Transcript: Council (to follow COTW) - 2026/06/11

Re1 and welcome to Victoria City Council's Council meeting during the day at Thursday June 11th. I note that only because we do have an evening Councillor meeting this evening, but which I'll speak a little later. Today we have for our consideration two sets of minutes reports from three committees of the whole, two bylaws, one item of new business, and a closed item. But of course, before we begin, we always like to take a moment to ground ourselves and our work and acknowledgement and recognition of the remarkable work undertaken by the two nations on whose territories our city sits in its entirety, the LeQuan good people of the Songhees Nation, and that goes up some nation.

And to remember and value and treasure and bring homage to the incredible work that the two nations have undertaken over so many generations to ensure that we have the opportunities to make the decisions that we make here in this chamber and to make the decisions that we choose to undertake things to improve the quality of life across our community. The nations themselves have for so many years thought first of how to protect land and the waters that surround this island in a way which allows there to be generations of folk who can live their lives here to the best of their abilities. And we treasure the fact that the generosity of the nation's continues in their stewardship. And in the time that they give to all of us to work with them and to learn from and with them. And to do work together for the better quality of life for all of us who have the privilege of living here in South Vancouver Island.

With that, we always want to urge one another to take a moment each day to experience and recognise something that brings home that gratitude to each one of us in a way that is very personal. And so that it allows us to actually internalize that thanks and ensure that we understand how valuable it has become. It is to allowing us to live our lives as we choose here in the City of Victoria. ICHM Nicole, I do all of you. We are going to start a regular agenda today, and we'll see how much we can get done before we break for lunch. The first thing that I will do, of course, just in the light of other chairs remarks, it's just remind folks that on Saturday this coming Saturday, June 13th at 10 a. m. at railroads, celebration of life honouring the work and life of our dear late Councillor colleague, Langford Councillor Lillian Spock. It is open to the public. I suspect it will be

well attended in respect and honour for Lillian, and I know that, as I mentioned earlier today, Lillian was a great proponent of everything environmental. And so for those of folks who are able to go on Saturday, one might want to think a little bit about going there in a way different than in a single occupancy vehicle, unless you're carpooling with many folks in your own vehicle. With that said, that will be a somber morning, but an important one to honour Lillian's lifetime of work to Langford and to Vancouver Island in general. I am not aware of any late items that need to be added to our agenda today, and so that when we was on to look for a motion to approve the agenda as published. Thank you, Councillor Coleman, secreted by Councillor Gardner. In a discussion on the published agenda, not seeing any, all those in favor of the published agenda. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Now there are in fact 10 items proposed

for the consent agenda, so I'm going to walk through these carefully for the information of the public. And then I will ask if anyone wishes to remove any of them for further discussion. Trist isn't a reminder items are placed on the consent agenda at Council. If they receive unanimous support at committee or they are preliminary readings of bylaws, as we will have a chance to consider those bylaws for final adoption at another time. So proposed today, item F1, the minutes from the Council to Fallow, meeting held on March 12th. That would be the daytime council meeting. Item F2, the daytime council meeting minutes for the meeting held on April the 2nd. Item G1AB, the development variants permit for 749 Douglas Street downtown. Item G1AC, the general local election report for 2026. Item G1AD, the technical high angle rope rescue program tower crane rescue services agreement.

Item G1AE, the Council Member Motion with regard to the Cumberland BC Minors Memorial Graveside Vigil for 2026. Item G1BA. The rezoning application and development permit with variances application for the properties at 517 and 533 Chatham Street and 530532 and 536 Herald Street. G1BC, the Council Member Motion with regard to advocacy to extend local government climate action program funding. Item G1BD, the Council Member Motion, looking to increase protections for Victoria renters. And finally, item H1, the Bylaws for Street Entertainment, and again those are preliminary readings. So noting all 10 of those proposals, would anyone like to remove any one of them for further discussion? Councillor Gardner?

That would be item G1BD and item H1. Yep. So that is just for the information of the public. Actually, I'll ask the question again before I say that. Anything else anyone would like to get? Councillor Kim? Actually, is it possible to add? You can. What would you like to add? The two from Community of the Whole this morning. Well, generally our convention has been to allow those to go forward through today. Sure. Anyway. Okay. They're fairly brief and they were, I believe, uh, carried not unanimously, but almost. In which case could I also see about adding H2. Is H2 in adoption? Yes it is. So generally speaking, we don't put adoptions on because it is the last chance that Council has to comment. And so we'd like to make sure that that occurs. So I'll ask again, anything else anyone would like to remove. Not seeing anything else. So just as a reminder, um, the request has been to remove item G1BD, the Council Member

Motion, uh, increasing protection for Victoria rentals. A renters rather. And item H1, the Bylaws for street entertainment. That leaves eight items for the consent agenda consideration. I won't read them all out again. I will just read the actual numbers and that would be item F1, item F2, item G1ab G1AC. Item G1AD, item G1AE. Item G1BA, an item G1BC. Someone like to move that consent agenda. Thanks Councillor Coleman, seconded by Councillor Kim. All those in favor. And you want to pose. That is unanimous. Alrighty, let us start working through this. We might get through a couple of things. Actually, I'm going to suspect we're probably only going to get through a couple of things. One thing. Uh, up next is item F.

These would be the consideration of the minutes. These would be the minutes from the Council to follow Committee with the whole meetings on March the 12th and April the 2nd. Both of those were in fact adopted with the consent agenda and just as a reminder to everyone who's watching. When something is adopted at the daytime council, it is the final consideration. And so those things are now considered to be approved. Finally and will not return again to this table. That takes us on to then the Committee of the Whole report from May 21st. The first item up, which was not on me the consent agenda is what we colloquially have called them cathedral application. This is the Rezoning application and the development permit with variances application with regard to 829 and 2899 4th Street. And oh no, I'm sorry. This is not the cathedral application.

Oh yes it is. No it's not. That's sorry. That's later. Gotcha. 829 to 899 4th Street and 846 to 856 Broton. This is the rezoning application 00901. And the development permit with variance is application 00297. Uh, this was moved and carried and adopted 72, but there were notes of opposition. So we'll have that tap on again. That was something to move this please. Councillor Dell is moving this. Anyone like to second this please. Councillor Coleman is seconding this. Uh, Councillor Dell, any comments. Councillor Coleman, any comments. Comments from anyone else. Just double checking Mr. Johnston just to confirm so that I don't lead us down the wrong path. Uh, this is not the cathedral project correct. Thank you. Just want to make sure. That's correct.

Inadvertent. All right. Seeing that then, all those in favor. Council Dell, Councillor Kim. Councillor Loughton. Councillor Caradona myself Councillor Coleman and Councillor Thompson. In opposition Councillor Hammond and Councillor Gardner. Noting two and opposition. Then that is finally adopted. That motion for the report. All right. Uh, G1AB was added to the consent agenda. So that has been finally considered G1AC was also added to the consent agenda. So that is also finally considered G1AD was left on the consent agenda. So that has already been finally considered. G1AE, the Council Member Motion, uh, for Cumberland was on the consent agenda. So that has already been considered. G1AF was in fact not on the consent agenda. And so this one should be considered individually. This was the Council Member Motion with regard to graffiti prevention. Options for age restrictions, retail access and storage controls with spray paint. There were a number of folks in opposition to this. I believe Councillor Hamlin, you moved this originally. Would you like to

move it again? Thank you. And would someone like this second is Councillor Gardner. Council Hemd, anything you'd like to add at this time? Nope. Councillor Gardner or anything you'd like to add? Nope. Anyone else like to add anything to this discussion. Not seeing any particular comments further. All those in favor. Councillor Dell. Professor Kim Councillor Loughton, myself Councillor Coleman, Councillor Herman, Councillor Gardner Councillor Thompson. And opposition Councillor Caradona. Noting that, uh, was one person opposition. And just I will note for the interest of those watching. The reason it was six to two last time was because Councillor Loughton was unable to be here at that time and was absent from the previous vote. All right.

That does take us through the items that were part of the May 21st committee of the whole. I'm going to suggest that we actually pause there. We before we go on to the May 28th report because it is complete and also has a number of fairly lengthy pieces on it. So it is now by my calculation just 12 noon. So let us return at one o'clock. And we will resume our daytime council meeting with considerations of the report from the May 28th Committee of the whole meeting. The report from the 28th Committee of the Whole Meeting. The first item up, G1BA, that is the rezoning application and development permit with variances application. For 517 and 533 Chetum Street and 530532 and 536 Herald Street. That was placed on the consent agenda and adopted as part of that consent agenda. And so that item has been resolved.

So that takes us on to item G1BB. This was not unanimous committee. And so this is the rezoning application for 90912 Vancouver Street, 911 Quadrantra Street and 930 and 990 Birdette Avenue. And that is known as the Cathedral item. And before we proceed with that, I'm going to turn to Councillor Coleman, who is going to recuse himself. Thank you, your worship. Yes, I'm going to recuse myself as I did in past iterations for both a perception of bias, because I'm a 40 - year parishioner and a member of having previously been a member of Paris Council and a potential pecuniary interest because my wife used to work on the precinct and now gets a pension from the Anglican diocese. Thank you very much. And I will note that Councillor Coleman has asked us to take as much time as we need to discuss this. So he may deal with other matters. There you go. That being said, as I mentioned, this is the rezoning application

for what we commonly known as the Cathedral application. We put the very long proposal up there on the screen. Thank you very much. I'm happy to move that because I'm going to propose an amendment. Someone like, thanks very much Councillor Thompson. So before I speak to the entire motion, I'm going to suggest an amendment that would be placed at the end of the sentence at 3A. So if you take your cursor down to 3A, when it says site plan is currently proposed. Comma, after the word proposed. Very end there. And I did send a few words to staff. Do you add in there? If you could add that in there, that would be super helpful.

I can also read it out if it's not very long, but there you go. Thank you. And so first up, I would like to move that amendment. And see if anyone would like to second that amendment. Goodness, okay. We'll take Councillor Lodin just because the first person I saw. So just briefly, on the only of the amendment, and I'll reserve comments on the main motion for a little bit later. Just on the amendment, I think we had a very extensive conversation when this first came to committee dealing with the amount of public engagement that had been undertaken by the applicant and the different opportunities there had been for commentary over the last few years, as this has been for a few years. And so it is my opinion that the alternate motion, which we, it's the one on the screen, which is the one that we sent here for final consideration today did include sufficient information to not necessarily require an additional COLUC meeting. And

if I recall correctly, there were multiple comments on wanting to ensure that, uh, the changes that we had proposed would not necessarily slow down the process of the rest of the undertaking of this particular application. Despite the fact that we did add some additional things around it returning to the advisory design panel and some other things as well. So I believe that the additional calic media is unnecessary. And that's why I'm proposing this amendment. Councillor Loitville. Thanks. It's through you, Mayor. I don't have anything to add to that just that I want to reiterate that we don't want to slow things down. And my understanding is correct. The last CALU meeting was waived by the CALC and it was approved with a more height at the CALIC meeting previous to that. So it doesn't seem like it makes much sense for it to go back to CALIC. I think we just need to move forward and get this project going. Thanks. Thank you very much

on the amendment. Other comments? Councillor Gardner. Thank you. I actually found it very problematic that the CALUC meeting was waived given that the, um, uh, proposal, which we considered was very, very different from the one from the Calicov, when was it. 2024. Is that correct? I think so. And so it was significant during day waved it. And this would have been their chance maybe to have one so that the residents can speak. So I can't support this amendment. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else on the amendment Councillor Cardono. Just a little bit of background because I'm trying to remember. I mean, if I recall that there was one proposal that went to ADP and then it got and then the one that went to us was a little bit different than the one that went to ADP. And then what, what actually went to the CALIC? What is it the one that ADP had commented on or was it a different version. Mr.

Johnston, do you know that? Thank you through you mayor. Um, I believe the version of the proposal that, uh, ADP reviewed was the same version that Council saw, but, uh, the, uh, version that went to the Calluk was the original proposal, which had a taller building behind directly behind the cathedral and a taller building at the corner of Vancouver and Burdette and then lower scale buildings across the rest of the site. And it's slightly different density than, than what was proposed. Okay. Um, one of the questions that was asked at the previous meeting was what ADP had advised for advice and the fact that they had not necessarily taken that advice in the most recent version, which is one of the reasons we set it back to ADP. Yes. So, okay, if I've understood correctly then that, um, there was one proposal made that had some taller buildings. And that's what ADP commented on. No, I'm sorry. I'm, I'm getting lost then. I'm sorry. Mr.

Johnson, can you just walk us through the order? It might be helpful. Uh, through the mayor, I'll start and then, uh, or maybe it's better if I just hand it over to, uh, senior planner Bitanza's online. And he can walk us through it. And there he is. Hello, Mr. Cotanzo. Can you, I don't know if you've heard this conversation, but could you sort of walk us through the steps that, uh, took us to the most recent application version. Sure. So, uh, through yourself, the, the initial version that went to Kalek, um, that calic has reviewed had the 25 story, uh, building directly behind the cathedral.

And then at the corner of Burdet and Vancouver and 18 story building. And then, um, the remainder of the site was four and six story buildings. So that's the version that went to Kallek. That version was, uh, following that, uh, revised, um, to have the 18 story building mid block on Burdette and a 12 story building in behind the cathedral. And that's the version that went to both the Heritage Advisory panel and the advisory design panel and Council at Committee of the Whole. Great. Thank you. Okay. So then in a sense, I was correct in that there was, there was a calic version had some taller buildings. That version changed. But then Council amended the direction to allow, I voted against it personally as amendment, but it carried to allow the proponents to work with staff to consider in a sense going back to or splitting the difference or having some options about realigning with the previous version that had gone to EDP. Yes, I

believe that's right, Mr. Johnson. Right. Uh, through the mayor, um, the direction that Council provided at Committee of the Whole was to, um, revised the proposal to align with the direction or the recommendation that came from ADP. So ADP had reviewed the same version that was presented to Council. So the 18 story building kind of mid block on Burdett. And their recommendation, part of their recommendation was to consider increasing the height of that 18 story building slightly. Uh, and reducing the height of the adjacent eight story buildings. Um, so it wasn't necessarily returning to, uh, align with the original proposal, but sort of some shifting of building height along the burdet street. Okay. If you could just read actually the number two, but we ended up approving was that adjust the application to better align with the recommendations of. So as Mr. Johnson said, it isn't necessarily a return to the original. So I, okay.

And the reason I'm asking these questions is I'm trying to figure out if there's any value in sending it back to CALIC. And I guess there's, there's some haggling going on between 18 and 25 stories, but I think to my mind, CALAC has already had the opportunity to look at the higher density one. If anything, there's going to be less density on what was originally proposed here. So, uh, I, it hasn't come up for me. And when I've been on FGCA meetings, I don't want to speak for them, but they haven't, it doesn't seem like it's a priority for them. They've already commented on it.

So I can support this amendment. Thank you very much. On the amendment. Any other comments. Not seeing you under your comments. So just on the bolded language that is in 3A. All those in favor of that amendment. Calzardill, Councillor Kim Council Caridona, Councillor Loton, myself, Councillor Thompson. And opposition Councillor Hammond and Councillor Gardner. So noting to, in opposition, that amendment, uh, is adopted and becomes part of 3A and the main motion. I noted that I would reserve my comments to the end as the mover, Councillor Thompson, I believe you seconded it. Did you not? I did, Mayor. Thanks. I gave extensive comments as we all did last time. I have an untied. Very good. Anyone else on the main motion. Has amended. That singing wheels in the main motion. Okay. And I believe I would concur with a previous comments that we did have an extensive conversation about this previously. And I'm content to leave those comments, uh, final word on my case anyway. All

those in favor. Councillor Kim Council Caronatin myself. Councillor Thompson. Councillor Dell, are you voting in favor. Well, I'm going to have to do that again. Then all those in favor, Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim Counsel - Count on Councillor Loughton, myself and Councillor Thompson and opposition Councillor Hem and Councillor Gardner. Noting to an opposition. That is adopted. And that is item G1B, as we noted. I wonder if someone might go and get our colleague Councillor Coleman so that he can return to consider the balance of our agenda. Uh, that moves us on then to item. This is now still on the report from the May 28th Committee of the whole meeting that takes us on to item G1BC. This is the Council Member motion with regard to advocacy to extend the local government climate action program that was placed on the consent agenda. So that has already been considered and approved. That takes us on to item G1BD. This is the Council Member Motion with regard

to increasing protections for Victoria renters. Uh, this was on the consent agenda and was asked to be removed. So first I'm going to go to ask someone to move this. Thanks, Councillor Gardner. It's a seconder Councillor Thompson. Councillor Gardner, go ahead, hear comments. Can you turn your mic on? Sorry. Yeah. Thank you, Councillor. Well, I appreciate the motion and support at Committee of the Whole. We received correspondence from, uh, David Hutnick. Land or BC. And you recall he was at the recent Beyond the Noise Forum. And Borjarvis, president of IWS group, which is C - H - Mc's largest partner on the West Coast. Both speak of the importance of housing policy and changes. But also the need to ensure that policy is based on empirical evidence rather than focus on advocacy - based reports.

And I don't know if these letters have been formed to staff and will forward them today if they haven't gotten it. You've got them. Thank you. And so I think they're very important. And I hope there's the expectation of the city. We'll look at all those communications and evidence as they respond to the motion before us. The impacts of vacancy control. As compared to rent control should be. Thoroughly assessed by staff as we go forward. I will read the summary statement in one of the letters as it reflects what staff should be examining with this motion. Quote discussions about rent control, vacancy control. Stricter building standards, and operational costs cannot occur in isolation from one another. They are all part of the same operating equation.

End of quote. My fear is expressed in past meetings is that we may lose affordable housing. The most affordable housing is existing housing housing. And I don't want to lose the many renters who live in my neighbourhood due to renovations or renovictions, which could result from dictates which cannot be met with existing rental housing. So this is just a risk and I want us to acknowledge it is a risk and its staff will have a challenge going forward. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. Councillor Thompson, I believe you seconded this, anything you'd like to? Thanks Mayor. Yes, I received those two letters and forwarded the Monta staff to address and take into the mix and report back to us. And I trust staff will address those points. And many others in the report back and I look forward to that. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anyone else on this matter Councillor Caradona? Yeah, just to reiterate that this is a report back and also

when it comes to Boltman Control and vacancy control, they are entirely in the hands of the province. Local governments don't control such things. Uh, so the idea here though is just to get a state of play, what's happening across the country on those two items for Council to consider the information in the future. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Councillor Kim? Uh, thank you. I would also remind us that this very council sent an UBCM motion for advocacy a couple of years back. And it on, uh, vacancy control in real estate investment trust buildings. And it did pass. So that is the position of municipalities as a reminder. Thanks. Very good. Thank you for that reminder. Anybody else. Not seeing anyone else. All right. All those in favor. Is anyone opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you very much for that. That takes us on then to item G1C. This is the report from earlier today. Our June 11th, the Committee of the Whole

Meeting. And I believe there are three separate motions that were directed to come forward for same day consideration. This is the first one with regard to the amenity cost charges bylaw amendment. Something like to move that, please. Thanks Councillor Thompson. Seconded by Councillor Kim. Mr. Thompson, any comments? Councillor Kim, any comments? Anyone else? Any comments. Not seeing anyone else. All those in favor. Is anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you for that. It takes us on to the second one, which I believe is the UBCM resolution. That is correct. So I'm going to like to move that please. Thanks, Councillor Kim. Second by Councillor Thompson.

Councillor Kim, many comments. Councillor Thompson, any comments. Comments from anybody else. Not seeing anyone else, all those in favor. And I'm going to pose. That is also unanimous. And then for our third, same day consideration. This was the final one of the active transportation that was just pulled for some amendments. Blue Councillor Thompson, you had proposed this. If you'd like to move it again. The seconder. Councillor Kim Council Thompson, any comments, Councillor Kim, many comments. Any other comments. Not seeing any further comments, all those in favor. I know what opposed. That is indeed unanimous as well. That deals with our same day considerations. That moves us on to Bylaws. And there are two of them here. First one is Bylaw H1. This is the Bylastra Street Entertainment. This is the preliminary readings for a second and third readings. Uh, this was again proposed for consent, but pulled off. I believe by Councillor Gardner. Also, Garden would you like to move it. Yes, okay. Answer seconder

for this. Council Kim. Concert Carter. How are you? Thank you. And we'll staff be given any presentation or are they here? Do we have any comments and stuff? Don't believe we had asked for one, but if it was Reddington, are you have a presentation or are you? I do have a presentation of Council would like one. Otherwise, I'm happy to just answer any questions. Would Council like presentation. No, I'm okay with questions. Okay. Let's just do Q and A. Over to you, Councillor Gardner. Thank you. And thank you for all the work that's been done on this so far. I think we've gotten some letters saying, thank goodness. It looks great. So I have some more questions though. Uh, just from the various communications that I've received. And here we are. And a lot of us just to confirm to the public so they understand, you know, what all it means. So to confirm, this policy applies only to entertainment on public properties not to

entertainment on private properties. Is that correct? Is Reddington? Through the mayor, that is correct. Thank you. And this also applies, will this also apply to events and activities at ShipPoint. Is ready, kid? Uh, through the mayor, the public property. So, uh, correct. Just to clarify though, if there is a special event permit issued for ship point, this bylaw does not apply. Not for special events. Yeah. Any, any event that has a special event permit. Uh, the rules and conditions that apply to that permit, uh, this bylaw is not in effect. Who puts on the buskers event there? The city does. The city does. So that is not a special permit. No, yeah, it's our City programming. So it falls under our own like permit permitting process. So it'll fall under this. Okay. Okay. I think that's very, because that's a question I got from several people. Okay. Hang on. Buskers festival. Falls under. Okay.

Given the shit qualification, let's see with water to the west. Remember ship points there. We got water to the west. So how are you going, how are you measure the noise disbursement to the west. I think I need, do you need to clarify? So it's a special event permit. So with the special event permit that the city puts on events at ship point, uh, we then the noise bylaw comes into effect, not the street entertainment bylaw. And I think, you know, I get that. But with the street entertainment one, how will you measure it? So they can't be amplified. So under this bylaw. There is no amplification. You're not going to, okay, the amplification is going to do what you won't have to measure. Okay.

Correct. Not. Okay. Um, will they, this policy be in place for this season. Uh, through the mayor, once the bylaw is adopted, it comes into effect. Yeah. Okay. Now the distance between performances on office ship point now, the distance between formance is a great addition to the, to what the bylaw here. However, there are some entertainment or entertainers who provide, um, entertainment that wouldn't necessarily have to be that far apart. Now I'm thinking of someone who's no longer with us, but was a wonderful entertainer. And that was plaster man. If everyone remembers him, he's white and his pale. And how great he was. So what happens with buskers who don't make any noise. Today are the distance still apply? Yes, it does. So there is still a distance. It's actually one block between busking. Okay.

Whether they're making noise or sound. Yeah. He was fantastic. Okay. Um, will this policy apply to street entertainment performance outside the downtown area through the mayor? Yes. Okay. Uh, okay. I'm wondering about the anticipated cost of the program, but let me narrow it. And how much were bunkers paid for example to perform at the eight elevated sites in 2025 and what's been budgeted in 2026. I asked this because it looks like buskers could be going on for about 10, 12 hours a day, eight locations, 50 dollars an hour full, which I don't think they will be. So what, uh, is the cost in time. So through the mayor, I'm just going to clarify. So this is the street enchantment bylaws. So the bylaw does not include elevated spots or paying buskers. So that does not apply to this existing bylaw. The elevated busking is part of the Outdown program. That is funded from our downtown.

And for 2026, we have, um, set aside 30, 000 dollars that includes all the busking showcases as well as the candidate showcase. Um, open mic curated events and busking, um, outside of government street that we also program. Um, so that is very distinct and different than what is before you in terms of the street entertainment bylaw. Okay. And how much was it? I missed it. 30, 000 dollars are downtown program. Great. Thank you very much. Gotta flip my page here. Um. Okay. I think that's really my, okay, I have new comments because we're in council now, aren't we? I can only speak once. Okay. Again, thank you. I believe that we've made really or you have. It's really significant, um, progress with this, what you put before us today. And I really appreciate the real new licensing approach. There's a separate licensing. So it's not going to be, um, mixed in with the business's license.

I think that's very useful. And I first became familiar with the buscule activities when my daughter was a busker for a year, but that was down on the causeway. And she learned the language and the pecking order. That was an interesting education just by itself. And so again, thank you very much. And, uh, great stride forward. And thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kim. That's the secondary. Any comments? Councillor Hammond. Thanks, Mayor. Just a couple of questions. Um, through you do staff think that the fines will be effective. Through the mayor, we spent some time, um, because our first approach is always education and you really finds is when we have someone who is really repeatedly not following the rules, um, but we did strengthen the fine schedule so that it sort of incentivized like that was the last approach where we would really like them to comply to the rules. And we have a number of strategies to ensure that we're not finding people. But

if it gets to that point where we do have to find someone, it is punitive enough that we hope that they would come under compliance. And then suspension would follow. Suspension and revoking the license would follow. Bene, effective? Uh, through the mayor, um, it's very rare that we have to revoke a license. Typically they just don't know the rules. Um, and so we're going to go out with both the bylaw officers as well as the buskers to ensure people do know the rules. Um, but in my almost 20 years experience at the city, it's not been a common occurrence where we have to revocal license.

Thanks. And, um, through you mayor, but bagpipers. And it says restrictions on location only due to nature of how the sound carries. Now on my mum's side, they're all Scottish. Yet we weren't subjected to a lot of bagpipes. I'm, I'm happy to say. So what does that actually mean from a practical perspective? What you wrote down? Through the mayor, um, in our experience, the sound does carry and just do to the proximity, um, with there is residential and businesses, the corner where they typically perform just across the street from the legislative assembly is, it's a great location. Um, and also it does not disrupt businesses and residents nearby. So we decided to, um, keep the rules as they were. We decided not to start to allow bagpirs anywhere in the city. And, um, we haven't had any complaints through the consultation process with, with keeping the rules as is. Great. Um, also going back to fines, when you're going from 75 and 100 dollars to

250 dollars, do you think there will be a reluctance of bylaw staff not to issue? And I recognise you're saying education is certainly what you want to do first, but not issues such a high dollar amount, um, because it's so much, in other words, you think that even though it's necessary because it's so high, the staff might be sympathetic to not wanting to give the larger fine? Through the mayor, um, I'm not here representing bylaw today, but, um, they were consulted and actually were the ones that, um, proposed the, the fine schedule as, as presented. So, um, I'm a little bit hesitant to speak for bylaw. Um, but, uh, they were the ones that actually proposed this way forward. Great. Thanks. And what is, you know, such a larger leap, I thought the occasional person who's an entertainer who they either can't afford it or they would be thinking that they couldn't afford it. But anyways, thank you very much. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Anyone

else on this one. Not seeing anyone else has been moved in seconded. All those in favor. Anybody opposed. Is eunimous. That takes us on to item H2. These are the bylaws for towing regulations. And this is adoption of the towing and immobilization and mobilising company's bylaw amendment bylaw. The vehicle of helmet bylaw amendment bylaw. And the towing and immobilizing company's consequential amendments bylaw. It's something like to move that, please, Councillor Kim's movie and Councillor Coleman is seconding. Once you're going to have any comments? You know, actually I do have a comment on. Okay, go for it. Um, you know, interestingly, my partner was looking for work last summer and had looked into working with always towing and some other towing companies in town and was aghast at the hourly rate. And I suspect that this may have something to do with alleviating that problem. So that's all. Very good. Councillor Coleman. Nothing to add anyone else. Not seeing anyone else. All those in favor. Anyone

opposed. That is unanimous as well. That takes us on to the one item of new business. And that is item I1. And this is approval of the development variance permit application for 780 Kings Road. That's just of course the sign over check TV. Someone like to move that please. Oh yes, I'm sorry. Yes. Councillor Kim, I believe you have to recuse yourself. Yeah. I'd like to declare perceived conflict of interest. Very good. Thank you for noting that as well. I forgot that you'd done that last time Councillor Louie also doing the same thing. Yes. Through you, Mari. I also need to declare a perceived conflict of interest. Very good. Yes. And the last time I believe those were both explained at some detail. So we'll leave that as it is. We'll get you back in just a few minutes, I'm sure. Okay. With our colleagues absent. Someone like to move this, please. Councillor Dell and Councillor Cardona. Any comments, Council Cardinal. Anyone else? Councillor Hammond?

Go ahead. Yeah, I didn't quite understand why the correspondence was sent through. And so I asked legislative services. And they said, well, it's because new information had come along with this. Um, I've been in touch with Judith. Her full name is there, but I'll just say Judith. I've been in touch with her another times when there were problems in Ross plays for garbage pickup at like four or five in the morning. And, um, found her to be very effective and a good, almost, almost spokesperson for a number of the seniors there. So I talked to her about this. And then thanks to our staff actually are acting director, um, who sent more or less drawings showing where it was. I then sent it on to Judith who passed it around to others in Ross plays.

And at the moment, they feel very comfortable that it's not going to interfere. Cause I hadn't thought about that. That it's not going to interfere and as she was indicating you don't want to, um, interfere with seniors, uh, well, no one sleep actually, but seniors in particular. And so she feels comfortable and others do as well that hopefully this will be fine. It doesn't look as though it'll cause any problems. And if it does, then they can bring up issues about darker blinds within the building. Um, if they can get those from the company. So it sounded reasonable to me. Okay. Thank you very much for that information. Anyone else on this one. Not seeing any other comments. It's been moved a second in all those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much Councillor. If you'd like to get our colleagues back. That does deal with the one item of new business. And so that does take us on to an

item of closed beading business. And Kingsley, would you remind the public and Council, please as to the relevant sections of the Community Charter that either require or enable counsel to consider a matter in close? Certainly Mayor, the reasons proposed to close the meeting today are under Section 91F of the Community Charter regarding law enforcement matter. Section 91i regarding the receipt of advice that a subject is solicitor client privilege and Section 92b regarding the consideration of information. Received and held in confidence relating to rather negotiations between the municipality and another level of government. Thank you for that for those reasons. May I have a motion to move and close. Thanks Councillor Coleman. Second to my councillor Dell. Any discussion. Seeing not all those in favor. Opposed.

That is unanimous. I will just note for the public that we do have an evening council meeting this evening at which we will hear from our poet laureate. And also we will hear from a dozen, a recipients of various funding programs operated through the Community Safety and Wellbeing, plan and its implementation. And that will be a really wonderful opportunity for those folks to tell their stories and let us know how they have used those funds to increase the quality of life in our community. So I would urge folks to either attend or watch online. So we will see you then at 6. 30. And let us just take as much time as staff need to turn us into closed and then we'll begin that portion of our meeting.