Transcript: Committee of the Whole - 2026/06/11

And then welcome to the Thursday June 11th meeting of Victoria City Council's Committee of the Whole. Today we have for our consideration a proposed late item, two sets of minutes. A presentation from destination greater Victor Victoria, two staff reports and three or possibly four Council Member Motions. But before we begin, we always like to take a moment to ground ourselves and our work, and our recognition and acknowledgement of the two nations on whose territories are City Sits in its entirety. The Le Quangan people of the Song He's Nation and the Kosepsum Nation have spent generations, ensuring that we have the opportunities and the chance to do the work that we do in an environment which in days like this is particularly notable for how gorgeous and warm and reassuring it is. In addition to the Environment in which we live, of course, there are so many opportunities for us to make important decisions that we hope respect the past and all the work that's come

before us. Challenges and deals with those issues facing us today for all of the people who are here now. But also with an eye, of course, to preparing for all of those people who will live here in the City of Victoria in the future. Whether they're here now or whether they are coming. And we know that they are. When we consider all that we have learned with and from the nations, we want to always take a moment to ground what we do in that learning, but also to express our thanks for the ongoing generosity of the nation's in continuing to work with us as partners and as leaders and as mentors, and to appreciate the time that they spend and allowing us to take what we can to give back what we can and to continue to assume and preserve and value our future and present relationships. We will have an opportunity to join with them again next week as we do periodically, as we

share a meal with their councils and their staff. And that is an opportunity for all of us to be able to make some incredibly important personal connections as well as professional connections, which of course we nurture for the benefit of all. So I ask all of you as you go through your days to perhaps find a moment where you observe something or experience something which brings home to you in a very personal level, what it means to be able to live in these lands and to experience the land and the waters that surround them and to give some type of personal thanks to the nations for contributing to your opportunity to do so. I trick us here, I'm Nicolia. Just as a quick note, not remarks so much as a reminder that there is a public celebration of life that will be held on Saturday for our late colleague, Langford Councillor Lillian Spock, and it will be held at railroads university on Saturday, June 13th,

this coming Saturday starting at 10 a. m. Lillian was, of course, as many of us know a huge proponent of the environment and of different ways of moving. And so I would urge everyone who's planning to go to perhaps make a special effort to arrive there in a way that is different than a single occupancy vehicle, not the least of which is like, there will be a very large crowd who wished to pay their respects. And it would be good for you to be able to do so in a way which Lillian herself would appreciate. That moves us on to late items. There is actually a late item being proposed today, and just as a reminder, because we don't do this very often. Under our procedures biolog, we do allow for the consideration of an item to be added to an agenda on the same day. Unders Sections 15, which speaks to the fact that it must be a two - thirds majority at the

time that has been considered Section 15. 6, which requires that before consideration materials pertaining to the matter need to be shared with Council. And Section 191b, where it speaks to the fact that those matters and the materials for them need to be submitted to the clerk at least 48 hours before the agenda, or before the matter is considered. This is a matter that's been proposed by Councillor Kim, and she has met the submission threshold. So now Council may consider whether or not to add this to the agenda today. So Councillor Kim will start, please, by asking you to move a motion to add the item to today's agenda as item I4. So moved. Is there a seconder? Thanks very much, Councillor Thompson. Councillor Kim, can you speak briefly to why it needs to be added to the agenda, not to the substance of the item itself? The deadline for UBCM resolutions this June 15th next week. Very good. Councillor Thompson, anything to add? Any other

comments on the rationale for it being added today. Not seeing any, so all we're voting on today is whether or not to add the item to the agenda as item I4. If it's adopted, then when we get to that end, we'll speak to the actual substance of the motion. All those in favor of adding the item. Is anyone opposed. That is uni. That is unanimous. Thank you very much. So that will become a new eye for, and it will be the last of our Council Member Motions later today. Noting that addition, then I'd look for a motion to approve the amended agenda. Thanks, Councillor Coleman.

It's your secondary Council Caradona. Discussion on the amended agenda. Not seeing any, all those in favor. Anybody opposed? That is unanimous. There are a number of items proposed for consent time aware that a couple of them are wanting to be removed, but I'll just read them in their original proposal state just for the information of the public. So proposed for the consent agenda was item F1. The minutes from the Committee of the Whole Meeting held on March the 12th of this year. Item F2, the minutes from the Committee of the Whole meeting held on April 2nd. Item H1. The recommendation for altitude cannabis application at 1010 Cook Street. An item II, the Council Member Motion with regard to advocacy to reinstate the PC Active Transportation Infrastructure and Grants Program. And finally, item III Council Member Motion with regard to 28 Bastion Square. I'm aware that there is a request to remove item H1. That's the 10 Cook Street cannabis application for questions, so that will

take that off. And also item I2, the Council Member Motion with regard to advocacy to reinstate BC Active Transportation Infrastructure Grants for clarification on its time sensitivity. So we'll pull both of those out. Is there any other meta that needs to be pulled from the proposed consent agenda. Culture Cardano. Uh, I was going to propose swapping I3 and I4, put I4 on. Would you like to remove i3? Leave it as is. You want to remove I3? Yes. Yes, okay. That's fine. And, uh, yes, I was about to ask the question whether or not anyone wanted to add IFOR since it's now on the agenda. Does anyone object to adding the recently added I4, which was the motion to have the city contribute to and support a UBCM resolution with regard to advocacy to the provincial government to reinstate the Community Housing Fund. That's what the additional Council No Promotion is. Does anyone have any objection to that being added? It's an advocacy motion. Okay, so

we'll put I4 on the consent agenda as well. So that means the consent agenda is made up of item F1. The minutes from March 12th, F2, the minutes from April 2nd. And the new I for the Council Member Motion about Community Housing Fund Advocacy. Councillor Kim. My eye attempt to add I1. I1. Second, I1 is the Community Garden Pilot Project. I believe there are questions about that. So I think that would be appropriate to leave that on the agenda. All right, so you have before you, the consent agenda, there are in fact three items. Three items, yes. That would be the minutes, the minutes, and the additional I4 Council Member Motion on the Community Housing Fund. Some would like to move the consent agenda. Thanks, Councillor Coleman. Second by Councillor Kim. All those in favor.

Anybody opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much for that. That would usually take us on to a consideration of the minutes, but of course we just dealt with both of those at the consent agenda. So F1 and F2 will return to us for final consideration at a future daytime council meeting. And that brings us to our presentations. And today we have a presentation from our colleagues at the destination greater Victor Victoria Organisation. Please come up, take a seat. Make yourself comfortable, get some water. And when you're ready. Feel free to start. And don't forget to introduce yourselves because we think we know who you are, but it's possibly the public doesn't.

Play. Please turn your mic on, Paul. Yes, absolutely. Good morning, Mayor and Council. My name is Paul Nursia and my colleague Jeremy Loveday. We're here to probably pour back on the work of the - You lean in a little bit or pull it twice? Yeah, absolutely. You're a little bit soft. There you go. There we go. We're here to report back on the work of the hotel development working group, uh, which many of your colleagues from staff participated. We're very grateful. On that. And we have quite a bit of information to present and we'll be mindful of the 10 minute limit. And we will launch into it and we'll share presentation slides. Um, as I commence my remarks, I also want to acknowledge with respect the nutritional territories of Le Kwangan speaking people, particularly the song, he's in Casnations, who have both expressed interest in participating in the Visery economy in their own ways. And we are deepening our relationship and our work with each

in their own way. So, uh, thank you for that opportunity. And I will say, as I kick off my remarks, it's my 12th year in the role. We've done much work. Um, much of it is not visible to residents because it's out in the marketplace, making intervention. Either a sales or marketing or travel media initiatives. But this work, I'd say, has, um, has created a buzz. I'll buzz in the media, applies on the street level. Certainly a buzz and kind of friend and family group. So the wave around this topic. And I think the reason there is, is because of, um, the case study that we're seeing nearby on Broad Street with, um, particularly the retail shops all filling up immediately around the new hotel as, you know, brave entrepreneurs understand the catalytic nature of rejuvenation, uh, that, that come with Strategic Investment in a few hotels. Uh, so, uh, it's really exciting to see.

And we make, as always, we am to be strategic and smart and only come to Council when we feel it's important. Um, so we did have the hotel development working group, which fell from our 10 year destination plan. The goal really is to, um, get to about 2, 000 rooms in the next 10 years to replace what has been lost, which is about 2, 500 rooms. So not even back to where we were and accommodate natural growth in the region. More specifically to the City of Victoria, the traditional kind of ratio has been 75 percent of hotel stock in the core to make sure it's a walkable environment with the iconic inner harbour and all the, you know, areas around the convention centre. And then roughly 25 percent of the inventory in the suburbs of course that's guided by Mark of forces. But the clustering of Visitor Economy amenities is also very important for visitor experiences. So on the screen was the participants. It was

a very active group. Staff who participated are welcome to share their own experiences. Um, but the power of the group was also, you know, being there with financiers, um, indigenous economic development groups, uh, developers, um, municipal staff, hotel associations, consultants, um, it was the sharing of information that was as rich, if not richer than the actual report or the recommendations that came out of the report itself. As I mentioned, uh, there is an inventory gap. Is a strategic issue. Um, and of course we always separate this from short term vacation rentals because the business at war and which is bidding on sports tourism events and conferences and things that are very high yield. And off season require full service hotels with front desks and amenities and security and things of that nature as opposed to just necessarily the leisure visiting friends and relatives and medical type travel, which is across other, other, uh, sectors. One of the things I wanted to mention was the learning

around the table. Of course we're in the business and we understand different typologies of hotels. And there are many more than what's on the screen now. But ourselves and the consultants who also worked on the Vancouver Hotel Development Working Group, which has been very catalytic, um, shared with, you know, whether it be City staff or other people involved that there are actually different types of hotels that have different business models serving different market niches and resubable for different types of communities. So, you know, as we go through that, I particularly want to highlight for this table, the Strategic Importance of Conference Hotels. And that's different from a conference centre. A conference hotel is defined as, in our case, 4, 000 square feet of meeting space or more. And the reason they're so important is that the model's very, very challenging from an upfront perspective, but they provide so much business in terms of year - round business. They generate their own demand and they provide

tremendous community vitality year round and are really, really stimulative to neighbourhoods. And when one's built, it's a hundred plus year investment. So as you start to receive, um, uh, development applications. I know there's going to be some efforts and some, some case study or some pilot projects. I would really ask you to keep your eye on that class. You know, we kind of need one or two. The harbour towers was one and it held a lot of meetings and had meeting space kind of under the radar. And we really do miss it. So, um, you know, it's important thing to flag. Um, and in spite of doing very, very, very well, um, in terms of revenue, um, uh, in these years, um, you know, it's still a financially, very challenging model. There's different from residential.

We're developers can be kind of in and out with their investment more quickly. Um, and there's some, some, uh, some factors here. What the report itself dives into more deeply. You know, as we'll pass over to Jeremy now to dive into some of his, uh, his pieces. Mayor and Council, thanks for the opportunity to present. And again, uh, City staff led by, by Jocelyn, really appreciate the collaboration on this, um, on this working group. Um, I'm going to talk a little bit about the, uh, Community and Economic benefits of hotels. That was one of the goals of the working group was to, uh, build awareness around the community and economic benefits. Among the members, so creating that shared understanding around the table, uh, the public as well as potential investors. So beyond providing accommodation for visitors, as we all understand, hotels function as Community Hubs, fill and philanthropic partners, event infrastructure, this port local charities, cultural programming, emergency management and civic gatherings. Um, and then

the economic impact, of course, is on everybody's mind when we're thinking about new hotels. So based on the projected delivery of 2000 net new hotel rooms, uh, the economic impact would be very significant. The analysis, the working group conducted showed that these rooms would sport roughly 2, 760 jobs across the economy, generate about 85 million an annual wages and drive more than 100 million in net new annual visitor spending. That means more year round employment in hotel operations and related sectors, uh, throughout the supply chain and more spending in local restaurants, shops and attractions throughout the year. Hotel and development at this scale is not just about adding rooms. It's about meaningful. It's a meaningful generator of jobs. Local business activity and public revenue. Um, going to talk, uh, go back just one piece is just talking about the financial feasibility of hotels. So, um, we did as part of this working group, we did an analysis, um, of what will it take to get

hotels over the line? Because as Paul was starting to mention, um, hotels are doing well right now. We had close to 80 percent year round occupancy last year. Some of the highest ADR, which is average daily room rate, um, growth across Canada last year. But even with that successful year, um, they're still marginal at best. And we found that especially in particularly the typologies of hotels that you would see downtown, uh, being full service hotels or conference hotels. They are, they're hard. They're hard to get over their heart to get over the line. And that's why we haven't seen a new hotel downtown built and opened in the last 20 years. Um, Paul mentioned the Hyatt on broad street. So we do have one, one successful hotel, um, but in our, in our modelling, even that one wasn't particularly relevant because it's on leased land.

So it doesn't factor in, uh, land purchase in the same way that, uh, other sites would need to. So just wanted to mention that. And that's why really, uh, what we found was that even in this great time for, for tourism in the last year, um, it does need process or policy support to get it over the line. So Paul mentioned how hotels can be catalytic and we're seeing that already with the Hyatt site. So just ask you to imagine what that might look like if we had a number of sites through downtown. We have greater lighting and animation and activation at street level. And in the retail space, um, and so this really could be a near future possibility for downtown if, uh, realised that 70 percent or And with that, I'll walk through at a high level, the recommendations of the working group, um, and, uh, with specific attention to the ones that are most relevant to the city Victoria. So the goals

here of these recommendations to deliver the 2000 net new rooms across greater Victoria, reduce risk for hotel development to make it viable and to protect existing supply of hotels, which wasn't something we came into the working group, um, as a goal, um, but when we did the analysis and saw that, uh, such a high percentage of the hotel inventory is older than 50 years, um, and will require reinvestment that there actually may be public policy tools that are needed to support that retention. Uh, so recommendation one is starting with a tool that you're all very familiar with, which is looking at land use and zoning and the potential tools that local governments have. Um, so the report found that hotel development is not limited by demand, but by whether viable sites are actually enabled. And so, and analysis that working group conducted showed that there were 1, 400 sites where hotels are currently permitted in the city of Victoria. But roughly 80 percent of those

sites are too small to support a viable project. So Victoria's specific recommendations that include land use and zoning include targeted density flexibility on smaller downtown sites. More flexibility on larger mixed use sites downtown to enable hotel integration. Um, in short, the recommendations are about ensuring the enough sites where viable hotel projects could actually move forward. Uh, recommendation two is about addressing permitting complexities. Uh, we haven't had a hotel built in 20 years. And so, uh, some of the processes and learnings of that have supported getting a lot of new housing over the line, I think can be applied. Um, in, in terms of hotel development.

So it's learning from best practices that local governments are already adopting. But with that, hotel design, it sits at the intersection of municipal requirements and hotel operational needs, including brand requirements, which was a big learning for me. And I think others at the table, um, and when those expectations are not clear, uh, projects can go through multiple rounds of redesign. And that iterative processes is costly and risky. So the report found that, um, even when the projects are supported in principle, they can stall when uncertainty occurs in the approvals process. So one common friction point for hotels that isn't, that is different than, than other typologies of buildings is hotel street interface, uh, where unclear expectations around drop off, loading and street level design can add delay. So developers basically, they want to know as early as possible where there's flexibility and where the. So they can plan accordingly. And a practical solution that came up around the table is the idea of, uh, early

preset mission workshops with all relevant city departments, uh, to set expectations up front and reduce back and forth. The third recommendation is around education and technical support. And this one came up more from some of the smaller local governments around the region that just don't have the same internal capacity that City, the City of Victoria does. So for, for the City Victoria, this isn't about, uh, so much capacity, um, it's, it's more about specialization. And so, uh, making sure that city staff have access to the, uh, education information tools they need to make decisions specific to hotel development. Recommendation four, this is about First Nations partnerships. And First Nations partner, First Nations, as you all know, are key economic development partners. They're landowners and rights holders. And so across BC, we're already seeing, uh, leading First Nations leading and partnering in hotel developments through a range of models. And this, these recommendations here about supporting earlier, more structured engagement, ensuring projects are developed with meaningful

participation and shared benefit. And, um, this is important because local nations have, uh, clear hotel development ambitions. And this work is intended to support those opportunities moving forward. And then recommendation five is about investment attraction. Um, it's very competitive. And so this is about having a, essentially a regional collaborative approach and making sure that we are attracting, uh, the, the investment and the attention of the very small pool of investors and developers who have the experience and are already building hotels. And, uh, the final set of recommendations, um, specific to the City Victoria, and, uh, this is about establishing, supporting, supportive policy and financial tools for hotel conversion in revitalization. Um, downtown has a number of office buildings and heritage buildings. And so what the analysis that the working group conducted, uh, showed that there is a limited, but meaningful potential for office conversion into hotels. We're seeing that success in that model in other cities, including Calgary. And then for conversion of Heritage properties,

that's very attractive for things like boutique hotels, but there are some policy levers that the city has that could help these become more viable. Um, because they are very complex projects. Um, and so the recommendation is to support this with targeted tools, including expanded Heritage grants, tax revitalization incentives to help offset seismic upgrades that are triggered by change in use and targeted density incentives. So in practical terms, this helps maintain supply while new projects come forward. Um, and brings underutilized buildings back into active use. So to wrap up, um, yeah, just want to say that City Victoria showed the staff showed great leadership and collaboration as part of the working group. Um, and it was, uh, and then even outside of meetings, um, having our, our consultants meet with planning staff and make sure the recommendations are, are realistic and practical. Um, and has just been, I think it illustrative of the strong partnership that we have. Um, and so in terms of the opportunity

here, we know that our study showed that we would like that to, um, continue to be in the City Victoria. So that'd be 1500 new rooms in the next decade. Um, and so that having that policy in place is helpful to attract the investment, but there's risk that without policy and process changes, um, a disproportionate number of the new rooms could be built in other municipalities who are really, uh, fighting to get hotels built. Um, so missing, which would miss out on the Community Economic in downtown vibrancy benefits. So with that, just want to say thank you for the ongoing partnership. And we look forward to working together to implement the recommendations and capitalize on this important opportunity. And with that open to any questions through the chair, if there are any folder, do you want to say anything else before? No. Thank you both for that, uh, really fascinating and it's good to hear that you're working so well with our staff. Um, Jocelyn,

do you want to add anything at this point? I just thought, cause I know that you've been working very closely with them. Through you mayor. No, I don't have anything to add specifically other than to say, I think this is a perfect example and probably a template on how we can work together with user groups. So thank you. Thank you for that. Uh, this is an information session for us. There's no recommendations for us to consider today. Although clearly there are a number of considerations for us to look at as we move through other work in the near future. But certainly as an opportunity for any questions or clarification, let's start with Councillor Dell. Councillor Hem and Councillor Gardner Councillor Thompson. Go ahead. Uh, thank you through the mayor. I'll just ask one question. Um, this is a lot of good ideas. And often I'm sitting in spots where the good ideas that it just takes one person to actually lead it to go. We're

going to talk to the first nations and we're going to do this. All this stuff seems very doable to me, but my question is who is actually the point person who's leading this, who's bringing all those folks together. Is that you guys and what are your next steps and actually tangible next step? Cause I see, you know, the first thing rezoning. Okay. Yeah. We can do that. We can do site specific rezoning. That happens all the time. Um, so what's the kind of process of leading this work to make sure it actually happens? Oh. Yeah. So. As your official. Driven board, Destiny. Organisation, receptive result, as the industry leaders on this, obviously we don't have any kind of government mandate. Thank you very much. Thank you for that. Um, you know, one option, we did prepare as if, um, as if, uh, we would be asked like what would a motion be, you know, if a question came and, you know, a very basic motion

could be that, um, council if they wish to pursue this more formally as staff to examine the implications and options around these six recommendations and report back. And you can take that or leave it for future meetings. Um, but we also don't want to impose undue work on your staff as well either. Um, because we know the interface between working with your staff, which we do today and the kind of the more political realm. So that would be, you know, if you want to drive as a little further from a council's perspective, but we are actively working on this. We will be going to hotelvestment conference, um, investment conferences in the fall. Your teams are welcome to join us. You know, there's, um, there's, the different ways of approaching this. But we have a hotel development perspective. We're interfacing with developers all the time. And we're encouraging them to engage with your staff all the time and hoping that through these, you know, we've heard

about pilot projects and things like that, that some applications may come for your consideration or some projects may come for your consideration, hopefully, uh, fairly timely fashion. Thank you. Thank you, telling anything else. Councillor Hammond. Thanks, Mayor and thanks for the presentation. When you talked about the financial difficulties, I just went back on my notes to May of last year and right across the street at the hotel address, the 603 Pandora. And staff had suggested or recommended that we decline. And as a matter of fact, the vote was seven to decline. I was one of those who also declined. I also remember meeting with the proponents. And I'm saying, look, I'm not a guy who should rely on what something looks like. However, it was one of these things in which we were told that in order to make this work, it's got to be big. And so in this particular spot, it was considered too big and a number of other reasons. And it's

not to pick on that. You know, hopefully something else, um, will come to fruition. But what do you say about the, um, when we're being told in order for it to be economically viable, because you talked about the economic challenges different from a rental or, you know, housing, what do you see needs to happen in order to get past that idea that it's got to be something bigger than maybe under certain circumstances. Counsel and therefore the city, um, is, is not going to, is not going to want. Yeah. I mean, on each specific, each site will have its own considerations economically, but I think the high level principles that we can get to. I think the other thing to, um, I'll comment on and I may receive an email or call from that particular proponent.

That property chose to be mid - range in the market. Uh, that was a deliberate choice on there of their part. And, uh, that would affect kind of the overall commercial model of that market. Do you know, the other reality is that the Viser economy has moved up scale worldwide in the last 10 years. So I think in similar site, something with a higher design and maybe a higher spec may bridge that or be able to thread that needle in terms of what council and staff are looking for on a site such as that, um, and, uh, economic model. So, I mean, that's where the honest back and forth. I know the new proponent now, uh, we're engaged with that proponent. I shouldn't really speak too much, but I'm, we're encouraging them to go with strong amenities that the city would like to see, right?

Whether that be meeting space, community space, all that type of stuff. So when that development works its way through planning process back to you, I know the act of work on that site right now under a different proponent. So each site is different. And you know, this work was to help reduce kind of that information gap. We always talk in governments between information gap between management and boards or proponents at councils, um, and I think this process helped address that. Councillor Gardner. Am I on? Yes, thank you very much. And thank you for the presentation. Excuse me. Um, I just picked up some of your points. I'm going to ask questions about kind of what you already spoke about. Uh, I appreciate very much the, uh, what we said that we need to walk in environment. And as you know, yesterday DVA just issued a report stating a priority or a shortfall of downtown is parking in difficulty for those in vehicles to access to hometown. So how do you reconcile

these competing asks. Paul? Yeah. Absolutely. And, uh, whenever Jeff and I, we, Jeff and I, Jeffrey and I were on a call yesterday and we recognise our different mandate. So the DVBA talks about marketing from Suk to Sydney to attract local business to downtown. And that requires a lot of parking and an RNR strategic game is to attract visitors, whether it be conference sport or otherwise motow down. And they may come on the clipper or air or otherwise. And they may or may not be quire a car with each room rented. So, um, you know, I think when we were looking at parking, there are different ways to achieve that, uh, for a hotel. It could be an offsite valet such as the best question Carlton and others. Um, and we have guests coming on the clipper or guests flying in. So I think the discussion point around the committee table is that not every room needs a dedicated parking sol associated with it. Um,

and kind of to look at it more holistically. So yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I wasn't thinking of the parking straws for hotels. Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking of street use if you convert to more residential or walking, of course, because we're getting as the competing interest is people who want to, who live here or work here and in other municipalities to come into our city. That's right. So that's what I meant as opposed to stalls within a hotel. Yeah. I mean, that's a, you know, I don't like to comment too much on residential related parking matters because it's just not our expertise. Yeah. Comment on tour bus parking, but that's okay. Next time we meet.

We won't be using a car, Paul. Okay. Harbour towers, the James. And I really appreciate your comment on that. Now when it came up for renewal, i. e. the owners of the actual building. So I'm talking several years ago. They very much expressed that it was no longer usable as a hotel the way it was. And their interior large space and it was large BC elections used to use. It's a huge space. But it could not compete with a conference centre and it was very outdated. So they actually had a competition of two different designers or designers. One doing a hotel one doing residential and the residential one for various reasons. That was their choice.

So are there any other hotels already in the city? And I don't mean the motels in the north end. Are there any other hotels that might be in the position such that you might lose them because they are outdated in that way. And essentially can't compete with the conference centre or the newer hotels. Yeah. I think that's an ongoing risk. I don't want to speak to any individual properties in a public domain, but that's a great example. Cause I know that property transacted several times before they landed on the new design. There was some foundation stuff. And some elevator alignment things as well too. And the broader stories I was at hotels can age out where they no longer meet the amenity level expected of a guest at a certain star level. And I think a classic example is the four seasons hotel in Vancouver.

Just walked away from their lease in downtown Vancouver because they could no longer be a four season in the envelope that they were in. Right. And so, um, that's why we do need newer hotels to replace other hotels. And then what was a 25 year old hotel will kind of move in the star ranking so that all different segments of customers can kind of fall into their, their, their ability to compete within, um, in that space. So I do think there are hotels at risk, but I don't want to speak for their owners because that's just not for me to do. Yeah. Okay. I just, cause I recognise that issue that the challenge that the owners have there. Also spoke about kind of the downtown area to, in a different way, cascadia did a great visioning thing a dozen years ago. Are you tied into that or is that if dad project that occurred? It was a wonderful visioning of the whole downtown. And no,

not you guys. Oh, I remember it. Okay. It was about 12 years ago. Anyway. Um, I've been to Japan a few times when my late husband was lecturing there. And, uh, very interesting country. And what I found was in a lot of the cities, they had, uh, and you had mentioned zoning. They had very much a mixed use. So the bottom floor or two, because they had different, you know, usually the lower two floors for retail with fancy things in between. And then the next level was hotel, you know, five to 15 stories. And then was residential. And so is that the kind of, uh, mixed use that you would be thinking of? Because I thought it was a brilliant idea when I saw it.

Yeah, that's very common with new hotel builds to help de - risk it a little bit. You see a lot of that in Vancouver, Burnby and other places. And as a tourism board, we'd be open to that. We also need to recognise that we do need some meeting space as well too, right? So it's a mix. It's a blend. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And, um. We've, we've approved umpting thousand of units right now. And a lot of in towers. Has there been any discussion with the ones that approved maybe tweak that, uh, I'm thinking of, I mean, not to name anyone, but you know, where we have multiple towers that were approved in a project be at the starlight or, or, uh, David Charz, or I don't know, I guess charge is called now, not David's, uh, charge development where they have multi - towers. Has there been any thought of, uh, from the hotel industry of perhaps partnering with the zoning that has been approved,

but maybe shifting it into that kind of a model, a mixed use. I haven't heard any, but that's an interesting idea. I just haven't, we just haven't had any of those come across our desks that I can remember. Yeah. Cause we get several towers that have been built. And I'm just in the downtime. Yeah. I just haven't seen it. I just throw it out to you. You can think about it. Uh, and my only, uh, really, so that's great. So, uh, the Calgary reuse of did a lot of reading on that over the time. And of course it depends on the structure of the building, whether it's possible. So is anyone actually assessing any of the downtown buildings now for that? Yeah, we've heard a lot of that. And I mean, I'll use a Vancouver example where Le Germain is, um, is, um, uh, and Stovell is converting in downtown Vancouver office. Um, I know that's a brand that would like to get into Victoria,

um, you know, I think the other applicants that are looking, I understand kind of well - known building with recently purchased. And one of their stated possibilities was hotel conversion. So I think there's really discussions in that space happening or underway now. Okay. So we may see something in the next couple of years. Yeah. Okay. That's very interesting. It may be very useful. You know, when people are just testing the waters, we're kind of in that phase now. Yeah. Because beyond testing the waters, it has to be whether the building can be done. So people are doing that. Yeah. Great. We're just talking about not actually assessing the buildings at this point. Got it. Okay.

And, um, final, the heritage, what we ran into in Pandora was, of course, Old Town. And Old Town is important for the hotelier industry not to be in it, but to be able, their clientele to access it. So, um, what happened after that, uh, Pandora, after we, after council, declined that application, did you get a feeling in the local industry that they understood what happened and why? Yes. Yes. And I think, um, uh, I think it was a bold attempt to bring mid - range properties into the market. And that proponent deserves credit for that effort. I think there's within the peer group of hotels that like to see a high design hotel on that site if they would to complement. We have a strong reputation in this, in this community for very high quality hotels, whether it be the Empress of Magnolia, the in Laurel Point, you know, it's not in Victoria, but Obi BH Hotels. And then everyone benefits from the brand glow

of that. So that's a, it's important site. And I think within the peer group and certainly around it, if you do receive another application that's very well designed, I think the kind of peer support. Again, thank you very much for both of you coming today. And thank you for your report. Councillor Thompson. Uh, thanks Mary. Yeah. Thanks very much. Um, uh, for, for coming here and speaking with us, I, uh, I would love to see more hotel proposals coming forward to support the tourism industry, but also to support downtown vibrancy in an era of work from home. Thanks for mentioning the, uh, the office building possibility I was going to ask about that. I don't need to now. On the policy changes where we should be focusing, um, I, the high level direction that you're giving sounds really good to me. Not having been involved in those discussions. Um, you mentioned the possibility of bringing Council Member Motion. I'm certainly very willing to work on

that motion. Um, just wondering with regard to the specific policy changes, how far did you get into it? I get the direction agree with the direction, but do you have some detailed policy stuff worked out or is that to come? Well, yeah, so there were some, you know, healthy conversation around the table and we decided for the benefit of the paper we didn't want to be highly controversial. Um, and we also understand that there was goodwill and strong spirit of cooperation between staff. Um, but I think, you know, it may be worth kind of a conversation between yourself and staff as to how far you want to go on some of those things. I can share just because I was at another municipality earlier this week. And we have committed to delegations at all five municipalities. There was a very strong appetite from other municipalities to be competitive in the space. So, um, you know, they're very anxious on the property tax revenue, the Community

benefit. So I think the little bit of an arms race here amongst the municipalities to use an analogy to capture it. Because as we said, this is a moment in time. You know, these types of development cycles for hotels come once in a generation, which is why I was quoted in the paper as a generational opportunity. And, um, so maybe we'll leave that between yourselves or we have a board, a pointy that we can have discussions with. I have a regular meeting with the City manager. Um, and so we, you know, yeah. There was healthy discussion. And of course, you have to strike a balance between the needs of the developers and the needs of the assistance that elect you. Right. So, um, we understand and respect that. Always a lot of, uh, competing interests and trade - offs needed, but, uh, Jeremy. Can I add one thing? Yeah. Um, just that we did have workshops with the planning staff. Um, so we that got

much more granular than the recommendations that are in here to make sure that what is in here is not offside and is, uh, realistic, uh, you know, we did have a very diverse table. And so to, um, that included lots of local governments, which are different places in their policies. And also if you have, if you're only going to get one hotel built, like, like, um, say, township of a squamel, for example, you don't, you might not need to address it at the policy level in the same way as if you're trying to attract a number of hotels like the City of Victoria. So, so we had to find that trade off. Um, everyone at the table was happy with. Just sign off on the report. Yeah. And so, um, which I think is quite remarkable that we had, you know, it was sort of a, you know, around the table everyone was happy with it. And so and willing to just see it go

forward with this wording. So that's why it's, it is at a high level, but there was definitely discussions that were more granular. Excellent. Okay. Thank you both. Councillor Logan. Oh, wait, hang on. Yes. Uh, go ahead, Alec. Thank you through the mayor. Yeah. I just wanted to add that, uh, we really appreciated the opportunity to participate in the working group. Um, uh, and, uh, we've already sort of taken the recommendations from the report into consideration and taking some immediate actions in terms of, um, piloting some of the process suggestions with active hotel applications of which we have six right now in the City of Victoria.

And there are other, um, serious inquiries that we're handling. So they're perhaps hopefully will be more applications coming soon. Um, and we're, uh, we're developing some interim actions, recommendations on some interim actions that we hope to bring forward to Council shortly, uh, while we also continue to work on, um, other updates to our policies and regulations to, I mean, recognise that this is an opportunity at point in time. And we want to be able to move quickly and capitalize on that. Thank you. And, uh, thanks for, thanks for the addition. That's, that's great to hear. You said, uh, bringing it back shortly. Is that like a few months type timeline or are we thinking? Mr.

Johnston through the mayor. Um, hopefully before Council summer break. Okay. Great. Great. Thanks very much for that. Councillor Leuton. Uh, thanks Mayor and through you. Good morning everyone. Thanks for the presentation. Um, it's really exciting. This kind of rejuvenation that's possible. My question, my first question was actually about what process staff has undertaken currently on the recommendations. So I thank staff for that answer just right now. But to drill down onto that a little bit further, what about the zoning for hotels downtown? Is that already in process? And if so, is there any way you can share a bit of what that might look like?

Or do we need to wait until decap is complete? Mr. Johnson. Through the mayor. That would be, uh, just to foreshadowing that will be part of the sort of immediate interim actions, uh, that we can take. The zoning is in downtown already does permit hotels and a number of locations. But we're looking at other sort of regulatory dials, including zoning that we can tweak to, uh, hopefully incentivize that. Okay. Great. And I know this is tough, but I'm just going to ask anyway, do you think that that is going to be enough to accommodate the 1500 rooms over the next decade. Mr. Johnson. Through the mayor, um, it's hard to speculate on whether that would be enough to accommodate, uh, but we would continue to look at, uh, longer term policy, uh, changes that we can make even outside of the downtown that support, um, hotel development as well, to, to reach that target. Okay.

And then around the conversion of Heritage buildings for Botique Hotels, is that something that's going to be part of the upcoming review of the Heritage program. Mr. Johnson. Through the mayor, um, yes, I think that will also factor into the Heritage program renewal, um, is one of those longer term actions that we're looking to take. And I would note that we also have right now an application, an active application to convert a heritage office building into a hotel. So it's very exciting to see. And yeah, that's progressing nicely, that application. Okay. And that was another one of my questions is what's being considered this time.

And I know that's tough to comment on as well, but would some of those examples be coming back in the report before summer break of like what's being considered right now and even the inquiries. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is I just want to sense is, is if what is happening where we're at with what we have right now, how many rooms would that deliver should that all come to fruition. Mr. Johnston, is that something you can assess? It's, I know I'm being difficult here, but I just want a sense of where we're at through the, through the mayor, uh, we can, I can take that back to the team and we can see what we can provide with that, with that interim update. Um, it's a little challenging with the inquiries because they aren't, uh, they haven't made formal applications yet. And we need to be careful about how much information we share on those. Um, but, uh, for the

active applications, we can see what we can provide for councils consideration with those interim regulatory and policy updates. Thank you for that. That's, that's good news because there's things happening here. So that, that's, that's exciting. Um, I just want to just note that, um, the, the Hyatt on broad street and it was mentioned that it was on leased land. So it's a bit of an anomaly. And they also had to come back and ask for a couple of extra stories. So this is, it is very difficult. And I think we need to do everything we can to, to get these hotel projects off the ground.

But that is going to absolutely transform broad street. The amenities with heritage with the access for, um, arts and culture groups and different arts organisations using the space. And just also with how it attracted so many different businesses opening, as you mentioned in your report. So I just want to take a second to thank you for all of this work for putting this, um, working group together to come up with these recommendations. It's, it's critically important. And I think that it will contribute to the downtown vibracy and rejuvenation that we desperately need right now in Victoria. So thank you very much. Thank you Councillor Caradona.

Thanks Mayor and thank you Jeremy and Paul for being here. Just have two questions for you. One is about finance. And the other one is about STRs. So maybe starting with STRs. So as we all know, the province has, has banned non - principal residents STRs. And I think for a lot of people, they assume that STRs just went away. But actually what happened is that the STR market, if you want to call it that moved into the principal residence, which is legal and valid and totally copacetic. I just went on to Airbnb and typed in some dates for November. There's over a hundred available in November. So to STRs play any role here at all in your plan, what's DGV's view on the legal principal residence STRs? Where are you guys at on that?

Paul? Oh, my favourite topic. Um, so I think, uh, from a public policy perspective, this has gone to our committees on boards many times over the years. And I think, uh, home sharing has been privilegiting a part of the Visery economy well before technology platforms interface with them. Uh, and, um, working up through our transportation destination management committee. There seems to be, there's never full agreement. Our concerns around SDRs have been around housing and the three percent threshold in the provincial regulation and choices could come to Council after that. Taxation fairness, um, SDR platforms are very involved in their efforts to mitigate human trafficking through algorithm things. Um, but it's not the same as having a front desk and a cameras and things of that nature there, right? So those are kind of the high level concerns. So short intercation rentals are fine. And we generally feel we're in a pretty good place right now because we get questions all the time. We have candidates

asking us that question right now as the election season ramps up. We do track. We have a bit of software called AirDNA. And we looked it up just the other day. There's over 1200 Airbnb listings in the greater Victoria area. Uh, each municipality applies to provincial short - term vacation rental act or the short - term accommodation act slightly differently. But there's any notion that Airbnb has gone away entirely is just not accurate. Um, it's still an active environment part of the mix. And, um, what we need as a tourism board that's out there bidding on business for the community, which books years in advance as we do need real hotels with those amenities for us to compete against the rest of the world and baiting and attracting, um, business. Okay. Thanks for that. Switching gears over to finance. I've learned a lot about how, how housing gets financed over the last four years. A lot of it gets back to pension plans or CMHC

or internal finance. If you follow the money on housing, it's interesting. I don't know anything about how hotels are financed. So I just wanted to get a sense of what you guys have learned with the working group has learned about how hotels or financed. And maybe secondarily, are there any provincial or federal CMHC - like programs that invest in hotels. Yeah, I'll make some high - level concepts and maybe turn it over to Jeremy. This was also very interesting to us too, because the models, because the independently owned and operate properties, uh, brand owned and managed properties, you know, pension funds, which own hotels and higher brands to manage them. There's many different models. Some are real estate investment trusts and some are families, right?

So there's a diverse range. We did have bankers or finance professionals on the committee one or two. And they talked a lot about the conditions that they would need to access the debt market. Um, which was kind of a big consideration. Um, and then we also had the provincial government on the working group that was mostly listening and looking for ideas to intervene at the Provincial Policy level because I wasn't in a lot of work done on this. Um, it's largely relied on the private equity market or the, um, institutional equity market or, or developers, um, what in my experience being in the business for 30 years or so is that many developers will build a hotel and they may sell minority position to help get it across the line or have cost inflates. And then maybe five or 10 or 12 years later, they may exit that position so that they can get their money out to then reinvest in their next development project.

Right. So, um, uh, hotels do transact in the marketplace. And Jeremy did was there any kind of policy tools discussed. Just by no means an expert, but, but learned throughout the process. Um, you know, I guess just that it is currently harder to fund than, than housing, because there isn't programs like CMHC that provide low cost, uh, low cost lending. And you do, it does require more cash up front to build a hotel. And also that it takes a few years after it's built, um, to build the case of business. And so there is that stabilization period, um, with mixed with the cash up front, um, in the high cost of development, uh, makes it a riskier asset class to fund, but that since there has been the downturn in the housing market as well as, um, office. There's more attention on hotel from financial lenders. So it is, um, there is interest and more attention on the potential for funding hotels. And we heard

that around the table for sure. Okay. Thanks. That's helpful. I mean, I guess the, the query for me is whether or not the city could go through all of this policy work rezoning everything. We do our job essentially. And then the market out there is like, well, the financing for it, is there a risk that that's going to happen? We heard over and over again that there was, uh, good projects would attract financing. Okay. Yeah. Thanks, Mayor. Thanks Council Coleman. Thank you. And thank you for the work you've done. And thank you to staff for the engagement. Um, I think you said that the occupancy read throughout the year for the hotels at the moment is 80 percent. Seventy eight point two. That's, that's a startlingly good number, unfortunately, that's because they're going through survivor status. There's a whole bunch of rooms that have been lost that have then aggregated to them. So as we build more rooms, have we worked on that because it

becomes a yield management issue for the hotels. Have we worked through what that might look like over time? Absolutely. And I think the important consideration here is staging. Um, and, you know, obviously we need support from our hotel association partner, Steven B. here in front of you, uh, to have our mandate renewed just as we do from all of you. Um, I think even our, our hotel, uh, owners in this community are incredibly benevolent and really big community players. And I think even, um, uh, most of them I recognise that the market's a little bit underserved. And they've seen kind of the erosion over time.

And they want hotels at all star levels for the guests to be satisfied. Right. So I think, um, but what we don't want to see is a whole bunch of hotels all at once into the marketplace. So that's where the development application process is really kind of nice because you have one in the ground now. And even if a major one would be approved tomorrow, it would still be a year and a half behind the current one. So to get to the 1500, we're probably talking about four to six projects if everything goes well. Right. And so there's a real opportunity to natural process of kind of staggering them in. So there's time for the latent demand and for us to grow demand to kind of absorb hotels. I have seen markets like Calgary, Toronto, where otherwise it's kind of a rush of development and then conditions turn. You're years to build that back up.

And then there, so I think we have an opportunity now because we are a very stable and strong brand. We have ongoing business through the convention market and the sports market that if we do this in a logical manner, if you're approving one or two a year that will build at a certain pace, I think we'll get to a good place over the next decade. Thank you. Um, and that brings up the second stage for it. Because what we learned during the Da Vinci episode, um, was that we got, we lucked out, frankly. We got the Da Vinci Exhibit at the Royal BC Museum. And it was supposed to go, if I remember properly from October 31st to December 31st and then sales went crazy.

Um, and we extended it until February, the target was 250, 000 visitors and we got 450, 000 in the off season. So what's the next phase of the other things that we'll attract. So many more people to those extra rooms. I'm not able to comment on those publicly right now, but we do have a plan that has been worked on. And adjacent to that is of course increased conference centre capacity. So same, same, same. Same comment. Same comment, yep. Perfect. Thank you for doing this. It's extraordinary work, but we have to see it. As you say in a staged, it doesn't go with answers we may get before in October election. Perhaps it's about a 10 year to 25 year scan that we need to think about. So thank you for the work you've done.

Thank you very much. A final comments for anyone. Not seeing anyway. I'll just echo our thanks collectively and individually. It's a really critical work as we look at the diversification of our economy and our culture and our community. So thank you for everything you're doing. Excellent partners. We'll continue to work together of course at the staff level. And when you need something from council, welcome you coming back. Thanks very much. That will take us on to, uh, stop reports. And the first one actually was something that was originally on the consent agenda, but was pulled off, I believe, for some questions. So I'm not sure which staffer is up for this. Oh, there he is.

So this is item H1. This is the recommendation for altitude cannabis at 10, 10 Cook Street. Councillor Gardner, you pulled this off. Do you want a presentation or do you just have questions? I think no. I apologise. I want a presentation on this one because we're still getting correspondence. Very good. Ms. Changles. Do you have a presentation you can run through with us? Mayor, if I may, this is not something we typically prepare presentation for, but we're happy to address any questions. Council may have. Okay. And then no quote, no presentation prepped. Why don't we go to you Councillor Gardner for questions? Thank you. Uh, we've had several comments in the last little while. So, um, do you have the map of the cannabis locations nearby 100 metres and 200 metres and we just got an email from a business asking for a thousand metres.

But do we have that map. I believe it was produced a while ago. There we are. So there are none within the area 200 metres. Yeah. Through the merrier there is there's none within 200 metres. Okay. And how busy is the businesses there? Cause we just got a business that just wrote to us, uh, saying that she doesn't want it there. Okay. There's the locations. And where is the. Yes. It did mayor. So those are all the locations. I think the businesses with a business license currently in the city, um, I think the closest is actually around 750 metres when I was doing some quick math before this meeting today. Okay. So 700, thank you.

That was one of my questions. Okay. 750 metres. Now we've had several emails with objections, uh, from nearby residents and even businesses. And I said, we just got one a few minutes ago, uh, but it took a couple days, I think, to get to us. So looking at the staff report, recommendations, the state that staffed did not raise significant centres above community impact. So did staff receive all those emails that we've gotten over the last several days. Mr. Nichols. To the mayor, yes. Um, we do get the emails. Um, if you got one quite recently, may have not seen that one, but we do as part of our analysis. We do reach out to Byla Services. We reach out to Vic PD. They indicated no concerns with this proposal. And, uh, we also connected the applicant with, uh, Vic PD has a community safety assessments.

And they have a program with that. And, uh, the applicant has already, uh, reached out and started working with the VIPD to do, uh, an assessment of their property around any safety concerns. I was thinking of the concerns of the residents and businesses nearby, not the. Other groups. So what, and, and I'm sorry, I was away, didn't get to read everything. Uh, and what neighbourhood is this. To the mayor, it is the fair field Gonzalez kind of, uh, neighbourhood. It's right on the border between, uh, between that, uh, kind of the hair screen downtown area. So the fair field gonzale's comment on it. The neighbourhood association? Uh, it's through the mayor. No, we did not receive a response from them. Okay. And was there any other outreach or do we have anything from the neighbours outside of the emails we've received and the ones that were attached, which were all really through the mayor, everything, uh, has been provided council and attached on the agenda.

Okay. And, uh. Okay. Sorry. Um, the report references a nearby, not for profit society. And I didn't get a chance to go see what kind of society that was. Do we know what kind of not for prophet society is there. I don't need you to name it just since report references it. I'm going to know what kind of not - for - profit. Mr. Nichols, do you know that? Through the mayor, I think that came in through the Citizen Correspondence. I'm actually not sure what it is off the top of my head. So we don't know. Okay. Cause we've had businesses. Um, and how close is the site to the mere street youth facility?

Because that was mentioned to. Mary. I'd have to quickly do some Googling on that in terms of distance. So you can throw a pebble. And you will hit that building. Thank you. Council. Please do not discuss side to side. Uh, through the mayor, will we get that information? Is there any other questions we can address? Yeah. Uh, there's an email from a healthcare professional. I don't know what kind of health care. And I again didn't have time to look it up the last few days. And he, I think it was a he, Count recall right now serves a diverse patient population nearby. So do we, you know, nature, do we know the nature of that facility and the concern raised in his correspondence was that are nearby children, individuals with medical conditions, which he feels should not be in close proximity to a cannabis retail store. Through the mayor, uh, there is a office building, uh, just up the street that has, you know, various

medical services. I believe this, uh, individual runs dental practice. Okay. How close is up the street. To the mayor, I would have to get that information. I don't have that at the top of my head either. Count your girl, do you have other questions while he's looking at for those answers.

Mayor, come here. And perhaps everyone's searching. What I'm concerned about the not - for - profit is that one that serves families or is it one that serves addictions? I mean, that makes a big difference. If you can hold those comments until the... Well, it's not a commas question. That's what he's looking at.

Mr. Nickles, any thoughts?

To the mayor. So the medical facility is 140 metres away. And I've been informed that the mere street location is next door. Oh. Okay. So the one was, sorry, how many metres? 100? 140. 40, thank you. Okay, and the not - for - profit society. Mr. Nichols, do you know the nature of the non - profit. So it is the mere street youth facility is located directly behind the building. So is that what the report referred to when it said a not - for - profit, or was it something else? Mr. Nichols, I believe you indicated that it wasn't the staff report that referenced that, but rather one of the writers? No. There's staff report mentioned it. I've been for you to identify in the report where it's referenced. Somewhere. Well, maybe the correspondence with the staff report, but it was in the package I was given. Yes, through the mayor. It was in the correspondence attached that we received as part of the CAF report. Councillor Gardner? I'm still waiting to see if

that was the mayor's facility or some other, not - for - profit. I don't believe Mr. Nichols has indicated that he does not know that, that it was indicated by the writer. No. Through the MERA, if I was to presume it would be the mere street location. Okay, thank you. That's my questions. Okay, very good. Councillor Caridona? Questions? I was gonna move the staff recommendation. I believe Councillor Hem, would you have questions or just... Yeah, go ahead, Councillor Hammond. I'll come back to you, Councillor Cody. Sure. I used to live around there. And so it is, I call it mirrors, M - I - R - R - O - R - S. And on the website, it says City Victoria. This project is working closely with BC housing for their ongoing commitment to provide supportive housing for individuals age 19 to 27 who face difficulties accessing affordable housing or experiencing homelessness. And just to be clear, this isn't a stone's throw away. This is

a pebble throw away. Like, it's right there. It's right behind there. Is there any concern about. Youth in that area having someplace right next door. Mr. Nicholson. So through the mirror, I think, um, it's important to talk about the purpose of this report, which is it is a referral from the LCRB. It's an LCRB process where someone is trying to get an LCRB license and the LCRB asks Council to comment on the applicant. So what we do sum analysis, um, obviously confirm zoning, you know, reach out to Bylaw Services, Vic PD, the Krux of our, um, recommendation is about our view that the applicant meets the criteria to obtain a LCRB license, um, with that said, this is Council's prerogative to decide moving forward. I see City clerk will like say something too. Thank you, Mayor, if I may. This is, if I may just add to those comments, this is one of those areas where some of the questions and the nature of them

are more of what we would anticipate during rezoning process, where a property wishes to change its owning to permit a use to be a cannabis retailer. This part of the process is really where we have that process that took place in the past. Council proved the use, and now this is really about the branch, as Mr. Nichols mentioned, referring the information about the person requesting a license to sell at that location. So our apologies that we didn't have quite all the information ready for council, but, uh, ultimately this really is about whether or not Council agrees or has any comments for the branch in regards to the applicant. Council Ramage. Thanks. And then, so just to be clear, and with that information, thanks very much, Mr. Kingsley. But, um, does the city's position, or because you're asking Council, but does the city take the position that they are not at all concerned with this youth housing place being right next door to this? Mr. Kingsley.

Through you, Mayor. We don't, uh, from a staff perspective, administratively, we don't really have a basis on which that we would rely on to give any specific recommendations against this. And the reason behind that is that it is rezoned for that purpose. There was a store of operating their previously, and my understanding is that store has ceased operating, and they knew applicant has come asking for a license to continue to operate the same function at that location. So from a staff perspective, we just don't really have a basis necessarily. We saw to recommend strongly one way or the other in terms of we don't think you should. That's probably the best answer I can give.

I mean, I'm not trying to pass comment on whether those concerns that I'm hearing here are legitimate or not. They're just more concerns that we would anticipate would arise out of the rezoning phase as opposed to a simple license. Council Hamon. Thanks to you, Mayor. Um, so when was that rezoning done? Was that with our council. Or previous? Mr. Justice and Mr. Nichols? Uh, through the Mary was a decision of a previous council. It was in July of 2017. And was that mirrors facility in place in July of 2017. No, I wouldn't think so. Through the mayor, no, it wasn't. That was constructed more recently.

Good to know, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions. Then I'll go back to Councillor Cardona. You want to move the motion? So moved. Council Kim is seconding. Councillor Caradona, your motivation, please. Yeah, thanks. I have supported most of the cannabis applications this term, although I've opposed a couple because they didn't meet our rules and regulations. And our rules are really focused around two things. One, ensuring that there's not a concentration. Of cannabis facilities and also being mindful of the fact that this is essentially a regulated market, and we have to, I think, stick to our regulations and not. Anyway, I don't want to go off on that. But that's piece one. Piece two is to make sure that they're not in close proximity to schools. So my understanding is that this facility is not in close proximity to a school, and it's not within whatever it is, 200 metres of another cannabis distribution facility, and therefore it does mean our rules and regulations are

rules do not get into whether or not a cannabis facility is in close proximity to an NGO or a social service centre or something like that. If that were the case, that would require, I think, a lot of additional work and given how small and compact our city is and how many NGOs are all over the place. It would probably impossible. It'd probably be impossible to have a canvas facility just about anywhere. In any case, our bylaws are silent on that. So what matters to me is that this does meet our bylaw, and it's recommended by staff, and I think it should move forward. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor Kim, as the secondary. Nothing to add. Councillor Thompson. Thanks, Mayor. Just echo those comments. Um, we need to focus on the specific decisions that are in front of us. When we make decisions at City Council, we have to follow the local government act and the Community Charter. We don't have CART blanche to go everywhere. Um, so I feel that staff prepared the relevant information. I'd be disappointed if staff had gone off and done a whole bunch of extra research on issues that are irrelevant to our decision. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else. Coach Hammond, go ahead. Council Ramon. Whereas I voted in favor of an awful lot of these before. I will be voting against this one. And I don't think it's at all irrelevant that within a pebbles throw of that application that we have got, um, a youth facility with 50 rooms, um, and apartments in there that has been built and placed in that, since that time. There's got

to be some limits when we're concerned about the impact on youth and youth at risk. Thank you Council Gardner. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you, staff, for the report. And I understand the limitations of the report. Um. But residents and at least two businesses have now spoken about their fears of cannabis retail so close to families and businesses frequented by families. My personal concern is families and children. A medical building nearby inviting families. And the youth facility next door. Things have changed since 2017. In a major way. Drug use and enticing youth into any drug scene is of concern now, even if it wasn't of high concern in 2017. We need to focus on the wellbeing of our residence and the health of our children. The safety and well - being of our residents is paramount to me. I cannot support this application. Thank you very much, anybody else. Not seeing any other comments. The motion is on the floor moved and seconded. All those in

favor. That's Rydell, Councillor Kim. Councillor Loton. Councillor Gardona, myself, Councillor Coleman and Councillor Thompson in opposition. Councillor Hamilton and Councillor Gardner. So noting two and opposition. That is adopted. Uh, we do have another item related to staff report that I suspect will take some time. So I'm going to suggest we take a break right now. We have been sitting for a significant amount of time. So it's not 10. 20. Let us try and return at 1030. For item H2. And thank you for rejoining us. We return to our June 11th Committee of the Whole Meeting of Victoria City Council prior to our brick. We had concluded our consideration of item H1, and now we are on to H2. This is indeed the amenity cost charges bylaw amendment consideration. I believe we do have our presentation, I believe, yes. Staff, are you going to do it from way back there? Are you going to come up to where we often have our presenters? We are happy

to come up, but we actually do not have a presentation for this one. You don't have your presentation. Oh, I see, okay. Is there anything that you would like to share with Council in advance of our questions to you? Sure. Thank you, Mayor Alto. My name is Lauren Close. I'm the Manager of Community Planning. So we don't have a presentation for this item today. Can you hear me okay? Great. Yeah, you lean in a little bit would be helpful, yes. Or pull the book a bit closer to you, yes. Thank you. So this is a brief report that seeks Council Direction to take the necessary steps to advance an amendment to the Cities Amenity cost charges bylaw. The amendment would add a transition provision to exempt developments that have an approved rezoning, but have not yet been fully constructed. This amendment is really in keeping with the Spirit of the Provincial Legislation and the City's Own Intent for Incy CC byWAWA. It's required now because,

unlike other transition provisions, this one was not explicitly identified in the local government act. So it's a fairly straightforward amendment and process to bring it forward, but we're happy to answer any questions if Council has any. Very good. We'll start with questions. Are there any questions? Council Securadona. Thank you very much. Red this one carefully. I think I understand it. So the idea here is to avoid a situation in which we're potentially double charging. Oh, you guys are coming up. I gather that the intention here is to avoid a situation in which we're potentially double charging a proponent who maybe had negotiated a CAC. And then they're being double charged. So the idea is to create an exemption for in - stream projects. Is that the intention. Close? Let's read the mayor essentially, yes. Yeah, we don't want to have any late hits to developments that have negotiated amenities with the city. And this is just a bit of a cork in the legislation. Okay,

thank you. And then how many total projects are we talking about here? Disclosed? Approximately. Yes, through YMIR, this wouldn't be a very common occurrence. This would typically happen with larger multi - phase projects where rezoning has been approved, but hasn't yet fully been constructed. So it'd be a small number of projects since the provision would be general. We wouldn't have an exact number, but I could estimate certainly well under 10. Under 10. Okay, and just last question for me, and I'm going to write this down because I've asked before, and it's still finding confusing. But when the new ACC legislation came in, what did that completely obliterate CACs or our CAC still around? And if so, in what context? Bring this down. Who would like to explain that. Mr. Johnston, our nome is closed? Go ahead. Through you may, I might want to turn to our colleagues in the legal to confirm their interpretation of this, but the intent and my understanding of the legislation

is that it's intended to give the development community more clarity about the amenities that would be expected, that were previously negotiated through a community amenity process. So I don't know if I would use the word obliterate, but certainly the spirit of the legislation is to add that additional clarity up front. If there were to be through the mayor a stratified project in which additional density were given, or something like that, is that still a scenario in which a CAC would be applicable above and beyond an ACC. I'm trying to understand when CACs are still germane. Of course, through you mayor, so when we crafted our ACC bylaw, we were judicious.

We took the more typical form of development that we see across the City to apply a fairly fair rate based on development viability. Um, uh, so it is charged out of her door unit or a per square foot basis. Um, there could be a situation where the landlift, um, that we see in a development, um, is greater than what we might've collected through a previous CAC process than what we collect through the ACC process. And so we do have policy in our rezoning and development policy that guides, um, the City could request a landlift analysis and see if there's any additional amenity that we might try to negotiate with the developer, but those would be for very, very large scale projects where we would expect that to happen. I might ask my colleague to chime in further. Mr. Seward of the Mayor, I think it's also just worth noting that, you know, CACs were somewhat grey area prior to this legislation and probably they are

only greyer with the introduction of this new legislation as the province looks to encourage municipalities to use ACCs as a tool that provides more certainty and clarity to the development community for. So it's, it's sort of a new territory for local governments recognising that these new financial tools are in place. And so I think we're all sort of trying to understand how the development finance frameworks will roll out based on that. But generally speaking, I think the priority within the new legislation is to really prioritize the use of ACCs for, uh, for amenities. Um, that being said, Ms. Pelley's retain some discretionary powers through the rezoning process. Okay, cause that through the mirror, that's what I'm trying to get out here. And if folks recall at last year's UBCM, we had a resolution, which I want to brought it forward, which was requesting the province to consider some flexibility so that some of the ACC monies could potentially go towards affordable housing. And we just

got the response from the province actually, I think it was a couple of weeks ago. And they essentially said no. So as far as I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, but, uh, from, from, you know, these exemptions notwithstanding, it's essentially no longer possible to use amenity contributions towards affordable housing anymore. And by my calculation, in the last four years, millions of dollars have come in to our housing reserve fund from CACs. But that well has, has run dry now because the province wants ACCs to only go towards Community Amenity spaces and so - called street parks and plazas. So as far as I can tell, this legislation has severely impeded our ability to recapitalize our housing reserve fund and other local governments that are in the same situation with their own housing related funds. Am I correct on that or incorrect on that?

Or are there still any ways in which CAC, ACCs, any of these kind of monies that come through development can go towards affordable housing? Or is that just done now? Mr. Sehrin. Through the mayor, I think you're correct in the sense that, uh, the ACC bylaw and the legislation that governs it is very explicit about the fact that housing is not an eligible use for the ACC. However, the local government act, um, was also amended to, um, with updated, uh, legislation around, uh, tools related density bonus. And so, uh, it's more the density bonus and kind of inclusionary housing powers that really are more focused around being able to secure, uh, cash and lie for an affordable housing fund. And so our local, our land use framework does integrate, um, density bonus, uh, especially for, uh, projects within the context of, um, our general residential areas. So the priority growth areas, the general urban residential fabric, um, and so within those areas, we've, you know,

the priority growth area is contemplate density bonus for, um, for strata and any collections that we would get in terms of monetary wood flow back to the housing reserve fund. But yeah, it's, it is a bit of a change. And I think as, as noted before, uh, all these, this massive amount of legislative and policy and regulatory change that has occurred is like the ink is just dry really. And we're still in the process of sort of seeing how it rolls out. Yes. And thank you for that, man. Sorry, Mayor, I'm sorry if I'm being a bit dense on this, but that, this is exactly the bit that I have not understood is the difference between the density bonus and the ACC. So can you maybe help me understand a theoretical development that would result in. A cost charge or some kind of fee to a developer that could end up in the housing reserve fund? Can you give me, give us an example of

that. Through the mayor. So, uh, hypothetically, if we saw a strata development come forward, uh, on a priority growth area and they looked to build to the, um, the upper level density of 2. 6 FSR, they would, um, required to provide a density bonus contribution above the base density of 1. 6. So there could be a monetary contribution on a per square metre basis between the 1. 6 floor area and the 2. 6 max density. And so, you know, currently we're, we're seeing maybe less in the wave of strata, but that, that could shift over time. And as the market shift changes, um, and, um, you know, in the same way that we saw under the old inclusionary housing community policy where we saw, you know, mid, mid - rise projects make, you know, cash contributions of 100 to 200, 000 or something like that, you know, it would be probably in that same ballpark for a cash contribution for a sort of a project

on a prior growth area where they're doing a five or six story strata project. Okay. Okay. But yeah, it's, it's, as I said, this is all still very much just kind of rolling out. Yeah. And so it's going to take some time to see how. And so through the mayor in that example, are they also paying an ACC. Through the Mary SACs are still applicable to all, um, all forms of development that are adding an additional, um, self contained dwelling unit or projects so that you're adding additional floor area in terms of complete. That's helpful. So any bonus density on a stratified project that would result in payment that would go to the housing reserve fund would be above and beyond a baseline ACC charge.

And just to clarify, our ACC is also being charged to large scale market housing market rental projects. So are we only talking about shadow here? She's our ACCs are, um, subject to all forms of housing and development except non - market affordable housing. So we have both rental and strata are subject to ACCs. Okay. Bring us back to the topic at hand. And thank you for answering all that because it's, it's complicated for me to understand it. I do support these exemptions. We don't want to be double charging and adding more costs to already marginal housing development. The motion's not yet. Oh, sorry. Should I move it? Uh, Councillor Thompson, did you have a question?

I'll ask you another. Okay. So yes. Sorry. Sorry. I'll just move it. But I do support this exemption. I think it's, it's as staff said it applies to 10 or fewer projects. This is as unusual circumstance because we're copied between two regulatory regimes. We don't want to be double charging. I get that. I continue to have problems with how the ACC legislation has rolled out, but I'll leave that for another day. And I am disappointed though that the province didn't know to our request for some more reflexibility about that. Because I do think that this will impede our ability to be supporting affordable housing moving forward, which I find problematic. Thanks, Mayor. Councillor Thompson is a secondary. Thanks, Mayor. Yeah. I just wanted to thank you for the report. It covers the actual decision that's in front of us. And it's very clear and it's very short. And I really appreciate that. Um, just for members of the public, there's lots of information about ACCs

and CICs on the provincial government website. If you want to read that, uh, but in terms of the decision that's in front of us, uh, I think that the staff, um, report covers the bases. And I'm all support the staff recommendation. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anyone else comments. Council Gardner. I appreciate my questions were asked. And I think that it's, uh, really incumbent upon us to make sure that we don't catch or double charge or really get, uh, some of the developments and problems that way. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else. Not seeing any other comments. It's been moved in seconded. All those in favor. Does anyone opposed? That is unanimous. Thank you very much for that. That does take us on to new business. There are three Council, actually four Council Member Motion, some of which are on the consent agenda. But to start, uh, the first one is item I1. This is a Council member motion with regard to a Community Garden

Pilot Project on the underutilized Johnson Street Parquet rooftop. This had multiple movers who would like to start. Monster Thompson to start. And it's your secondary Councillor Cardona Council Thompson. Over to you. Thank you, Mayor. Yes. Um. Just need to find some wording here. Okay. This comes, uh, from a request from the downtown residence association, the downtown residents association has been interested in finding additional community garden space for a number of years now. Uh, Council members will know that there is a community garden on Yaet Street. And I believe that that, uh, garden has 160 people on its wait list. Uh, demand for downtown gardening exceeding current supply dramatically. Council's Park's sequencing plan. Specifically, identified a new community garden in the downtown core as a short - term priority. The Strategic plan that we adopted commits to expanding support for urban agriculture gardening and food security. There's an interesting opportunity. At the top of the Johnson Street parcade because there are at any given time dozens. And I mean during business hours

dozens of empty spaces, uh, at 10, 19 a. m. this morning during our break. There were 117 vacant spaces in that parquet. And I've been checking the parquet spaces on a fairly random basis various days and hours of the week for a couple of years now, uh, and basically at any given time, empty parcade spaces across the five parcades that the city owns and operates. Uh, in addition, of course, there are a number of private parcades, uh, surface parking lots and street parking. The downtown Victoria Business Association has a few web pages outlining the availability of parqued spaces and downtown parking spaces. And has been trying to encourage people to, uh, use the parkades, uh, for a number of years. And I guess that that hasn't actually worked because I was up there a couple of days ago, uh, and again, they were very few cars. So given the surplus of demand for garden space and the surplus of available parking space, I think it makes sense to, uh, reallocate some of that

publicly owned space to an actual use. As opposed to a potential, maybe future use of parking. And having a pilot project like this, uh, can explore the viability of that use. This is a motion asking staff to report back to us. Uh, to examine the information that the downtown residents association provided. With respect to whether the parquet can handle some planters. Whether the impact on revenues at all. Uh, and any other assessments that are needed. And, uh, you know, having, having a pilot project could also, uh, bring us some interesting findings about whether rooftop gardens are useful in other spaces around the downtown. So, um, I hope that council will see fit to support this, uh, and that, uh, staff can be empowered to work with the downtown residents association together, uh, to try to figure this out, uh, and report back to us. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Caradona is the secondary. Thanks very much, Mayor. I'll just give a little bit of, of

additional context on this one. So this has been request of the DRA for, for a number of years. And I'm sorry that it took a while to get here. But one of the things that they did in the interim was they worked with, uh, student group, uh, group, actually a group of students, I think that came from Massachusetts and who were here for, for a term. And they did a study on this exact question. And a lot of this motion is based upon the findings of that study, which essentially found that the parcades have the structural capacity to handle a handful of container garden containers that would include certain special type of lightweight soil. And they also did some really interesting analysis on at the demand for the parking on the roof of the Johnson Street Parquet and found that apparently it's not in use.

So the idea here is to direct staff to ground truth those findings. Uh, it's great that the undergraduates did that work, but we can actually trust their findings. We have to take a look at it for ourselves. The other context here is that there has been attempts in the past for years to try to find a downtown community garden space. And there's just not an obvious place to put it. There's not a lot of surplus land at grade. That would be suitable for one. We have one over on Yage Street and that one has a lot of demand. But in terms of closer to the core of downtown, the obvious place to put it that the city could in theory purchase land, but obviously that comes at a big capital cost. So the DRA is really honed in on parcades as an option. There could be a small trade - off here in terms of the parking availability. It's my understanding that these stalls are

in use on really high demand days, like Symphony Splash or Canada Day. So I do think that it's a reasonable to think that there could be a bit of, uh, a trade - off in terms of other costs. I don't really foresee there being a lot of costs to the city. The idea here is that if a pilot were to get off the ground, the cost would fall to the DRA. It would be their job to fundraise and build the plots. And if there's going to be some fencing insecurity, that's on them. There is water up on the sixth floor, interestingly, of the Johnson Street Park Aid. We might have to work out with them what the water rates are, something like that. But I have had a couple of people ask me what this would cause the city to my knowledge. It shouldn't really cost as much of anything. But that could be ground truth in the report back. But fundamentally, this is about

supporting downtown residents. You have people living in smaller and smaller apartments and condos. There's a lot of demand for people to grow a bit of their own food to get outside, to meet their neighbours, to form some community. And the massive demand for these allotment gardens. My friend lucked out and got an allotment plot at the compost education centre in Fernwood a couple of years ago. And she was on the wait list for eight years. There's that much demand for it. And we've been told by the DRA that they have 160 person wait list. So the demand and we want to be supporting the vibrancy and livability of resonance who live downtown who don't always get the kind of investments in green space and food systems that we see in some of the other parts of the city. The last thing I'll mention maybe on a little bit of a lighter note is that I was on Seafax yesterday talking about Riftlandia, the cancellation for

Flandia and talking about this potential rooftop Community Garden and someone phoned in and said, in light of Riftlandia closing, can we refer to this as rooflandia, which I thought was very, very cute. So here's my support for rooflandium moving forward. Thanks Mayor. Thank you. Councillor Gardner. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you councillors Thompson Carrot on a for this motion. In the couple days we've received several communications from residents and I have some questions regarding information under the background. And because I was not, didn't have access to a lot of computer time the last few days. Uh, some of the information may be there, but I didn't get a chance to really look at it. So question, first question. The DRA says the average or the report says the average occupancy exceeded 250 vehicles, only three times on weekdays. When and for what period was the assessment made and it was made over a week or a month. And do we have, uh, the dates in

hand. Is this a question for engineering for parks? Who would like to feel this? Mr. Doyle? Through the mayor, I've read the student. I've read the student study and they referenced occupancy levels, but did not specify what time of day or which days of week these were for. They were just sort of average occupancy levels. So we don't even know the season. It wasn't that detailed of an analysis. Okay. Uh, yeah. Okay. In the past the rooftop area has been used for early morning dog walking because there was a shortage of dog parks. Does anyone know if that is still be a use is still in play? Mr. Doyle, do you know if that's given that dogs sometimes don't mix with gardens. Mr. Newman, you seem to be leaning into your mic. Thank you. And through you mayor to the best of my knowledge, we haven't monitored dog walking on the tops of our parcades in recently, but, uh, certainly we could explore that through

further analysis should Council pass the recommendation tip before you today. Thank you. Thank you. I just don't want to create another problem. Um, now where other locations considered by the DRA and that's because emails we receive in the last couple of days. For example, suggest the area joining the former Romeo site, which is now public property or city public property. And has that area been considered. I don't know if that's a staff or going to Mr. Newman first and then we'll go to the mover. Go ahead, Mr. Newman. Yes. Thank you and through you, Mayor. Uh, the city has been working with the DRA for a number of years to explore a variety of options.

To the best of my knowledge, the Romeo site has not been explored. Um, the city has been exploring leasing options for that property. Um, but, uh, depending on the outcome of today's discussion that could be an ongoing potential for us to explore. Yeah. Thank you. I'm not thinking of the building itself, of course, but the adjoining property. So I would hope that the, uh, do we have any ideas to, well, you're not into the strategic property management. And I realised that. Does anyone have any idea if we're close to a lease on that? Yes, just a second. Mr. House has put his hand up and he's joining us online. Mr. House, go ahead. Hi, thank you. Through you mayor at the moment, the rear of that building is licensed out to multiple users, including the LESI of the Romeo space that we continue to work with. So at the moment, uh, the rear parking is not available. Thank you. And how long is the lessee

of the current Romeo's thing? What is the deadline on that. Mr. House, is that public information? Sorry. When you say the deadline, the deadline on what you see for Romeo's already. Correct. And that lease is for a period of five years. Okay. Thank you. Okay. The top of parkage has been explored before because it's an interesting concept. It was explored when Capitol Park. Was, uh, underway and Councillor Coleman did walked onto the top of a lot of parquets. So we understand that. Um, okay. Hang on. Now on the past couple of days we've received several emails from businesses and residents suggesting that the Council Motion is akin to continue in reduction of vehicles. So I think we have to be very cautious of that. Um, and we've heard from many residents and the DVBA about parking issues. Now it has been suggested that there will be the city will be using City data. Will a city be looking at the full, cause you have dad,

I assume on the use of the parking area and how many vacancies there are so that we can do a full statistical result. Or assessment. Mr. Doyle, is that your department? Uh, through the very, we do have that data. Pardon? We do have that data available to do a more detailed review if needed. Okay. And with the motion before us now, will you be doing that? Cidiral. Or do we need to change the wording is what I'm asking. The wording is fine. Yeah. We would be doing that. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Now, COSH has been mentioned. So actually, mayor, I don't know if we can make an amendment and add a fourth bullet. And that is the cost estimate to the city, including water or any assistance for box construction, water lines or fencing.

Can you just hold on that? Can you say that again slowly so that staff can put that up? Yeah. So add a fourth bullet. Yep. Uh, because it says the top report back to Council with cost estimate to the city, including water, assistance for box construction, if any. Comma, water lines, comma, fencing.

Is that it? Yeah, thank you. And I'd like to motivate. Is there a seconder for that amendment? Consecure on a second day. Go ahead, Councillor Corner. Yeah. I've been involved now with, I think, five different community gardens, either being having to take them over for, or not take them over. But as far as responsibility and what have you because of different issues within gardens. And, uh, I've never seen one that doesn't involve considerable city finances or something else. In one way or a toddler. Traditionally, years ago, the Community Gardens totally took care of themselves. That changed about 15 years ago. Actually, it changed with capital park. And where there was a different kind of system set up. And of course, the city's got many grants.

Associated with gardens. And so I think that there could be a real cost on this and that we should know it. Thank you. On the amendment Councillor Cardona. Uh, thanks, Mayor. I'm happy to support it. The only issue I have with it is that at least for me as the secondary, I had an envisioned, the city assisting with box construction or fencing at all. So I don't want staff to present that that would be the case. But I think it's probably fine to leave it. And they've listened to the debate. We do have a program where we support garden coordinators. And maybe I could just put it through the mayor to staff. Does the DRA or does downtown currently have a garden coordinating position. Mr.

Newman, do we still - As James Bay and Jack West and others have, sorry, three mere, just for clarity, are you asking if there's a specific position to support the DRA or just does the City have a gardener coordinator position CDY? The first one, A. The CD has, uh, a number of staff that support our get - growing programs in our urban food systems, City - wide. And currently, I would say that we have appropriate staffing for the number of gardens and our, and our grant programs underway. No, just to clarify, like, you know, James Bay has a garden coordinator and VicWest has a garden coordinator. I'm trying to find out if downtown has specifically right now a card and coordinator. Through their Community Association.

Mr. Newman, do you know that? A three - year mayor, we do have garden coordinator that does work with the DRA and has been working closely with them for a number of years. I will just check in with my team here. To confirm that. Okay, maybe that could just be in the report about whether or not that person or that position could be applied here, whether or not that would be potentially an additional cost as part of our program. Sorry, maybe just to clarify, this city does provide volunteer grant grants to support volunteer coordinators. Yes, that's what I'm referring to. Ah, okay. Thank you. Uh, and sorry for the confusion. Yes, the City currently does provide grants to the DRA to support the 8 Street allotment garden, which has 90 allotment beds in it. Uh, this year, the City contributed 12, 500 dollars to support their volunteer coordinator program. Okay, and so I'll just note in the report if this passes that maybe that could

be in the report about whether or not that current position would be enough to oversee both of the downtown gardens or whether or not there would need to be a second garden coordinator or whatever staff might recommend on that. But I'll just leave it there. Thanks. Very good. On the amendment, Councillor Thompson, and then we will come back to Councillor Garden. Thanks, Mayor. The wording of the amendment is a bit tangled cost estimate to the city. Uh, it also presumes that there will be a cost, which we've, uh, we've heard that there may be zero cost. I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment. Which is? Which is to strike out cost estimates of the city. And replace it with, well, let's see.

Whether there would be any costs to the city. Comma. I can motivate if the second word. Coaster Thompson, I wonder if it wouldn't be a little simpler for you to simply add a phrase after cost estimate to the city, which would be, if any. That would allow the opening to have to come back and say, well, there are any. Okay with that. Maybe, maybe we could say estimate of the costs. To the city, if any. It's just a little weird cost estimate to the City, if any. Whatever you like, it's your amendment to the amendment. I'm just going for simple. I'll go with yours. Um, but I will, uh, tweak the wording. So I guess, uh, so if you could staff, remove that. And Councillor Thompson, go ahead. You'd rather it say estimates of cost to the city. If any, yeah. Estimates of cost to the city, if any. That'll be new addition. Yeah. Replacing what's there, yeah.

Comma. If any? Can you comment. Ama. Okay. So that's an amendment to the amendment. Some would like to second that. Councillor Kim is seconding that, uh, Councillor Thompson on the amendment to the amendment. Uh, just clear wording and it takes out the presumption that is not founded. Thanks. Okay. Councillor Kibben is a secondary. No, nothing. Councillor Gardner on the amendment to the amendment. Thank you. I believe that the original was very funded. After all, we have to look at cost. We have to look at opportunity cost and lost of revenue when there is parking. That is a cost to the taxpayer when we have less revenue. And we do not yet have that analysis. But I have no problem with the amendment per se, but I have problem with the motivation of saying that it was, you know, that it wasn't really irrelevant consideration. It is. Very good. So any other comments on the underlined wording, which would be replaced the struck through learning Councillor

Carinot. Yeah, I'm happy to support the amendment to the amendment. I would like to see an estimate of any potential loss revenue from parking. And I think that that would probably be included in a report as a matter of course. And I doubt it would only be fair. I may I ask staff, um, yeah, I'm not sure if this would be Mr. Doyle or Mr. Newman in, or whomever would be recreating this report. Would you assume that the phrase cost to the city would include losses of revenue in addition to actual outlay of costs. Ms. Thompson. Um, through the mayor. So what we'll do, um, is we'll provide all of the information that we can, uh, to help counsel make an informed decision going forward.

So I would suggest that anything that staff, um, will identify. We'll include all of this plus potentially additional items as well. Very good. Thank you for that. Uh, with that then, anything else on the amendment to the amendment, which is the replacement of the struct through language with the underlined language. But yes, no, all those in favor of the amendment to the amendment. Anyone opposed? That is you, anonymous. Councillor Thompson, you still have the floor. On the amendment, nothing else on the amendment. Very good. Anything else on the amendment, which is now just the bolded language. Councillor Gardner, on the bolded language. Thank you. Um.

Wait a minute. No, I haven't commented not on the amendment. I apologise. All right. Very good. On the amendment, which is just the bolded language any further. Not see anything further, all those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. So that bolted language becomes part of the main motion. And that was the first amendment. And actually Councillor Gardner, you still have the floor. Thank you. Is this to be a community garden or an allotment garden. That's a good question. Mr. Newman, do you have fought on that? Is that part of your report back? The three of you married the current proposal that we received from the DRA is for an allotment garden. Okay. Thank you.

And a lot of McGowan, which is kind of essentially privately allotted. Cause that's very important. And in answer to another comment that was made, for example, James Bay has the one garden coordinator, but five different gardens, two being enotmen and three naught. My number may be off because they keep growing. So that was his one coordinator. And so I just wanted people to realise that this is standard, but there's also other grants beyond the coordinator grants that go to where the gardening. And you might want to review to see how many there are. Now how many allotments we're going to be put here. Mr. Newman, do you know that? Through your mayoral, I'll have to check my notes if that's okay. And, uh, report back in a moment. Thank you. Okay. I'm just thinking it might be quite a small one, but of course they usually charge a fee for each member. And I think there might be a bit of a problem. I don't

know. This is just something that parks maybe really fascinating with was trying to figure out how they're going to haul up things during the year with all the other gardening programs or maybe other. Issues. But that's okay. It can be worked out. So thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Loughtin on the main motion. Thanks, Mr. Yumair. I just want to note that the downtown residents association has been asking for something like this for a very long time and has, as has already been noted, there's a approximately 160 person wait list for the part of me the eight street Community Garden. So there is significant demand for this. And what this motion is doing is just requesting a step report back from staff on the feasibility of this to test if it's a good idea.

So in my mind, there's four potential outcomes that could come from this. Staff may deem it not feasible. Our staff might deem it feasible. But for some unexpected reason, the pilot doesn't work. Um, number three. The rooftop Community Garden idea might not pan out for these reasons. But and if that happens, I think that Council must keep looking for a community garden space for downtown residents. And this, that this work should be done in conjunction with the DRA. And then number four, if the plan works and we make good use of these 16 parking spaces to grow food, promote healthy living and provide a partial green roof on the Johnson Street parcade. We're in for a big win for downtown residents. So in my mind, this really is a no lose situation. And we need to allow the potential of this project to come to fruition for downtown residents. And just as an aside, the idea that this could potentially work in conjunction with the

rooftop daycare on the adjacent building to the east is also something that, that I'm quite excited about. So, um, I'm looking forward to, uh, staff reporting back on the feasibility of this. And I'm, I'm just really happy to support it. Thank you very much. Anybody else on the main motion just a second Councillor. We'll come back to you. But I'm going to go to first time speakers first Councillor Coleman. Thank you. Um, it's an interesting one and I feel sorry for the DRA because they've been asking for this, uh, not specific to parcades, but they've been asking for a greater gardens, whether they're allotment or community gardens for years now. We have an example that does work. I did take the time to read the WPI report. It's fascinating to me. I thought it was a, I was delighted to see that one of the undergrads writing it was by last name of Coleman, not a relative. Uh, so I'm not in conflict. The assessment,

the scientific assessment of load capacity was interesting, but it applied only to the gardens and not to full load of vehicles in the parking structure. So I think what we're looking at on this is two components that we've put together. One is the garden pilot project. The other one is underutilized Johnson Street parquet. And the report actually looked at both Johnson and view to begin with. It's interesting that in the pre - sea of the report, it said the DRA had asked staff and had been told no. So they then went to this study to give some validity to it. If the issue is about underutilized Johnson Street Parquet, then we do have a different option. It's an economic model. We could make it free parking for three hours. And that would actually bring more vehicles into the downtown more, more public to support other things. That's the way we used to approach parking in the past. So that's an option. Um, that we could

use. Or we could try this garden pilot project. And for a short term or a long term give up any of the parking opportunities. Um, I don't think that this is the right use of the potential parking space. It's interesting that they also, as I say, looked at view street parcade and chose not to do it because it would only be 104 potential lots, not 116. If it were to go beyond the pilot phase, I, as I say, I don't support the notion of the parquet rooftop at this time. But I do think that that puts a lot of pressure on us to find other options for garden use in the downtown or adjacent to the downtown for residents here. So I just think. Really interesting report. It's 57 pages long. 30 of those pages are, uh. Ancillary appendices, um, but it's interesting that in all the assessments they did and they talked to some of the DRA members, they talked to architects. They talked

to some members of council according to the report. I was unaware of that. I wasn't one of them. Um, I thought that the inquiries, they did was not about the science of Parquet assessment, but it was about the need and desperate need for more gardening. So I think there's a lot to learn from this, but I don't support this. Thank you very much. And now I have two other speakers who wish to speak for a second time, but does anyone wish to speak who has not yet spoken. Not saying that. So I'm going to go back to both Councillor Thompson and Gardner for a second time. Councillor Thompson. Uh, thanks Mayor. Yeah. Um, there's a few outstanding threads that I wanted to, uh, to wrap up, um, when are the vacancies was asked rhetorically earlier.

And I think that's something that can be answered in the staff analysis. Um, uh, this, my colleague, uh, who just spoke is correct that this, uh, particular proposal has not been around for a long time. This is a new proposal. Uh, but the DRA has been looking into Community Garden spaces for many years. Uh, and did look at View Street Parquet. The free parking idea, um, not sure why that would need to displace this one, as I mentioned when you look at the five different parcades, uh, the Several hundred available spots right now during business hours. Not sure why we would want to pick the 16 spots that could become a community garden and say, those are going to be the ones where we offer free parking. I think we could do it at a different parquet. Or if we needed to do it specifically at the Johnson Street Parquet, it could be a different 16 stalls, not the 16 because generally there's, um, available.

So yeah, why not both? Why not do the Community Garden and if the desire to do, uh, free parking, that can be another Council member motion. I think that's it. I just do want to reiterate, uh, for the public, um, there is a lot of empty publicly owned space here. It is not good public policy. To have publicly own space, not getting any use. Um, this would actually provide a really great use for that underutilized space. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Gardner for a second time. Thank you. And I'm sorry that my notes are all over the place. That's what happens when you get in at one. So, um, and I quite appreciate what Council Coleman said. Apology for using your name. But anyway, we've heard from any residence businesses and the DVA that parking continues to be a major issue. And so a real question, which has been somewhat raised the same way that in a different way is if the parquet is not

fully or ultimately used, the question is, why isn't it being used. And so, um, should we be looking at the safety? Should we be looking at lighting? Are there other ways that will not, uh, include revamping the whole parking lot that can be that the parking area can be made more, um, useful for people who want to come downtown. Because that's really important. The DVVA has made it clear that there's a shortage. But why isn't this lock in you? So I would hope that if this, um, examination by staff goes forward that we get a report back on that. I said, why it isn't being used? Is it safety? Is it lighting. Personally, I hate parking par cage like that because I'm a woman. It's usually driving downtown alone. And, uh, but it's still important that we try to use it as much as possible.

So I am supportive of the motion as is as it's really a report back from staff, but I hope the report is very, really, really thorough. Because we do need more parking in this city. And again, the gardening pilot is to be only a pilot at this point. So that's why I have no objection to the, uh, motion going forward as amended. Thank you. Thank you very much to anybody else. I have a question actually and it's a staff. The way this is phrased, I'm just curious, uh, the subject two clause at the end. Indicates that, uh, should a report or the assessments of the report be quote successfully completed. Staff would then move forward with, um, right with the DRA. So my question is what is successfully completed. And do you anticipate returning to Council with your report before you begin at conversation with the DRA? What's the sequence. Through Mayor. So yes, staff would have to report back to council with whatever the

implications may be. And then ultimately it would be up to council to direct staff to change the use of, um, for what we currently have in place. So if I understand you correctly, this direction should be adopted is that you go, you do reports and analyses as discussed. And then you come back to counsel with whatever that is before you take any action with a DRA through the mayor. Yes. That's correct. Okay. Thank you for that. Uh, that was my only question that had not yet been asked or answered anything else. Oh, Mr. Newman. I was going to call you cancer new men. Sorry. Thank you, Mayor. And through you. So one other item that I do want to highlight is that our current community allotment garden intake process. We have a policy and process.

Um, proposal from the DRA, which would detail all of the additional supporting operating and control elements, which are currently absent in this proposal. Um, such as storage facilities, access on how materials will be brought in, how the site will be maintained, et cetera. Um, so we'll take that away and include consideration for the balance of that process as part of the report back to Council. Right. Thank you for that. It's helpful. Anybody else on the amended main motion. Not seeing anyone else, all those in favor. Councillor Dell. Councillor Kim, culture cardinal, Councillor Loton myself. Councillor Heming, Councillor Gardner and Councillor Thompson in opposition Councillor Coleman.

Noting one in opposition, that amended motion is adopted. Thank you, Council. That takes us on two item I2, which was on the consent agenda as a proposal, but was asked to be removed actually by its mover Councillor Thompson. Councillor Thompson, would you like to move this and then amend it? Or I'm not sure what your purpose was. Okay. Maybe we could add the wording before I move it. What would you like to change? Uh, just to add onto the recommendations, and I've sent this to staff, um, that the motion be considered today at Council to meet the UBC. Oh, I see. The same big consideration.

And Mayor, I'm, I'm wondering if it was on consent and I'm the one who removed it. Do we need to go through an entire discussion? Or do we just, um, I guess it's not an amendment. The whole motion has to be on the floor. The motion should be on the floor and then technically it should be an amendment. Because the way it submitted is you'll recall when I discussed earlier the late item that was properly added. One of the provisions of changing it in that manner, this would technically be a late change if it wasn't an amendment requires advanced notice. And so since you're actually changing a substantive aspect of this, you should properly move the motion, get a seconder and the amendment. Okay. Moved.

So his move is your secondary Councillor Kim seconding back to Councillor Thompson to move his amendment. Do that amendment. There you go. And then is there a seconder for that amendment? Councillor Kim, yes. Anything you'd like to say on the amendment? Why is it time sensitive Councillor Thompson? Time sensitive to meet the UBCM submission deadline. Very good. Councillor Kim, anything to add? Nope. So the amendment is simply to meet a deadline for the submission to the Union to BC Municipalities conference this fall. And as was discussed earlier that deadline is in four days. Anything on the amendment. Not seeing any of all those in favor.

Anyone opposed to the amendment. No one's supposed to remember that. That's unanimous. On the now amended motion, Councillor Thompson on the whole thing. Thanks, Mayor. Yes. Um, there was a thing called the BC Active Transportation infrastructure grants program. I'm hoping it still exists. It has been in place since 2004. It's been a cost sharing program. For local governments, First Nations and unincorporated communities. It's been used for sidewalks, crosswalks, protected bike lanes, traffic common, multi - use pathways, uh, and safer roots to school. Uh, in the, uh, motion that's in the, uh, agenda, um, there's a lot of information about how much, uh, program has delivered.

And across the province. In Victoria, we have actually used this, um, as well with at least a couple of projects, uh, and the CRD has received a couple of grants with it. So the program was suspended last year, late summer, 2025 because of the, uh, provincial clean BC review. So that was the first time that, uh, there hadn't been an intake since 2004, is my understanding. Uh, that review was completed at BC, clean BC review was completed. And it's been reported out. But the BCAT, the Active Transportation, uh, grants program hasn't been reinstated and wasn't included in the budget this year. Uh, that doesn't mean that it's been terminated. There just hasn't been any announcement.

Um. So, uh, the recommendation is to ask you mayor to write to the province urging it to reinstate the program and provide stable, multi - year funding. Uh, and then to ask staff to submit the resolution to the UBCM basically doing the same thing, providing the three whereasses and the, uh, resolution. Um, I think that's enough of a introduction. Happy to have Council discuss it. Thanks, Mayor. Very good. Thank you very much. Councillor Kimmer, the secondary, anything to add? Nothing to add. Anyone else. Not seeing anyone else, all those in favor. And you want to pose. That is unanimous. Thank you for that. That takes us to the, uh, second to the last item on our Council Agenda, our Committee gender rather. That's another Council Member Motion with regard to the use of 28 pasting square. This was pulled, I believe. Who pulled this off the agenda. Off the consentigenic Council Cardona Councillor Kim, would you like to move this, I believe? This was when

you'd like to move. Is your second over this councillor Coleman? Councillor Kim, anything just discuss on this. Um, I mean. Sure. I'll try to use up some of the time allotted to me. Um, yeah, I would first like to start by thanking, uh, resident Kelly Black, who's a public historian who brought this to Council's attention on a Thursday evening Council meeting, um, it's a bit of a drum, uh, that they've been beating, uh, about, um, basically what they called demolition by neglect. And, you know, they made a good point when I was talking to them about this that, uh, if this building were owned by a private landlord, um, something likely would have been done already. But because it's publicly owned by the province, um, we haven't really had that conversation, uh, and, you know, you could argue that the province is acting like a derelict landlord. As I learned more about this building, putting this motion together, uh, even today I learned something new

and I hope that my seconder, uh, share some of that information. Um, but more importantly, this is about reactivating public realm that is quite iconic in Victoria. It is situated quite perfectly in a tourist hub. There is the Bastion Square revitalization association who I spoke to recently. And they said it would be so great to see this move forward just to be able to actually animate the space and go beyond a market. And they're quite keen to work on this. And so, uh, staff, thank you for the time that you have put in to making sure this motion, um, was tight and is something that you can work with. And I look forward to seeing what you, what you find. And hopefully we can crack down on the province on at least one thing, this term. Thanks. Thank you very much. Councillor Coleman is the secondary. Thank you. Um, this is, it's a fascinating building.

It was actually City Hall for about 22 months when this extension was being built. In the 60s. Um. At a personal level, I've always loved this building because for five and a half months, I went in and was the interim executive director of the Maritime Museum of British Columbia in those days. And took them through an executive director search. But found, um, that the designations, the Heritage designations are odd in many cases. The National Heritage Designation applies to the third floor. It's the admiralty courtroom where the Sophia case was deliberated the greatest tragedy on the West Coast of Canada. It has still one of the few left open Birdcage elevators in it. In Western North America, you actually need a driver's license from the province to use that. I was one of three people who had a driver's license for it. I think I've still got it somewhere. Um, it is, it's a fascinating building that once you get inside, you fall in love with

it and you learn to love it. The problem is seismic upgrading, uh, in those days, cause I was dealing with the province. Was estimated at 350 to 500, 000 dollars a year. They didn't have the capacity to do it. And now to restore the building properly. Would probably be 50 million dollars plus. I don't know that. That's an estimate on my part. If we'd started back then, if we would have been halfway through there, um, but we do need to protect this and bring it back. I know the number of applications have looked at it in the past at one point, group wanted to make it an auberge hotel. And they got scared away because of the seismo cup grading. So something needs to be done. And if you think to what we have seen that went through neglect for many years, the Janion building.

Was ignored. That was a private owner. And eventually it got forced into, uh, rebuild and revivification. This is one of those buildings that if we lose it, it will be a tragedy for our cultural history. Thank you. Thank you very much Councillor Caradona. Uh, thanks Mayor. Happy to support this one, but do have a couple of questions for staff. I have heard in the past that the province has attempted to solicit this building for a dollar or something like that. Is there is there any, does anyone know the history of the province's attempts to unload this building onto us? Or is that hearsay. That is certainly not hearsay, but I'm not sure is that Mr.

Rentucci, do you know the details of that? That was a few years ago. Go ahead, please. Uh, through the mirror. The only thing I'm aware of is in 2019, I believe it was. There was an expression of interest that the province issued on the building. But in terms of my time here, there's never been an expression of interest for someone to take on the renovation project. To take on a project at the site. And through the mayor, do we know what the outcome of that EOI was? Through the mayor. Uh, there was no furtherance of that EOI, so I can only assume that there either wasn't sufficient interest or the proposals weren't something they want to go. It was, as I recall, actually withdrawn after there was an preliminary assessment done of the work that would be required to repair the building. And in terms of that, do we have any kind of updated estimate of what the seismic cost would be? Or is that

now many years at a date? I don't think we have, do we have anything? No, I wouldn't think so. The number 20 million is in my head for some reason, but I don't know if that's accurate. And we're getting nose from all of our staff. So I think that's a no. Nobody quite knows yet. I mean, I guess I'm happy to support this and my hope is that the province will take this advocacy and potentially do something in their current financial climate. I don't, I'm not holding my breath on them coming up with 20 million dollars, but I do think it raises a larger issue, which is that there are so many heritage buildings that require massive seismic upgrades. And a lot of them are becoming shredded assets. And we just went through a rezoning last week about the cathedral precinct and the entire motivation for that rezoning is to come up with approximately 20 million dollars to restore and seismically upgrade the cathedral. And

there's not the same kind of ability to do that around bash and square. But this, this is going to be a problem moving forward in the city. There's a lot of old heritage buildings and it's a bit of a hot potato between us and the province. No one really wants to take on the cost. We obviously can't afford a 20 million dollar upgrade. So I don't know where these things go, but it's, it's at the very least worth an effort to put a little bit of pressure on the province and say, look, this is a key building. And by the way, we've heard from some of the businesses around here, including the Francophone society. That the fact that it's a stranded building and not activated is a real problem for Bastion Square. And it contributes to some of the issues in Bastion Square. And I remember, I don't want to put people more than some people's mouths, but one of the, one of the businesses

around there said use it or lose it. Do something with it or something. Something needs to change there. It can't just go on for decades being a derelict building. It's not fair to the city. Nor is it fair to the history inheritage of the city. So in any case, happiness support this and hopefully this jostle something loose and moves something forward with the province. Thank you very much. Council Gardner. First, thank you to Council Kim for bringing this motion forward. The maritime is in left the site many years ago. So the province could do seismic work, which as we just heard wasn't done. But I really enjoyed it when I went through it. And again, has been mentioned that Byrd Cage elevator is even just worth looking at. So I had been through this, you know, the building a couple of times. I just loved it. And I used to centurist there, even though it was small. I mean, going through the exhibits, the maritime

museum was quite small, but it was still good because it kind of suited the maritime museum because it was that kind of old look about it. And I think with this also speaks to something that we have been discussing the last three days or some of us who are the Canadian Capitol Cities organisation was the loss in BC, of the provincial capital commission. This is the outcome of that. Of the, you know, how the province has really lost that interest in this city. And I think that has been really telling and it's a real problem. It really is. I don't care if we're talking about the causeway. I don't talk care of talking about the buildings that have been given away and signed over to others. But this one is a very, very important building.

This building should not be lost. This building has so much history in it that I believe we should keep it. So I hope that, uh, any letter of the mayor rights will reflect that. This has got to be one of the most important buildings in our city that we have left. And so I strongly support. And again, thank, uh, Councillor King for bringing it forward. Thank you very much. Anyone else in this one? Yes. Councillor Loughton and then Councillor Dell. Thanks. And through you mayor. I also want to. Commend the mover for reading this forward. Um, coincidentally I was in Edmonton this week for the Canadian Capital Cities annual conference. And someone asked me about this exact building on Wednesday. And here it is in front of us today. So, um, I just appreciate it being here. It is as has been mentioned. It's a Heritage building. It's a national historic site. And it's, it's incredibly important, um, to preserve this heritage. And I concur

with the losing the provincial capital commission as all provinces across the country besides Saskatchewan have. That's, that's a real problem for us and for Canada, um, writ large. So I think that it's, it's important to, for staff to take a look at this and also reflecting on the conversation we had this morning about the need for hotels and heritage conversions, you know, maybe there's some potential synergy with the private market in this too. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what the possibilities of that are. Um, but it would be interesting to have some information on that when the report comes back. So I'm really happy to support this. And I hope that we can do everything we can as a council to do the important upgrades and keep this historic building. As part of our city. Thanks. Thank you very much, Councillor. No, good. Uh, Councillor Thompson. I'll be brief. Yes. I'm, um, optimistic. I don't know if I'm hopeful. This has indeed been sitting

empty for years and years. It's been multiple governments with, I think two or three political parties involved in those governments. Um, it is interesting architecture for sure. Uh, important heritage. And some of the history is glorious and fun. And some of it is not, uh, and that's just as important. And I'm, I'm referring here to hanging Judge Begby who presided over a number of trials that resulted in executions in that square, uh, including, uh, five chill coat and chiefs an apology has been offered in respect of those. But I think that's, we need to acknowledge that history and that heritage as well, uh, and I think that, uh, having the building be open to the public provides a great opportunity to give, uh, thanks. Thank you very much. Anybody else on this one. Not seeing any other commentators and moved in seconded and discussed. All those in favor. Is anyone opposed? I believe that is unanimous. You may recall counsel that we did have a

late item added that would have become item I4. That was the advocacy motion with your guard to urging the province to reinstate or replace the Community Housing Fund. That was added to the consent agenda. And so that has been dealt with in real turn to us at a daytime council meeting. I can't remember whether that's coming forward today, but I believe it is. That being said, we do not have then an item that requires closed meeting consideration at Committee today. So I would look for emotion to a journey. Thanks, Councillor Coleman. Second of my Councillor Kim, all those in favor. Anybody opposed. That is unanimous.

Um, I would suggest that actually that we're just taking a few minutes to let stuff convert us into the daytime council meeting. We could get started rather than wait, uh, or lose this time. So let's just take whatever staff need. And we'll begin our datum Council meeting.