much work this creates for staff. It's very easy for us to make motions, but there's actually people in the city that have to go off and do a lot of that work, and we are layering on a lot of work that I don't think is necessary. I mean, there's so much happening at the city. This, this— obviously there's been a couple of bad— the odd, very, very few odd example of ShipPoint. I think maybe 2 or 3 emails. Most people are extremely happy with it, and really what I heard from the noise bylaw when the public survey was out that people want this in the city. People don't want to have to travel to Vancouver to watch live music. They want it at Ship Point. They want it at Market Square. Of course, it's a little bit of an inconvenience if you live right there. But this is kind of being set up

that these events are harmful to the city or are an annoyance, and they're really not from what I've heard from folks. So I don't agree with any of this, but I think layering on a bunch of work to staff to write a report on ship point, you know, the folk music versus the indie rock music is just, is just too much work. So I'll support this amendment. Thank you. On the amendment to the amendment, Councillor Gardner. Of the hundreds of motions came through in the last 4 years, I think I probably had less than half a dozen. So it is not me creating the extra work, and I would like to know if staff thinks that this would delay the bylaw.

That was a question I was going to ask staff if the if you did this piece of work as a contingent aspect before you brought back the rest, what would that mean time-wise? This is a big job. Through the Mayor, this one would require coordination with the arts and culture staff. So I don't want to speak on their behalf at this point. But it certainly would add more work because it would be another report potentially another report to council, but we would be able— we would be proceeding with the bylaw work regardless. But I guess the question is, would it extend the time if you had to come back with this report before you came back with the bylaws? Would that extend the time by a significant amount? Clearly extended by something, but is that a week or two? Or, Mr. Kingsley? Um, Mayor, I think What we're trying to say, there's a couple of aspects to this that make it difficult for us to confirm whether or not it would take longer. It is

theoretically possible that we would be able to get that report done and get it before council before the bylaws are ready. But there is, depending on the availability of Arts and Culture staff and their workload, it is possible that we may not be able to get it done and it would cause a delay in the timing of the bylaw coming back. Did you have just a follow-up question to that? Did you anticipate these bylaws in the absence of this, uh, that they would be back soon, or is this months from now, or, uh, we don't anticipate it would be a quick turnaround, Mayor. It will take staff, uh, quite a bit of time to be working with legal staff to turn the concepts that are listed in the staff report into concrete bylaw provisions. So we don't believe that this will be a very quick things.

So in my best guess and estimate, we may actually be able to do the staff report anticipated in the proposed amendment. We may actually be able to do that before the bylaw would be ready. I just didn't want to confirm and guarantee it. That's good to know. Councillor Gardner, you still have the floor on the amendment to the amendment, which is delete the struck— deleting the struck-through language. Anything else? No, that's it. Anybody else on the amendment to the amendment? That would be to strike through the second part of the sentence in number 3. All those in favour of that amendment to the amendment? Councillor Dell, Councillor Kerodona, Councillor Louton, Councillor Thomson, Councillor Kim. Okay.

And opposition? That would be myself, Councillor Colman, Councillor Hammond, Councillor Gardiner. So that amendment to the amendment is adopted 5 to 4, I believe that is That is correct. Yes, okay. So that amendment to the amendment passes and so you can delete that section of the sentence. Councillor Kerodona, you still have the floor. Nothing further other than to say I can support this amendment now because it won't slow down the process. Okey dokey. Anybody else on the amendment that has now been amended? One sec, Councillor Gardner. Thank you. We just heard from staff that there is nothing to suggest that this will Slow down the process. Correct.

So anyone else on the amendment? That's just to add the bolded language now called number 3. I'm not seeing anybody else. All those in favor of number 3? Anybody opposed to number 3? Don't think so. That is unanimous. That— I'm sorry, Councillor Dell was opposed. I didn't notice that. So Councillor Dell is opposed to number 3. So noting that one in opposition, number 3 is added to the main motion. Thank you very much for that. Councillor Gardiner, you still have the floor. Nope, you're done. Anybody else on this? In motion is amended. Go ahead, Councillor Coleman. Thank you. And through you, let me start by thanking staff.

Um, this is what we do. The noise bylaw is not the wicked problem as we normally define it, but it's not far off that. It is always changing. Staff have done an incredible job bringing this forward. There will be always initiatives that cause distress to some of our public and they'll want things changed. I would remind people that we not too long ago got an email telling how impactful the sound of ambulance sirens was to them and they wanted that turned down. Um, that that there is always going to be— and I think it's very real for that one person. We're not going to change ambulance sirens. They're an incredibly important part of a safe community.

But there are always things that are going to be difficult. Staff have brought forward a whole slew of things that are problematic, that are sticky. I think they deserve our thanks, and I'm quite willing to support this as we move forward. It's not perfect. Nothing ever is. Thank you. Councillor Gardner, on the main motion as amended. Thank you. As I mentioned before, this is a really strong change, and I think it will be a very welcome change once all of the things that we didn't discuss today are actually implemented, because we actually didn't discuss most of the items in the report. And so— and I will be explaining that to people as they ask as to the things that will really perhaps solve their problems or what the impacts of noise on them. So I appreciate that and I realize we didn't get to talk to most of the issues today.

We only talked about the ones we had problems with. And so— and there's a lot in this report. There's an awful lot in it. And so thank you very much for that. Thanks so much. Anybody else on the main motion? Yes. I would just extend our thanks to what was an incredibly arcane and complex situation that we've actually been trying to deal with for many, many years. So thank you for tackling that and doing it so comprehensively. It'll be interesting to see what the bylaws actually look like and more interesting to see the impact of them as they are implemented. With that then, I believe we have canvassed that adequately. All those in favor of the amended recommendation?

Is anyone opposed? I believe that is unanimous. Thank you very much for that. Thank you, staff. Well done. That takes us on then to one more item, and that is the additional item of new business that was added to the agenda earlier this morning. Mayor, remember, there's two motions arising. Yes, my apologies. Yes, there are two. Yes, thank you for that. Two motions arising that I'm aware of. One is from Councillor Caradona, the other is from Councillor Hammond. Thanks. Caradona, let's start with you. Okay, thanks. Staff almost got I got to get away, but— Yes, right. I sent it to Legislative Services. I don't expect that this will generate too many questions, but you never know.

There you go. Council directs staff to phase out gas power loop closures, including changes to the noise bylaw if applicable, and on a timeline set by staff. That seems very clear. Is there a seconder for that? I think— I'll second that for— I think Councillor Thomson was going to second that. Oh, yes, of course. Councillor Thomson, do you still wish to second that? Yes. Okay. Councillor Thomson is seconding. Very good. Go, Councillor Cardona. I will be brief. So this is, uh, I'm proposing this action based upon the noise that's emitted by these blowers. We do not have environmental regulatory authority in this province, so it has to be based on noise, and hence the reference to the noise bylaw. We do know that for many years now there's been alternatives to gas blowers that are quieter, namely the electric ones. We have seen precedent set locally by Oak Bay that has taken action on the same file.

And so I think that there is a sufficient rationale to move in this direction. I, I want to just skip report back— reports back here because there's already been several in the past and staff have looked at this a lot. Normally we start with a report back, but going back to 2021, 2023, there might have even been another one. I think it's sufficient to move forward. Note that it says they're on a timeline set by staff, so whatever staff comes up with, if that's 3 years, 5 years, it's in your hands. I don't know enough about the industry and the timelines of replacement technologies and all of that, so I feel confident just leaving it in your hands and then come back and finalize it with council whenever that is applicable in the future. Thanks. Thank you. Councilor Thomson as a seconder.

Thanks, Mayor. Yes, this is— and thanks to the mover. I let him know after learning of his motion arising that I had one drafted too. So happy to second this one. This is something that's been discussed for many, many years, and not just here in Victoria, not just in our region with, with Oak Bay, but in cities across the continent. And electric leaf blowers— and I have one— have gotten a lot better. They're continuing to evolve. This is, this can't, this can't be a surprise to anyone at this point, and, uh, but I do think it's still valuable to have some sort of a phase-in period, um, uh, to minimize the impact, uh, on people who've made minor investments in these small pieces of equipment. Um, it's something that comes up that I do hear complaints about, And with, with an easy fix like this, I think this should move forward. Thanks. Thank you very much.

Anyone else on this motion arising? Not seeing any other hands. Oh, good. Go ahead, Councillor Coleman. Thank you. Actually, a question through you. Because this is related to the noise bylaw, what happens in the case where a new gas-powered leaf blower comes out that's quieter? I suspect that that would mean that staff would have to consider that when they eventually return with any recommendations they might propose. Since it is referencing the noise bylaw, which is relevant given that it's here as a motion arising with regard to changes to the noise bylaw, that would certainly be— have a significant impact if in the next period of time when this was being considered that remarkable new technology occurred.

It would just be part of the report pack, I would think. With that, not seeing any other hands, all those in favor of this motion arising? Is anyone opposed? That is unanimous. That was it for you, I believe, Councillor Kerodona. Yes, Councillor Hammond, you also have a motion arising. Have you shared it with staff? Okay. Council direct staff to explore increasing penalties for breaches of the noise bylaw. Some things are not just a cost of doing business. Okay, I'm not sure that the part after bylaw is necessary, but that's not my crafting, so there you go. That does seem fairly straightforward, and that of course also does not have a time on it, so it it's left with staff to determine how best to execute that should it be adopted.

Is there a seconder for that? Thanks, Councillor Cardona. Councillor Hammond, over to you. Is this within the 10-minute timeline? Yes. Okay. All right. 32 seconds. Okay. Just to— and the reason that I put, Mayor, you take credit for the first wording that I wrote down. The second word, just to be very clear, this is what I heard is a problem with the— there's just not proper penalties. I think people will abide by it if they know that it's not just a cost of doing business, and I want to be very clear to staff about that. Thank you very much. Councillor Kerner, you did second this, but you actually have 1 second on the clock. 1 second?

1 second. That's it. Yes. Okay, there you go. You now have 0 seconds on the clock. Uh, anyone else on this motion arising? I'm not seeing any other hands. Just checking online. Nope. All those in favor? Is anyone opposed? That is also unanimous. Thank you. Are there any other motions arising? Not seeing any, but I think actually, staff, you can take that as a vote of confidence that not only did you execute your task ably, but you also generated sufficient interest to require us to add to it. So thank you for that. Now moving on to a new item of business. Item J, the new Item J, which is— in fact is the introduction of a motion that council approved as a late addition to our agenda earlier this morning.

This is in fact a council member motion with regard to a public statement and position on the federal designation of the West Coast Pipeline as a project of national interest. It was added to our agenda, as I just mentioned, and so I would look to Councillor Kim to move So, Councillor Kim, please motivate behind your council member motion. Thank you. Yeah. This is a pipeline that is being proposed by the federal government and cynics, which— of which I would include myself, say that this is in response to threats from the province of Alberta to leave Canada and to appease said province, which is having knock-on effects on BC.

So that's part one. Part two is that BC itself is becoming a climate laggard, having stepped away from its Clean BC commitments to the point where even those experts who were asked by the province of BC to study Clean BC, those experts in their recent report that was published said We can't meet our climate emission targets if the province keeps going forward in this way. And so that piece too, coupled with piece one, coupled with also our own Prime Minister fully admitting in the media that we as a country should be expecting increased emissions in the coming years, it's just so I struggle to come up with the words for how truly insulting and heartbreaking that is for those of us who have and continue to live through the climate crisis. The other day I was telling someone about how the heat dome in Victoria literally had deaths. We are looking at misting stations, cooling stations like it's part of the new normal when it really shouldn't be.

And so Um, when you take all of these pieces together, I think that we should, as the city, stand on our track record of advocacy on behalf of this coastal community to protect the coast, to protect our climate, to protect our environment, everything that defines us and our, uh, lived environment, um, and say no, this is not a project of national interest. In fact, if I could be so glib, it is a project of national disinterest and I believe that this council should take a position on that. Let it be known a little more formally to the federal government and do right by our residents.

Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Kerodonas, the seconder. Yeah, thanks, Mayor, and thank you to the mover for bringing forward and putting one really important piece onto our collective radar, which is that the Government of Canada has issued a notice allowing the public to submit comments. And so this is, in a sense, more than advocacy. This would be, in theory, a formal submission from the city laying out our position on an issue that would have potential impacts on our environment. So I guess my one question, actually, and I don't know if it's for the mover or maybe to legislative staff, but the way that this is worded, a public statement is fine. You know, you could put something on the, on the website or a press release or something, but if this is actually a formal piece of input to a statutory engagement process, wouldn't that mean that there is a formal letter written to, I don't know, whatever ministry of the Government of Canada that's, that's holding this engagement? Like, to whom do we submit a formal,

um, statement of position or principle? Or I think I can answer that, Councillor. In fact, the second part of this does answer this, that in the request for the Mayor to provide a submission within the same vein to the project of national interest consultation process. So that is slightly more formal than would be a letter. That would be something that would be over the City's and/or the Mayor's letterhead, which provides the essence of what is in the previous paragraphs as a formal position taken by by city council. So, okay, go through that process formally. Okay, so I, I didn't understand that. So the Project of National Interest is actually some kind of Crown corp or body that receives information? It's a process. Okay, so would this need to be amended, or is it implied that this would be both a public statement and a formal submission to a government agency? It is.

If you can scroll down, there's a number 2, which actually— okay, so maybe we need to look at number 2. Yeah, it's— keep going. Okay. The very last piece is— Yes, thank you. I was unaware that that is like an actual body. I thought that that was a concept. No. All right. So my understanding is that it's a recipient of information. Okay, so that's my mistake then. So I'll just say plus one to the comments that were made by the mover. It sort of brings me back to Trans Mountain Pipeline. Which was a very contentious engagement process several years ago in which many local governments made their voices heard, and I think provincial governments as well.

For whatever reason, this proposed new West Coast pipeline has had a fraction, I think, of that attention. I think as so many Canadians have rallied behind the flag and rallied behind the Prime Minister and we're in the midst of this trade war, and so I think some of impetus or the impulse that some of us might have to say, hang on, some of these projects actually don't make sense, has fallen by the wayside because people are looking at the bigger picture. And I understand why people are looking at the bigger picture, but there's also a moment in which we need to say some of these projects don't make any sense and are— actually have the ability or have the potential to harm our economy and our way of life over time. Some of the other projects of national significance around transportation around clean energy, at least for me personally, are very easy to support. This one is not easy to support. I think the overwhelming majority

of Victorians would not want to see this and would understand the risks to our coastal environment. And frankly, even our Member of Parliament hasn't, hasn't been thrilled about it. In the mailing that he sent to every single household, he said that he's advocating within caucus against the pipeline. So I think that, that says it all for where Victorians stand. So I think it's it, it, it would make sense for us as a, as a local government to clarify our position on this and make our voices heard to the project of national interest body. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anybody else on this? Councilor Coleman. Thank you. This is, um, a difficult one and, and personal for me, and I'll get into that in a few seconds. Normally when we advocate on issues of national interest we use our lobbying organization, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They do have a position, and this varies from it. I think that— I suspect that people who support the recommendation

in front of us think that the FCM position is a bit milquetoast. Rather than issuing a blanket approval or rejection, FCM's official policy stance focuses on ensuring federal Governments directly support local communities through rigorous safety standards, financial accountability, and proactive consultation. It's based on 4 positions: an infrastructure protection issue, an emergency management issue, environmental oversight, and Indigenous consultation. The reason this is personal is— actually came up in the first part of the presentation by the person pushing this motion forward. It is about the way this motion will be seen by other areas, particularly in Alberta. We know that— I mean, the timing of this is understandable because of the September 18th date, but it's really unfortunate given that Alberta will be going through their sovereignty referendum in October. And the reason I say it's personal When we dealt with Victoria's position on TMX, I was running for the third vice president's position of FCM.

And I got castigated by the Alberta caucus and may have lost the third vice president's position because of it. I was actually against that Victoria position, but I defended it as a position that the full body of council had taken. So there are other people watching, and there is a group in Alberta that will focus on the capital of British Columbia is pushing a stick in our eye, and that will take on its own longevity. On a different issue, we know that our voice is heard in other parts of the country, and I hearken back to the referendum in 1995 on sovereignty in Quebec. Beothuk Mi'kmaq First Nation.

1980 had seen the first one, and the people of Duncan, bless them, twinned with Montmagny in the Gaspé. And leading up to the second referendum in 1995, they reached out to their friends in the Gaspé Peninsula to say, "This is important to us too." And it was on a knife's edge, if you remember, those of you who are old enough to remember the 1995 referendum. And the Gaspé Peninsula was predicated, projected to go 80% in favour of separation. It went 78%, the one anomaly being Duncan's sister city, Montmagny, which went 60% in favour of staying in Canada because there was a relationship across the country.

So while I understand the emotion that goes with this and the fear of climate change and the impacts we all feel. I also recognize that other people are watching and it will have its own message. Am I happy that we're moving forward with something? I will point out that the million barrels a day that's talked about is one freighter, or perhaps two, depending which VLCC or ULCC is used. Um, so it doesn't diminish in any way the potential impact of something going wrong. But the FCM approach is different than this, and I would support the FCM approach, and therefore I would be voting against this one. Thank you very much. Councillor Thompson. Oh, thanks, Mayor. Um, and I'd like to thank the mover for bringing this forward. Um, I guess the most important thing for Victoria residents is the, the risks to Victoria residents and businesses if there is more oil moving through pipelines to the coast of BC and then moving up and down the

coastline in tankers. Um, I just do want to speak to the point about, um, others are watching in Alberta, which also I think was sort of adverted to by the mover, uh, discussing blackmail by separatists. That's two sides of the same coin. Um, and I just want to remind everybody that Canada has already built an oil pipeline at taxpayers' expense, uh, intended to buy peace from Alberta. It didn't work. Um, it seems like the separatists are pretending it never happened and, and they're back to blackmailing us. So I think a pipeline is bad public policy, that the federal government should be investing, if anything, in clean electricity and a strong east-west grid. But as I mentioned, the most important thing is the potential impacts to Victoria residents and businesses. So I'll be supporting this. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Anyone else on this one? Councillor Gardiner. For many of these motions, what really gets me is the hypocrisy. Our province obviously uses gas, we use petroleum products. Just look around, we're doing it all the time. Of course we are. And I just find this really, really destructive. We're doing so much. Don't mind me, every time I see that pile of coal Atawasan, I think, who are we kidding? So the simple things like the coal, because that is relatively simple, we're putting up with, we're all supporting through our government, and we shouldn't be. The fact that the Americans don't wanna ship it out and Canada will ship it out, which is far worse than any gas or oil that we're gonna look at when it comes to burning.

So I just find it so hypocritical that we keep doing this. And by this I mean many of these advocacy motions that frankly most people don't pay attention to. But as just been explained to us, in this case, people will be paying attention to this one. And it would— might cause really damage to our city, not just the city but the province. And I think that it's been very eloquently stated by Soon-to-be-retired Councillor Colman. Thank you very much. Question for Mr. Johnson. Should this motion be adopted when it says issues the following public statement, how would you imagine that being undertaken? Thanks for the question. Through you, Mayor, I looked at number 2 being there's a submission to actually be made and that we would probably likely crib a message from that submission and we could simply post it on latest news, you know, council made the following statement today on said topic.

Thank you for that. I read this motion differently. Okay. Insofar as I believe the— and correct me, Councillor Kim, if I'm wrong here— I read this as this statement is to be released unedited and that as a secondary action that the Mayor's Office creates submission to the process based upon that statement. So I would think it would happen in reverse order. Fair point. Yeah. Okay. Then I have a question for the mover. And Councillor Kim, I will refer to you directly as the mover. There is a line amidst all of these, what I would consider to be relatively factual statements, which I think undermines the credibility of the statement by the degree of its hyperbole. And that is the line that says, "But amid a summer of climate disasters, the Government of Canada is lighting a match to one of the world's largest carbon bombs." That is a lovely statement and quite poetic, but I think that it stands out amidst the rest of the statements, which are fairly straightforward

and making assertions I believe are actually able to be fact-checked. I would like to move an amendment to delete that line. And I would see if there is a seconder. I just want someone to second it. Yeah. Susan, do you want to second that? What's your thought? I don't, but I did see a colleague online raise their hand. Well, I'm not sure if Councillor Thompson has his hand up. It does appear for some reason, continues to appear that he has it up. Councillor Thompson, is your hand up on purpose or is it again residual? I have my hand up on purpose and it was to address a related point to this. Okay. But not to second this.

We're in the middle of a process now. Okay. Yeah. All right. So I will look for a seconder to delete that line. Councillor Coleman, are you seconding that? Okay. So just on that, I mean, I'm prepared to support the rest of this because I think it's fairly straightforward, as I mentioned. And I think that the purpose of it is supportable. The execution of it is supportable. Supportable, the language is supportable, but I think that it is too frequent that folks who wish to make a point on a critical issue delve a little too far into hyperbolic language that then allows others who are detracting from it to dismiss the entire thing. And so I think the language in this particular line does just that. And I think that removing it allows the totality of the rest of the statement to be something that is much more definable, much more defensible, able to be, as I say, fact-checked and able to therefore persuade more people to support

it. And so I think it improves the efficacy and the utility of the entire statement if this particular line is not in it. Councillor Colman, you thoughtfully allowed me to speak to that as a seconder. Do you have anything to add? Thank you. I, I agree with your assessment. I'm still going to be voting against the issue, but I think this does make it better. Thank you. On the amendment to delete that line, uh, Councillor Kim, I see your hand up. Yeah, uh, thanks, Mayor. Um, don't get me wrong, I don't disagree. Uh, just as we had with an earlier conversation about the language of prescribed drugs. Um, yeah, I, I recognize the utility of watering something down in order to make it truly more supportable, but I also think that, uh, for what it's worth, um, this is also a reflection of the sense of, um, urgency and panic that some residents feel.

And to me, that hyperbole is, is, is, um, is one I, I would stand by personally. So while On, on an operational, purely rhetorical level, I agree with you. I do stand by the principle of what's being said here. So thanks. Very good. Councillor Thompson, do you have— is this your hand is on this item? Yeah, maybe I'll seek your guidance on this, Mayor. I was going to speak to a related point before you started, which was to— and it was going to be to ask you a question, Mayor, which is Is the motion as currently worded going to be the most effective wording that we could use to achieve the outcome desired, or can that wording be improved? And then my second question for you was going to be, if the latter, if it can be approved, should we provide more general direction to you to— or request to you to write the letter.

So that being said, not sure whether that comment is relevant to this amendment or to a subsequent question to you. Look for your guidance there. Well, I think arguably it could be both. If I understood your question correctly, I obviously would want to make the argument that this leans into the ability to make this more clear, but that's perhaps peripheral. If you're suggesting that once we deal with this amendment, however that's dealt with, you have something else to offer, that's perfectly in order. But I think for now we'll just deal with this. Yes, just hang on to that thought and we'll come back to you after we deal with this amendment. Sure. Councillor Kerodion on this amendment. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor.

I kind of support the amendment even though I do in a sense support the tone of the hyperbolic statement. I'm thinking of this more as a formal submission to a body, right? We've determined that the project of national interest is an actual body that's receiving formal input from the City of Victoria. So if this passes, I think it should be written in a professional and factual tone. Thank you very much for that. Anyone else on the amendment? Once again, also the amendment. So in favor of the amendment, which would be to remove the bolded sentence that struck through, all those in favor? Councillor Dell, Councillor— sorry, Councillor Kerodona, Councillor Louton, myself, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Hammond.

In opposition, Councillor Thompson, Councillor Kim. Nope, sorry, I was, I was in favor. My apologies, I didn't see. I'm going to try that again. All those in favor of removing that line: Councillor Dell, Councillor Kerodona, Councillor Louton, myself. Councillor Colman, Councillor Hammond, Councillor Gardiner, and Councillor Thompson. In opposition, Councillor Kim. Noting one in opposition, so that line can be removed. Uh, that was really all I had to say about that whole document. I will clarify, should this be adopted, just exactly what the next steps are. But I will go now to Councillor Gardiner and then to Councillor Thompson. Councillor Gardiner, do you have any comments? I have you on my list. Nope. Yep. On the whole thing.

The wording might be read many ways, but what definitely won't be read many ways or listened to in many ways is what has already been said. Blackmail. Hyperbole. Don't worry about what's in the words here. If people elsewhere are listening, they have enough quotes from what was said today. So I will not be supporting this. It is— it's just— it's the wording, the insults. It's just too much. Thank you. Councillor Thompson, you had a further amendment, I believe, or question. I'm not sure if it's an amendment. I'll ask a question of you, Mayor, and then I guess we'll see what happens. Is the wording— I think you have said that the wording is pretty factual. Right now, and so maybe we're comfortable with the wording.

In your opinion, is the wording now, um, going to be the best wording we can have to achieve the outcome, um, or can it be improved? Well, that's— you're clearly— and I'm not asking— yeah, you're asking my opinion. I'm sorry. Yeah, and I'm asking for your opinion, but I'm not asking to rewrite it on the spot. No. So if I understood you, the, uh, If I understand your intent, you're inquiring whether or not strategically this is the best way to put forward this position. It would strategically be my advice to actually reverse the order of this motion so that what is seen as number 2, which is request the mayor provide a submission within the same vein to the project of national interest consultation process, actually be the first task, further really to Mr.

Johnson's earlier comments because the way this is currently written, the way I would interpret it is this statement word for word is published and then some submission of some kind is sent in through the process. I think it would be more strategic to actually start with request the mayor provide a submission with the following— reflecting the following intent to the project of national interest, et cetera, et cetera. And that then requires that letter, that submission rather, to reflect all of these points. So let me be clear, not to paraphrase them, not to water them down, not to interpret them, but to include them in a way which seems more like a strategic document. And that that document then would be what is, quote, published. I think that's reflective a little bit of what Mr. Johnston was assuming would be a more usual format. You can either pass this the way it is or decline this the way it is and then alter slightly number 2 to be able to allow a little latitude for the

mayor to provide the submission, or you can just flip the 2 clauses, amend the second one very slightly, and let it go with that. Or you can defeat the whole thing if that's the inclination of the council. So that would be my opinion. Thank you. Then, um, I'll, uh, since I'm not in the room, I'm gonna rely on you, Mayor. I do want to achieve the outcome, and so your preferred course of action, which I think is to flip the wording around, um, would be what I would move, but I would ask that you do me the kindness of wording that motion for me because I have a tiny little screen here that I'm trying to read this on.

You do. And I hope you're somewhere actually pleasant as well. All right. On behalf of Councillor Thomson, which is unusual, staff, work with me on this. Take what's in number 2 and make it number 1. Let's start with that. Now in number 1, let's adjust the language ever so slightly and say, request the mayor provide a submission including the following points, and then deleting within the same frame. And then leave in to the project of national interest consultation process. And then in number 2, to adjust that, that council requested that council issue the mayor's— issue the mayor's submission, publicly issue the mayor's submission. Publicly issue the mayor's submission.

And take what's after submission. Delete the following public statement. So put a strike through that. And take the rest of that. Sentence and make it a new separate line. I'm just going to read this through because we're doing this on the fly. OK. So now take that— what's now the third line that's not yet bolded, OK, opposing the construction. So now take all of that whole line, clip it, and put it after the word submission in number 1. And you'll see why in a minute. All right, now let's just read that. So the council requests the mayor provide a submission opposing the construction of a new West Coast pipeline as well as its designation as a project of national interest, including the following points. So you can take out the number 1 in front of including and make number 1 up there, right? There you go. Pull that up into the same sentence. Pull it up into the same first sentence.

Right? And then put "including" after "project of national interest." There's a comma in there, I think. Very good. And then number 2 is publicly issue the mayor's submission. And then— Actually, number 2 can go at the end then, so we're flipping it. So cut number 2 and put it at the very end as a new— as a number 2, right? There you go. This is called drafting in groups on the fly. Mm-hmm. All right, now let's pull up the top and see if that makes sense. So the motion is that council request the mayor provide a submission opposing the construction of a new West Coast Pipeline as well as his designation as a project of national interest, including the following points.

Uh, to the project— oh, that's bad grammar, isn't it? Then you should take to the project of national interest consultation project process and put that after submission in the first line. I can't possibly allow something that's grammatically incorrect to go forward. My late mother would roll in her grave. So to the project of national interest consultation project, that very end of that sentence. Keep going, keep going to after within the same vein. There you go. Clip all the rest of that sentence and stick it under the word submit— after the word submission on the first line. Doesn't change the substance, it just makes it grammatically proper.

There you go. Request the mayor provide a submission to the Project of National Interest consultation process opposing the construction of a new West Coast pipeline, as well as its designation as a Project of National Interest, including the following points. And then you can delete the rest of that sentence, right? And then all the rest of the points are the same. They're all the same. None of them are changed except that one we deleted with an amendment. And then when you go to the very bottom, number 2 is publicly issue the mayor's submission, which means whatever gets written like that gets posted as a public statement.

So that makes sense grammatically and structurally, and I think it actually reflects the intent of Councillor Thomson's commentary. So I'm going to move that as a multip— amendment. Councillor Thomson, will you second that? Yes, but I have a question. Is the black wording underneath paragraph number 1 opposing the construction? Is that struck out? It is because it's already in the first sentence. We struck it out there because all of it is in the first sentence now. Sorry, that's just me not being able to see the tiny screen. So to answer your question, I'm— Yeah, I'm not in a pleasant place while I do this. Thank you very much for that.

Yeah. Okay. So I've seconded that. Very good. So I just speaking because I'm sitting in the position of the person moving this complex amendment, I do so as I believe it reflects the commentary of Councillor Thompson, at least, and perhaps others. And I think that from what I understand, I understand from Councillor Thomson's commentary that this does reflect that content, which, as an aside, I agree with. Councillor Thomson, do you have anything to add to the amendment? No, I would— well, yes, I guess so. I would thank you, Mayor, for your patience in rewording that. And just to, just to say that I think that this would be more likely to achieve the outcome that I, that I want.

And that I suspect that a lot of people campaigning on this want, which is to not have the pipeline approved. I mean, there may be other folks in that campaign who want other objectives, other political objectives or whatever. I just don't want to see that pipeline approved. And I think that this is a more likely wording for that outcome. Thank you. Thank you very much. On the amendment to start, are there any other comments? Councillor Kim. Yeah, thank you to my colleagues, yourself included, Mayor, for basically tightening this up and making a sequence that makes more sense. I just appreciate the collaboration on this and I can support this. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Anyone else on the amendment to start? Okay, I'm not seeing anyone else on the amendment. So on the amendment for first, just the amendment, and that is all of those changes that we've illustrated there with the able help of our staff. All those in favor of the amendment? Councillor Kerodona, Councillor Louton, Councillor Kim, Councillor Thompson, myself, Councillor Hammond. In opposition to the amendment? Councillor Coleman and Councillor Gardiner, noting that Councillor Dell has stepped out. I believe the amendment is adopted with 2 in opposition. I believe I'm looking Staff, that's correct? Yes, very good. So now we'll just give staff just a moment to remove all of the struck-through language just so we understand exactly what we're voting on now, finally.

Just give them a second to do that. And then there's some stuff, I think, at the bottom as well. Right. Very good. Just make a space in there maybe so we know that number 2 is actually separate. Very good. All right. So I think that now appears to be our final motion that originally was put forward by Councillor Kim and seconded by Councillor Carradonna. Any final comments on the motion as amended? Councillor Gardner. To the public, we have 12 staff members sitting around this room, and we have many more that are online. We've just spent a little over $2,000 of your taxpayer money, and more will be spent to complete the task before us today. So this council is spending so much time that we're going to solve all the problems, but not the problems of our city.

We've got residential tax rates doubling every 6 years, out of out-of-control spending, disorder, and drugs on our streets, but we're going to go solve the wildfires in all of the world. This is really, really a problem with this council. We keep entering this. I hope someone out there who's keeping track of everything can see how many advocacy motions have been made by this council over the last 3 and a half years. And you just wonder. It used to be that we used to say it's going into the round little cycling or filing cabinet, which means a garbage can. Because when these things go off, we will get very often a nice little note from somebody. But the impact, I think, could be very disastrous in this case, as has been mentioned by Councilor Col— uh, Colman. So I will not be voting for this motion.

Thank you very much. Anybody else? Not seeing any other comments. All those in favor of the motion as amended? Councillor Cardona, Councillor Lauten, Councillor Kim, Councillor Thomson, myself, Councillor Hammond. In opposition? Councillor Coleman, Councillor Gardiner, noting as well again that Councillor Dell is absent today, or just at this moment. That deals with item that became the new item J, and so that takes us on to item K. This would be the closed meeting if there was required And none is required at committee today. And so, just before I look to a motion to adjourn, I'm just going to briefly comment that there are 5 meetings that council has, 5 days of meetings now before the election.

I'm going to politely urge my colleagues to resist the natural inclination to pontificate in what are clearly campaign issues during business meetings? I can only ask that question, but I think it's important to do so on the record. With that, I would look for a motion to adjourn. Thank you, Councilor Colvin. Seconded by Councilor Louton. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? That is unanimous. We'll take a brief break. Let's call it 2:30. That'll give us 12 minutes before we go to our daytime council

All those in favor of actually reconsidering adjournment? There's a reason. Those in favor? Thank you very much. And that is because I had mentioned to Ms. Rother that this particular motion, the one that we just passed here after amending it, because it is a late item, it does have time sensitivity. If we wait for the usual 2 weeks for us to consider it finally, it will be beyond the deadline for the submission. And so it should have included in the motion itself a recommendation for same-day consideration. However, I overlooked that and trying to make that amendment, and so I will move that amendment now that this matter be forwarded to to the daytime council meeting for same-day consideration. Councillor Kim, would you like to second that, please? Thank you. Any discussion on the motion to provide same-day consideration?

Seeing none, all those in favour? Anyone opposed? Same-day considers. That is unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Rother, for reminding me of that. That would have been foolhardy for us to have gone through all of that work and then not be able to actually execute it. There you go. With that then, I would then ask again for a motion to adjourn. Thank you, Councillor Coleman. Second, Councillor Lauten. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? That is unanimous. Again, let us resume at 2:30 when we will begin our daytime council meeting.