22 Jun 2026 Council meeting Transportation

Off-Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453

As recorded: "Off-Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453"

Motions decided by one vote
That “Off -Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453” (To regulate off-street parking and transportation demand management within the City of Nanaimo) pass first reading.
Minutes, page 6
That “Off -Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453” pass second reading.
Minutes, page 7
That “Off -Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453” pass third reading.
Minutes, page 7
That Council endorse amendments to “Consideration of Variances Policy COU-246” and repeal the existing “City of Nanaimo Policy for Consideration of a Parking Variance”, subject to adoption of “Off -Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453”.
Minutes, page 7
The City’s vote record words it differently
That: 1. “Off-Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453” (To regulate off-street parking and transportation demand management within the City of Nanaimo) pass first reading; 2. “Off-Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453” pass second reading; 3. “Off-Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453” pass third reading; 4. That Council endorse amendments to “Consideration of Variances Policy COU-246” and repeal the existing “City of Nanaimo Policy for Consideration of a Parking Variance”, subject to adoption of “Off-Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453”.
Sources
Agenda itemCity agenda
Staff reportPage 1
Purpose
To present Council with the City of Nanaimo “Off -Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453” (Parking Bylaw), which, if adopted, will replace “Off -Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2018 No. 7266” to regulate off-street parking requirements within the city.
Staff report, page 1
Staff recommendation
That: 1. “Off-Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453” ( To regulate off-street parking and transportation demand management within the City of Nanaimo) pass first reading; 2. “Off-Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453” pass second reading; 3. “Off-Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453” pass third reading; 4. That Council endorse amendments to “Consideration of Variances Policy COU-246” and repeal the existing “City of Nanaimo Policy for Consideration of a Parking Variance” , subject to adoption of “Off-Street Parking Regulations Bylaw 2026 No. 7453”.
Staff report, page 1
DocumentsStaff report about Transportation & Mobility

Janice Perrino Yes

Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions, Council Aprino, please? Yes. Thank you. What your worship. The question that I have for staff is this report didn't talk about those particular roads where there is generally no parking, but some residents will have a sticker. So that they won't get ticketed.

Ian Thorpe No

Councillor Thorpe. I'm not sure worship through you. Uh, I read this really carefully. And there are lots of things in this report that I agree with and like. And unfortunately there are also some things that I really disagree with personally. Um, and I'll start by saying I have absolutely respect for Mr. Rosen and his staff and for urban systems. Um, I always appreciate their advice. Um, and this report, I think is in line with council direction over the past several years. So I acknowledge that. Um, our emphasis has very heavily being in recent years on active transportation. And. You know, I support act of transportation. Until it gets to the point where it has a negative impact on, uh, traffic flow and the ability of people to move around our streets and vehicles, whether it's cars or delivery trucks, which we are seeing a lot more of. So it's great in theory. But I look at the report and I look at disadvantages of this option. Adoption represents a cultural shift away from traditional car - centric parking expectations, which may raise concerns about parking availability in urban centres. Yes, it does. For me, it does. Huge concerns. So, um, I think back to the master transportation plan that was developed back in 2016 that indicated that the trips taken per day in our city, 88 percent of them wereby vehicles. 2. 5 percent of them were trips taken by bus. 8. 5 percent were trips taken by people walking. And people riding bikes was one percent. So the reality is our population is growing. We have more people. We have more autumnobiles. We have more delivery trucks. Uh, and now we're taking away parking. To me, it's just not in line with the reality that we're faced with. So again, in theory, it's fine.

Ben Geselbracht Yes

Councillor Armstrong. Uh, thanks Mayor. Through you. Um, I'm in support of this bylaw. I think it's a well balanced by a lot. That gives developers the flexibility with the parking regulations to reduce barriers to build much needed housing units and to meet the transportation needs of the residents.

Sheryl Armstrong No

Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Armstrong. Thank you. I agree with much of what councillor Thorpe said. My biggest concern. I agree with a lot of it by biblicist concern is having maximum. It's parking. And we saw that when the developer from the one up off Mary Ellen Drive wanted more parking and couldn't get it. And that was a concern. And it remains a concern for them because they're struggling to rent some of them because the enough parking. So I have a, I have a big issue with, with that. That's one, that's my main reason for not supporting this. I agree with a lot of the other stuff. But the fact that we wanted to put in parking maximums, again, I just can't agree with that.

Questions and answers

Councillor Sheryl Armstrong
Speaker identificationConfident
No

asked
Councillor Armstrong, first and count, Ceprino. Thank you. Two questions through you, FMA. The first one is when I was researching all this car ownership is rising considerably on Vancouver Island. And in the NOM, we've been from our own economic impact. We've shown an increase of over 2, 500 cars. How is this going to impact where they're going to park if we eliminate parking from a lot of
City staff answered
These places? Thank you, Council Armstrong. So the parking regulations, we have heard from developers that with more flexibility, more housing should be able to be built, which is another big concern in the city. Um, we're hoping that with the parking bean contextualized with fewer parking spaces required as the closer you get to urban centres and more required in suburban areas, that should be aligned with where transit and alternate modes are supported. So hopefully we do expect some shift in the short term to on street parking demand. But that should be managed through the curbside review that we're going to be undertaking following this work.
followed up
And then my second question, and this was sent to me by a citizen, their point is, and I know I asked us of the consultant before. Many of people in new subdivisions have to pay for it rode infrastructure for their, their garage, which could be add 50 to 60, 000 onto their prices. And they're asking, why are they expected to do this? And then, uh, condo owners aren't. And then the condo owners parked their cars on
City staff answered
The streets they paid for. If I understand the question correctly, people who live in subdivisions, um, have to pay for the frontage works that people who live in condos
followed up
also park out. Is that? Yeah. The question she said, maybe I didn't say it right. Was she said that their hose cost them approximately figured between 50 and 60, 000 more for the DCCs, which brought, you know, your water infrastructure parking, et cetera. And that we hear from, uh, developers that they don't want to pay for parking lots because the average parking space costs around 50, 000 dollars so they don't, then the people that buy in those places end up parking on streets that were paid for by the owners of the streets. They're not paid
A guest answered
for by city dollars was the question. Mr. Rosen, I
Poul Rosen
Speaker identificationConfident
answeredDirector, Engineering
See studiancer. Mr. Rosen, please. Three worship council Armstrong. So
Poul Rosen
Speaker identificationConfident
answeredDirector, Engineering
regardless of development, whether it's a single family home or a commercial or a multifamily residential, they have to construct frontage works and services. If the road access, typically like a single family home, like subdivision would be required to build the road network. It's not a DCC project necessarily. DCC projects tend to be the larger arterials that a lot of people are using. Um, so in both cases, the developer would be responsible for works and services and potentially road construction, which ultimately gets turned over to the city as a public asset for the city to manage in the best interests of the community in terms of parking regulations and so on and so forth. So I'm not, I'm not too sure that there's an unfairness there. Um, single family home would have access to parking on site. Multifamily or like an apartment, for example, they may or may not decide to have a lot or a
followed up
little bit of parking. So, yeah, I think their point was that they're paying to have those roads when they buy their houses when it's a new subdivision. And then people just come and park on them. That was, I think, the point they're trying to make. And just one other thing. When I was at the FCM, I went to the, um. The building infrastructure, whatever. And that was very interesting. Stuart Kerig, who's administrator of the Edmonton Housing Direct Action. They found their developers there did not want to remove the park in minimum. So that was quite interesting because it said they couldn't sell. It was fine for rentals, but not selling. So interesting that we put