And welcome to the Vancouver City Council meeting of Tuesday, March 10, 2020-26. This meeting is being held in person and by electronic means. Council members may participate by either method. Any members joining electronically are reminded to enable video to confirm quorum.

The meeting is being live-streamed on the City's website and on YouTube, and meeting progress will be updated regularly on X at than city clerk. In case of an emergency requiring evacuation, there are two exits located beyond the glass doors and to the left. If the glass doors are blocked, please use one of the four additional exits within the chamber. Do not use the elevator, use the stairs instead. If you require assistance, remain where you are and security staff will guide you to a safe location. A defibrillator is available at the end of the hallway outside the chamber. We acknowledge that we are on the unceded homelands of the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh people, and we thank them for having cared for the land and look forward to working with them in partnership as we continue to build this great city together. I will also recognize the immense contributions of the City of Vancouver's team members who work hard every day to make our city an incredible place to live, work, and play. City Clerk, may we please have a roll call.

Present.

Present.

Present.

Thank you very much. It's my great pleasure to be able to recognize the celebration of Eid al-Fitr at the end of next week, a joyous occasion marking the end of Ramadan. The literal Arabic translation, Eid, means feast or festival, where thousands of people from Vancouver's Muslim community and millions of Muslims throughout the world will wake early to perform a special prayer known as Salat al-Eid. Salat Eid is a prayer of gratitude. Following morning prayer, this day is filled with people exchanging greetings and giving to charity. Over several days, families and friends gather to enjoy festive meals, exchange gifts, and spread peace, joy, and goodwill. In 2022, the Vancouver City Council proudly passed a motion to add Eid al-Fitr to the city's list of official celebrations and observances. This decision reflects our commitment to honoring the rich cultural diversity that strengthens our city. Today, we acknowledge our Muslim community, recognizing the values of compassion, generosity, and resilience that Eid al-Fitr represents. On behalf of the City of Vancouver, I extend my warmest wishes to all those celebrating Eid Mubarak. I will now invite fellow councillors to the podium to read the 2026 Eid al-Fitr Proclamation.

All right. Good morning, everyone. So this is our opportunity to proclaim Eid al-Fitr in the city of Vancouver. And so I'll just pass this down to Councillor Montague.

Whereas the city of Vancouver is home to a thriving Muslim community, which is estimated to be almost 18,000.

And whereas Eid al-Fitr is a day of forgiveness, compassion, and generosity where Muslims strive to help those in need and share their blessings with others.

Now, therefore, I'm Mike Klassen, Acting Mayor of the City of Vancouver. On behalf of Mayor Ken Sim and all of Vancouver City Council and everyone who chooses to work at the City of Vancouver, do hereby proclaim March 20th, 2026 as Id Al-Fatir in the City of Vancouver.

Thanks very much, everyone.

someone like to move a motion to go into camera this week seconded thanks very much maybe all those in favor say yay all those opposed that carries unanimously thanks very much okay minutes one are from the public hearing on February 3rd and 10th 2026 are there any corrections to the minutes thanks very much second

Thank you. Sorry, it happened so quick that I was jumping in. I just have a question about the Vanstat item minutes for Council. What happened was in the Mayor's amendment or resolution, there was a reference to a... the weekly council Q&A, but the details that were in that the scenarios referred to in his amendment weren't set out in the staff slide presentation and there was no report and there's no date for the weekly council Q&A and it's not a public-facing document. So what I would ask is that... minutes be amended to include that scenario so that the public can tell doesn't have to FOI the information to find out what it's about I'll just ask a question of the city clerk

Is that satisfactory?

That would be very satisfactory, thanks, if everyone agrees.

Appreciate it. Okay, so we have a mover and a seconder. All those in favor? Opposed? Okay, that carries. Minutes two are from the public hearing on February 10th, 2026. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Does somebody like to move adoption? Councillor, I'm sorry, Councillor Meiszner, all those in favor? Opposed? That carries. Okay. Minutes three are from the Auditor General Committee on February 12th, 2026. Are there any corrections to the minutes?

Councillor Montague, thank you very much. All those in favour? Any opposed? That carries. Okay, minutes five are from the nomination subcommittee meeting on February 17, 2020-26. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Does someone like to move adoption? Move, second. May we, all those in favor? Opposed? That carries. Minutes six are from the council meeting on February 24. Sorry. We're going to pull that one. Okay. Very good. Thanks. Okay. So we're going to just pull that one up for now. So we'll move on to minute seven are from the public hearing on February 24, 2026. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Someone might move adoption. Seconded.

Are there any coming on the queue to...

Councillor Frye, want to put yourself in the queue? I can do that now. I'll advance you. Go ahead, Councillor Frye.

Yeah, I'd like to hold 5, 6, 7, please.

I have not, and I will not.

All right. Come to the podium, please.

Can you just, yeah, we're going to bring the podium higher and get the microphone. Thank you. Good morning, Council.

East Village is a heart-driven project.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the updates from the applicant and from staff. I have a couple of follow-up questions. I just want to make sure I've understood correctly. With the recent changes adopted by council with respect to the DOD, what's the maximum allowable height and density in this area? And I'm going to have the same question just to reconfirm my understanding of the ODP, and I'm just looking at the draft. I didn't get recognized. The ODP hasn't adopted yet.

So under current zoning, what's the maximum allowable?

The current plan.

Can I just ask you then about the, and I recognize the ODP, although it's a public document, so it's for reference, that is going to be contemplated this evening. Under the draft ODP, what is the proposed heights along the Hastings corridor in this area? I'm just looking at a map.

Still 12 stories.

Okay. I'm curious if you can comment on, you just noted in comments that staff struggled with this application and you heard some of the, can you confirm, was there previously a different application with different heights and densities proposed amongst these three sites?

And that was a policy inquiry only. It didn't go any further than that.

19 stories up to 27 stories, correct?

OK, thank you. One other question is, one of the considerations that we have around urban planning is around recognizing areas in high need of resources. I'm looking at a map from the draft ODP. which identifies this area as a high need for resources. Does that include some of the amenities, the public amenities that the public referenced? We had a number of callers identify that as whether it be community center services, other public amenities.

And just for reference, that's an appendix A in the ODPB. The other question I have is just around typically, and with the Vancouver plan work that we've done, we contemplate that higher density developments is linked to rapid transit areas and that generally they're within a 10-minute walk of existing or future rapid transit stations. The closest station I could map was about a 33-minute walk from these sites. Is that accurate?

Okay, so a bit of a deviation from that in terms of the focus right now with the provincial legislation around the TOAs. Correct, yes. Okay. I'll leave my questions there for now, Chair. Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor. Mr. Fry. Just right off the top, I want to focus on the recent memo, which describes the site as well situated in proximity to transit, the R5, and cycling infrastructure, Glen Drive, Raymer Avenue, Francis Street. I'm wondering if I can get some clarity because none of those streets are cycling streets or routes at all. And the R5 is about a kilometer away or a bus stop.

Yeah, I mean, I know that they're not, but okay, go ahead.

So how does one access Raymer with the train tracks there at Grade Crossing? it seems inconsistent with the actual reality of what's going on there. Anyway, in any event, they don't exist now, and there's no clear access to Ramer, so I'm going to question how this even ended up in this memo as describing this as cycling infrastructure, because it's not currently.

So the policy directions report that had come July 2022, and I was here for that, And it did describe 250 feet, 260 feet for the East 2 and East 1. And that was talking about a minimum of 20% social housing on these sites back then in the policy inquiry process. And that was out of sync with the current planning and the ODP planning. How is it that we ended up with such a radical departure and heights that are... comparable to transit-oriented areas in the Broadway plan. This is taller than even the Broadway plan, frankly, with the exception of the TOAs.

And has Real Estate Services reviewed this application pro forma?

Yeah, and this has been reviewed and determined the project does not have the capacity to deliver below market rents on site or any CICs that could contribute.

Hi there, this is Philip Emmett from Real Estate Services.

So by extension, does this mean that any of our Broadway plan rezonings that are coming into 20 stories, that kind of thing, wouldn't pencil out by current estimations as far as your analysis?

I'm about to run out of time, actually, so I'm going to maybe move for a second round, if I may.

Second? All in favor? It carries. Thanks very much, Counselor. Okay, we'll move on to me. So a couple of questions. Thanks very much. Templar, you made some effort to try and describe amenity, future amenity contributions and future amenities for this area. So I want to just do a little bit of a deeper dive, starting off with, likely realization of the this density of this of this housing once it's put in are we talking five years six years I'm just trying to get a timeline roughly that it might being able to because obviously when

that housing is ready, then the people who are living there are going to want to be able to avail themselves of some amenities.

Is it likely that the three unique buildings will be sort of phased in? Is that the intent?

So if you don't mind just unpacking a little bit more the possibility of amenities, given that there's not a lot of land available for... open park space it is surrounded by industrial so it is a bit stark that way for for a community that will have you know you know many new residents how do we meet that challenge how does this realistically become a neighborhood that is walkable pleasant and livable

Okay. I'm going to interpret that a little bit to sound like the amenity is essentially the social housing here, essentially trying to build a brand new community and a new community that has to be livable by the same token and and this project so far has not I mean there are two overarching themes that came through its amenities and people moving essentially so transportation and so but I'm my questions on this one is just what I'm hearing is that room to breathe if you like the move to be able to to attract and build new amenities in here is going to be something that may not immediately follow the development of this new housing

feel like if there was an interesting comparison it would be Marine Gateway that also abutted the industrial land there and has I think more work to do in terms of making outdoor and community amenity space available for that neighborhood

with the big difference being that that's on Canada Line as opposed to this one being.

So if you build it, they will come sort of concept. But okay, my time is up. So I'll just advance to Councillor Zhou. Thanks very much, Templer. Yeah, thanks, Chair. So further question to our staff. I think you mentioned that there might be some additional parking spots considered at DP stage. Do we know how many additional parking spots would be at this stage?

Okay, so because there are almost 1,000 units, only 45 parking spots right now, right? Correct. So are we going to significantly increase parking spots because that's the concern we heard most from the community? Is engineering on the line too? Because to help me make that decision, I need to know roughly how many additional parking spots we're going to have.

OK. Other questions I saw the this proposal has been revealed by the UDP, the urban design panel. And it says, I also checked the meeting minutes. There seems to be a lot of concern from the panelists on UDP. And there will be some further review at UDP stage as well. So can you just summarize, you know, what are the general concerns from the UDP members?

Okay, so in general, the UDP is okay with the density, the height?

If this is passed at the public hearing today, but it is not passed at the UDP for the second review, what happens?

Yeah, I think Councillor Meiszner and Councillor Orr haven't had an opportunity to ask questions yet, so I'll wait.

Okay.

Mr. Meister? Thanks very much. Through the chair to staff. Templer, you mentioned something I wanted more context on. You said it's more challenging to hit the BMR targets on the east side versus the west side. Just looking for more information as to why that would be, given the lower land values.

Okay. Thanks for that context. My other question was around the shelter rate units. So it's a pretty complicated formula that I'm just still trying to get clarity on. But by my rough calculations, it seems that there will be 30 units rented at shelter rate in the new development total. Does that sound correct to staff?

Okay. And is it accurate, I see it in the report, but I just want to confirm it, that the building that burnt down at one of the sites, the Vernon Apartments, had 36 SRO units?

Okay, thanks for that confirmation. Just back to staff, is there any requirement to replace one for one? Because this is obviously less than what was currently on one of the sites.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. That's it for me. You're welcome.

Thanks very much. Councillor O'Rourke.

Yeah, thanks. Councillor Meiszner asked some of my questions, so did Councillor Fry. I did have notes on my desk, but they've been removed. I don't know. where they went, but I did have one question about sort of maybe future access to VCC Clark. I guess that would be the closest SkyTrain, VCC Clark. There's no way to really like go north to access VCC Clark. Is there any sort of future planning around being able to access the SkyTrain station through Strathcona there?

Thanks very much. I have some questions about active transport and transit.

The portion of Hastings through Strathcona, I understood that bus service through there, the 14, the 16 and the 20, are underutilised at the moment and serve local shops in the area. Could someone speak to that?

So you don't have any information about that?

Okay, thanks. And what about active mobility? I mean, I have ridden down Raymer and it seems to be in the very early stages of becoming a bike route, to say the least. What's the timeline? Is that route on the active mobility plan and is it funded to be upgraded any time in the next five to ten years?

Okay. Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks chair and a few follow-up questions I and I know I can't ask the questions the applicant so our staff they could just reconfirm what I thought I heard was that the the Propose the site held by BC housing was transferred to BC housing by the applicants for a dollar something roughly to that or some sort of transaction to that effect

You may not be able to address this fully, but if the way I'm understanding this is, did we ever have any kind of application contemplated just by BC Housing? So they don't have the land costs here. So it's just the capital and then the operations of it. Was there any application there? for the site?

Okay. So it would be fair to extrapolate that effectively the increase in density that's proposed, which is far over and above what's contemplated in existing plans, is effectively to subsidize the social housing for BC Housing. So we're subsidizing the capital build and potentially the operations to achieve the social housing. So the city is subsidizing that through a density giveaway.

Right. And then we've approved a few other applications of late that have been fairly large scale where there's been either more social housing or more community amenities. But the only amenity here, and we've heard there's a huge deficit in the neighborhood, is the social housing. There's no other amenities.

Child care, investment community centers, or anything like that.

Okay. Okay, I'll leave my questions there. Thank you.

Thanks. Councillor Frey. Yeah, so, and just to be clear on that, so many issues. On the affordable, on the number three building and the 157, so 32 of those units are shelter rate and the rest are sort of hills and affordable market, not necessarily below market.

Again, appreciate it.

So when we compare, just looking at comparables, which are typically 20% below market, how does this compare to below market? Because we're apples and oranges as far as the definitions here.

Yeah, I mean, we're talking about hills and affordable rental.

Okay, so we're effectively saying all 157 units are going to be below market Is that a safe comparator?

But normally we would be requesting 20% below market on any other project, typically, of this scale.

So I see some comments in here also about unit size and talking about unit size at DP. And I think this is broadly for all three buildings. Are these smaller than typical unit size? And does that therefore require more heavy lifting from local amenities to support? Is there an equation there?

I mean, I think all three. I saw some comments in there about at DP that there was going to be conversations around some of the unit size and concerns around unit size, maybe.

In any of those buildings? Okay. I'm going to have to go back and look at where I was reading that comment. Is there an expectation, though, that this... local amenities are expected to do you mentioned um it's ray cam community center that was nearby but obviously ray cam community center is grossly underfunded and major need of capital investment doors are locked because they don't have adequate security to protect the kids there so it's not necessarily and seymour elementary obviously is a pretty vulnerable school and consistently we see lots of vulnerabilities around the mapping for this neighborhood and the odp even it talks about this being one of the most vulnerable neighborhoods so i'm curious how much The planning contemplates the community to do heavy lifting to support this kind of level of density.

I was talking about the ODP. Oh, the ODP, sorry. It maps out multiple vulnerabilities in this very specific geographic area.

So there's no assessment of the vulnerabilities in the current...

anyway okay sorry thank you simpler okay thanks very much council fry okay council now make his decision so do we have a mover and a seconder for this item okay second also or thanks very much okay we will now advance the

See if there's any comments from committee here. Council.

Councillor Frye.

Well, I very much struggle with this application. The history, living close by, knowing the multiple vulnerabilities, knowing that the contemplated cycling routes and stuff don't actually connect to, like Raymer is the other side of a train tracks that the feds are asking us to separate. the at-grade crossing. I know that Seymour Elementary and Raycam Community Center, which are both immediately proximate to this, are doing a great deal of heavy lifting with the most vulnerable populations in the city and lack that infrastructure investment. And the scale of this is so out of sync with everything that... that has been contemplated in this part of town that's comparable in heights to significant transit-oriented areas like, I think the closest comparable would be the Broadway Commercial SkyTrain Station or Granville and Broadway SkyTrain Station contemplated. Nowhere have we seen... the degree of 40-story heights. Now, I appreciate that it will deliver 32 units of shelter rate housing and possibly more to be determined affordable housing, but it doesn't seem like it delivers a lot. And I'm certainly cognizant of the hardship that has been claimed for the developers to achieve the performance here. But I also am concerned that we have had pretty clear recent relevant evidence of failures to deliver specific public benefits that were articulated by the auditor general. That was just recently that many of us attended. Specific to this developer, a scan of recent news suggests all sorts of allegations where there may be financial and delivery and governance risks across the portfolio. And so I'm really struggling with approving this. It is a neighborhood I'm incredibly familiar with. It has a number of issues that have not, I think, been adequately addressed, not the least of which is the proximity to the Burrard Inlet line, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe line. And I really worry that this sets expectations for even more density outside of a transit-oriented area with absolutely no commensurate benefits to support a community that's already grossly underfunded when it comes to amenities and green space. So I remain struggling with this, and I'll jump back on as I think about it.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Meiszner.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. Similarly, struggling with this particular application, I wanted to thank all the speakers, including our speakers this morning, for your touching story about your history in the neighbourhood. As mentioned, I've found considering this application to be extremely challenging. Throughout this term, I've been very pro-housing, but I'd like to think that I've always been never housing at any cost. And I fully recognize how challenging it is to develop housing in Vancouver with the market the way it is today. inflation, construction costs. But what's most important to me is that we are elected here in the chamber to make decisions that are in the best interests of all Vancouverites. So I am opposed to the application. I want to be clear that my opposition is not about what the applicant is trying to do here. I think it's laudable, creating new rental homes and also social housing. But I can't support this version of the project because I believe that the ask here, primarily the extraordinary heights and lack of public benefit, it goes way beyond what is permitted. And it's in an area that's not served by rapid transit. This would not be proposed, I don't think, elsewhere in the city in an area where there's no rapid transit. And I... I understand the rapid bus is great, but the rapid bus is not a train. And a 33-minute walk to SkyTrain is too far, in my opinion, for a project of this size. If this project was a more reasonable height, density, or size, and offered more public benefit to the neighborhood, as we've seen with other applications, including similar development in the downtown east side, for example, the recent Army and Navy proposal, I'd be supportive of it. but after listening to all the speakers and reviewing it in detail, I still can't support it. As we learned, the Vancouver ODP envisions 12 stories of mixed use for this site. I think we can do more there, but not nearly 40 stories. As we heard through questions from council to staff, just 32 shelter rate units will be created through this project out of a total of 924 units. That does not strike me as enough of a public benefit. And as we heard from staff this morning as well, through my questions, there was actually 36 SRO units on one of the sites pre-existing that burnt down. So we're not even replacing those one for one. And as mentioned by my councillor colleague, Councillor Fry, the heights and densities being contemplated here are way beyond what's permitted in TOAs or the Broadway plan. Strathcona in the downtown east side is amenity deficient. I think we all recognize that. And the Raykamp Community Center, which is right next to these proposals, is desperately in need of upgrades or replacement. And unfortunately, this proposal doesn't address this longstanding issue in the neighborhood. It also doesn't include any child care spaces or other benefits. So I would encourage the applicant to come back with a new proposal that aligns closer to the ODP and add more public benefit. As it stands now, I believe this proposal is an extraordinary ask, and in doing my due diligence, I'm not able to support it today. Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor. Councillor Domonato.

Yes, thank you, Chair. And like my colleagues, I'd like to thank the applicant, thank our staff and all the speakers. I don't think any of them are here today or many of them. Some of them may be listening online who spoke with respect to this application. A couple of reflections. I've been weighing very carefully what we heard from the residents, what we've heard from the applicant today, as well as during the first meeting, as well as from staff. And you may have heard in some of my questions, one of the things that stood out at the very outset when we were looking at this was two things, the scale and lack of fit with the existing context, but even what's contemplated in the future context. But also, as was asked the last time we met, was... The lack of rapid transit. And those two things stood out for me quite a bit in looking at this. The proposal far exceeds existing zoning plans in terms of height and density. And as was noted by the residents themselves, is the lack of community amenities, whether it be infrastructure that is in dire need of renewal, but also from our own documents, and these are public documents about equity and resilience across the city, this area is identified as areas in high need of resources. And I think you've heard that repeatedly. And, well, I appreciate, like my colleagues, that an element of this proposal is market rental but also social housing. There are no other broader community benefits coming with this. And we have seen, as I noted, other applications, other projects. that achieve that now by no means do I expect that the development community or should be taking on all of that but to my point I raised earlier is so that at this point the project isn't compliant at all in any way near our current plans There's a lack of rapid transit. It's over 30 minutes away by foot. But effectively, if BC Housing, BC Housing hasn't made an application to the city independently, and the land, as I understand, there's no land costs at this time. And so... Effectively, the density, the greater heightened density being offered here by the city is to offset that, is to subsidize BC housing. And I guess what also stood out for me in this application, and again, it's all about timing. It's not bearing on the applicant themselves, but it feels like the cart before the horse. We are about to consider an ODP plan that's been in development for almost four years, and that's coming this evening to a public hearing. and then we're contemplating this application in advance of that. But suffice it to say, I really have landed, and I think Councillor Meiszner really articulated it well, is that Council had given, as staff noted and endorsed at one stage, and I'm sorry I don't have my notes now, but... I think it was somewhere between 19 and 27 stories. Council had initially given that the green light through a pre-inquiry process, and I think that would have been more in line with... What's contemplated, but I think suffice it to say, there is a lack of amenities in this area to support this densification, and also it's not connected in any way to rapid transit, which is ideally what we want to see for mobility purposes. So with that, I won't be supporting the application.

I thank you, Councillor. Councillor Orr.

Yeah, thank you, and thanks for the robust debate on this. Yeah, it seems like we're all kind of struggling with this one. We talk a lot about tradeoffs in council, and I think here the tradeoffs are quite significant. The heights in density here, we're struggling to find a precedent for this. A rezoning precedent at this scale sends a strong signal to the market, I think, which often leads to land value inflation. pressure on surrounding rents unless we capture a fair share of that value for public benefit. I think we need to respect and properly integrate community input and existing planning frameworks like the Downtown Eastside Plan. Any significant rezoning here should reflect priorities identified by residents. This comment struck me. Bundling three sites into a significant site of such outsized density removes Council's ability to consider each of the proposed buildings on their own merits as measured against the requirements for the Downtown Eastside Plan. It effectively constitutes a new urban plan for this small but vital area of industrial land. and would drastically alter its land use without due public consultation and without due regard for the principles of equity and reconciliation that underpin the downtown east side plans. So considering that, considering concerns that my colleagues also have raised around, you know, lack of rapid transit, you know, speakers talking about a sort of lack of parks, grocery stores, post office, you know, that there's no R5 stop at Clark and Hastings. I am loathe to vote against any kind of social housing.

We heard that staff also struggled with this project. But then on the flip side, we heard that it's difficult to build any social housing and that this is unique because it's rental and social housing. So, yeah, again, I'm still struggling with it. So I just wanted to leave it there. Thanks.

Thank you, Counselor. Counselor Joe.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. Yeah, I also want to thank the applicant for submitting this application. Thanks for our city staff for all your works to bring this application to council. Also, thanks for all the speakers. You know, we heard a lot of concerns from the speakers and the community. I think the concerns are real. I don't know how many projects we've been voting on this public hearing in the past three years. But let me tell you, this is the project I'm struggling the most, like all other my colleagues. You know, we need housing. And this is about 1,000 housing units, including social housing units. And it is really good for the local business who are struggling right now because of the economic situation. On the other side, I think the concern from the residents are real. lack of parking, and there's no community. And also, along with my colleagues, asking a lot of questions regarding the plan for transit, for parking, even at the DP stage, and for the future amenity plan, there's no clear answer. So I'm really struggling on this, and I don't know if I have all the information I need to vote either support or or either in favor or against this project. So just to be honest, I just don't know. I like to listen to other councillors on the queue to see their comments, and then they could help me make a decision at the end. Yeah, thanks.

Thanks very much. I'll have to cede the chair to Councillor Domenato. Thanks very much. This project, as you can tell from my council colleagues here, people are wrestling with this a little bit. And I think enough has been said about the experience on the ground of this area, which is not terribly conducive yet to a residential community. That said, the Strathcona neighborhood abuts these developments. There is social housing that is in this area as well. Over time, this potentially could be a very nice, welcoming neighborhood with some of the things that Councillor Orr mentioned, grocery stores, community space. But that is not foreseen currently. And the questions that I posed to staff was that a lot of that may follow, but it's unclear here. Essentially, we're voting for entitlements. for being able to develop this. And part of the reason that we're in this position is because the provincial government has walked away from supporting as much social housing. We know the most recent budget. We heard that community housing funding was being held back, and so cities now are being put in a position of... using density as a way to try and create more affordable housing and shelter-rate housing. And so I think it bears repeating that this is the position that we're being put in because of the actions of the provincial government this time. So this is a really tough one because I would like to see housing built, but at the same time, I'm looking at this... Area and I cannot think of another community that had would have this level of density without having commensurate rapid transit or amenities on the ground so So this is a again a position that I don't think is ideal. We'd love to see housing that is In communities that is well served by rapid transit especially when you're adding this level of density into a neighborhood. So again, this is a difficult decision for me. A few others have stated that they're not sure exactly where they're going to go right now, but I do think that we've had a really good discussion. I want to thank all the speakers. I want to thank staff and the applicant for... for answering our questions and providing some context to this one. But it, again, sort of leaves us feeling a little bit like this is a pushing the boundaries in terms of densification of an area that does not look foreseeably in the next sort of few years ready to take on this level of density. So I'll leave it there in advance, Councillor Maloney, and Councillor Dominette will take the chair back.

Thanks.

Thanks. I am going to do my best to offer some alternative perspectives, appreciating very much the genuine concerns that have been raised by community members and my fellow councillors. But looking at this map and my experience of living in the downtown peninsula, this is a... These sites are extremely close to employment areas, downtown on the east side, Mount Pleasant industrial area and the new St Paul's Hospital. So it is very central and it is unusually low density, this area being so close to downtown. I think that the struggles we're having, I'm not going to put the blame solely on the provincial government, although it's not helping their cutbacks on social housing. But this demonstrates so clearly the house of cards that our economy is built on, that we depend so much on endlessly increasing costs of housing rent costs and property values to fund development charges to pay for our amenities and just the stark limitations that are being shown by the economic slowdown that we're experiencing at the moment.

Pardon me. Sorry, Councillor. I'll just put you back on there. Sorry. Continue on. Sorry.

Sorry. I'm... I am really disappointed that there isn't childcare included in this because really the only way we get substantial new amounts of childcare is by them being included in new developments. I absolutely acknowledge the very true and real concerns about amenities, not enough amenities here. I just think that if we turn down every single development on the basis that there are traffic and parking issues, raised and that there are insufficient amenities, we'd also be turning down every development in the Broadway plan and in many spots in the city. You know, in relation to rapid transit, this does have transit. It does have active transport routes close by and there are large swathes of Yaletown and the West End that have higher density than this that aren't... equally far from rapid transit stations. So for me, it is a benefit to have this much rental housing and this much housing supply and a small portion of... affordable housing, it would be nice if it was more. But there are benefits to people being able to live close to where they work and not having to travel long distances from the suburbs and creating traffic that goes through the neighbourhood. So while I appreciate the very... pertinent questions raised by my council colleagues. I just think that to have a consistent approach to how we're making decisions about density in other areas of the city, I mean, I'm far more open, I think, to... Well, I mean, I know that my council colleagues have expressed that they're still in two minds about what to do, but I'll be voting in favour of this. Thanks. Mr. Frye.

Yeah, and I think actually thanks to all the council colleagues for speaking, and I think Councillor Maloney kind of highlighted a few pieces for me that aren't in this, and that's the Broadway plan is a plan, and we have done a thorough analysis of the amenities and the tradeoffs and the access to rapid transit. And with all due respect, this is not the downtown peninsula. This is outside the downtown peninsula. We haven't contemplated these kind of heights and densities outside the downtown peninsula or outside of immediate transit-oriented areas that have SkyTrain. And where the issue really rubs for me is that this is quite literally one of the most vulnerable communities in the entire city. I used to work at Raycan before I was elected to council. I know how beat down that community center is and how many vulnerable kids it serves and how they're under-resourced. I know that Admiral Seymour Elementary School is so seismically unsafe it doesn't even rate on the lists anymore because it's, I think, for all intents and purposes, considered a teardown, and it's got some of the most vulnerable kids in the city. I know that there's no actual cycling infrastructure that immediately, like Francis Street is the other side of Clark. I don't even know why it's on this list, and Raymer can't be accessed. without crossing an active rail line that is now supposed to be eliminated at grade crossing, thanks to the federal mandate over at grade crossing. So there's so many pieces to this that just don't check. And really what, you know, we do contemplate significant densities and massive changes throughout the city. And I think that that is a reason thing that we contemplate all the parameters and considerations. And I don't think that that's been adequately reflected In this report, and I know it's been on the deck for, you know, since last term when we had the extraordinary application. even before when the Downtown Eastside Local Area Plan contemplated what it would look like as strata developments, and I get that none of those are penciling out, but this is, I think, a dangerous precedent when we start to go into incredibly vulnerable neighborhoods like this and go with massive upzoning without really contemplating what's involved in the trade-offs and who is at risk with that. Oh, and I'm out of time, so sorry. Thanks for the extra.

Okay, I'll also cede the chair to Councillor Domenato. So, Council, I've been sort of listening to what everybody says here. I think there are risks with either decision that we make right here, but I also think that perhaps this project and the applicant might want to consider from what they've heard from Council today. And so I'm going to propose that we refer this, and I'm going to ask if we can take a recess in order to be able to allow me to work on a referral language, if that's okay. So can I ask for about a five-minute recess, please?

Sorry, five-minute recess? Thanks very much. Okay, so Council, a five-minute recess. We'll resume at 11.07.08. Sorry, 11.08. Thanks very much.

Okay, I guess we'll start again. Councillor Claassen, do you have something that you have to submit to the clerks?

Thanks very much, Mayor. Yeah, I've actually sent an update to my referral motion, and so if staff could just bring up the most recent one that I just sent on the screen for Council to see.

If we can move to Amendment Q, Councillor Claassen, and do we have a seconder?

Go.

Councillor Frye, thank you very much. Thanks very much. Thanks, Councillor Frye. So this is a project that obviously has had some very thoughtful debate and discussion. You know, I'm really hearing from my colleagues here. Councillor Fry, who lives in the community, knows this area well. There are things that the project itself has many great qualities to it, but it also has, there's been some concerns raised about its connectivity to the existing community, concerns around... child care and community amenities. So rather than defeat this, I would love this to be able to go back for a little bit more work. So I'm asking for the support of my councillor colleagues to support a referral. The referral is that council refer this application back to study options and considerations related to parking availability. and child care provision and other matters related to local amenities. The applicant should be included in discussion necessitating future consideration by council. As was stated, this is an area that is very close to our downtown. We have the new St. Paul's Hospital District that is going to be opening in 2027, this area. Housing is going to be imperative for this area, and I do think that As mentioned before, it does have a closeness to Strathcona, but there's obviously still some work to be done. So with that, I'll leave it to my council colleagues to debate this. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Maloney.

Can I ask staff a question through the chair, please? Okay. I would like to know if this is referred back for further work, what is the likelihood, if you can tell me, I don't know if you know, that it will retain its senior government funding, like if it had six months further work or four months further work?

Okay. All right. I thought I'd give it a go. Thank you. So I'm troubled. I mean, it looks like what we've got here is that this either it'll be referred or it would be voted down by council and not go anywhere. But I guess what I'm very concerned about is that I can't really see what further work could take place without it being rendered unviable and never get You know, I heard a lot yesterday at an event about how you can't live in an approval. And, you know, so that's what I'm struggling with. I mean, I've made my thoughts pretty clear about the benefits of going ahead with this. So that's what I'm struggling with in terms of approving voting in favour of this referral. But I'll be interested to hear my colleagues' thoughts.

Thank you, Councillor Domenato.

Thank you, Mayor. And through you to the mover of the referral, I just have a quick question of clarification. The rationale for the referral is to study options considerations around parking availability, child care provision, and other local amenities. I'm just curious if in referring this back to staff, you're also contemplating that there'll be a discussion around the scale and density in light of the fact that I think many councillors raise there's no rapid transit in this area. It's not just about community amenities, but it's not just the current context, but future context. Is that something you're contemplating and referring this back? It's not named, but I...

Thanks, Councillor. I don't think that this is an attempt to pay poor over those concerns. I would think that because of what has been stated by Council here, that we've very well articulated our concerns around this one. It's up to...

the applicant working with staff to come back with painting a future vision for this project that will address those concerns, or at least many of them. That's my hope.

Thank you. Councillor Meiszner. Yeah, I had the same question, and I'm just wondering if perhaps there needs to be some additional language around heights and densities and building forms. So I'm just going to amend the referral. So I'll just need a moment for that. Okay.

If I can get you to the amendment Q2. I sent it in.

It might take a minute to arrive. But I'm supportive of the referral in principle because... As I mentioned, while I have concerns around the heights of densities proposed here and the, you know, minor amount of public benefit of this proposal, given it's over 900 units, I do not necessarily – I don't want to see nothing happen here is what I'm trying to say. This neighborhood – does need new housing, new rental housing. This neighborhood does need revitalization. But I maintain that I think that the proposal needs to offer much more public benefit for it to be approved by council, in my opinion. So that's my amendment to the amendment, and you should have that.

So we have a seconder. Councillor Orr. Yeah, thanks. I was also working on something I sent it in kind of at the exact same time. That's okay. It's a little differently worded. It just says instead of heights, densities, it said scale instead of heights, density, and building forms, and deeper affordability. So I was wondering if you'd be amendable to amending just to include deeper affordability here. Okay, so I'm not sure how that works. Yes.

It would be an amendment to the amendment to the amendment.

I'll wait until it comes up.

Does that all make sense?

Great. And that passes unanimously. Okay. So we're going to go back to the amendment queue. Councillor Orr, any other comments? No, that's it. Okay.

Seeing no one else in the queue, we will put... Great. Oh, sorry, that just popped up. Councillor Maloney.

I just want to clarify that I really do think that rental housing is a benefit to the community and it would benefit this community and I'm pretty concerned about that requiring further modifications of this may make it less likely that it precedes So that's my concern. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Councillor Meiszner.

Yeah, just wanted to follow up on my colleague's comments. I understand the concern, but I mentioned in my comments previously that... We need housing, but it can't be housing at any cost. And I think this is a thoughtful approach. Instead of, you know, killing the project, sending it back to staff and having the applicant come back with something that is going to respond better to the community's needs. And I think we've heard clearly in the council chamber here some of the amenity challenges in this neighbourhood. and also that a project of this size and scale needs to deliver more community benefits. So I'm happy with where this landed, and I'm happy to support the referral back. And looking forward to seeing an improved project come back to Council for our consideration. Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, we will bring the amendment as amended twice.

And that passes with Councillor Maloney abstaining. Okay, so that completes item number one.

Thank you, everyone.

So the next item is item number five, correct?

Report number five, I should say.

Okay.

Thank you. Okay, so report number five, the 2026 Community Services and Other Social Grants and One Cultural Grant. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anybody wish to declare a conflict? Okay, seeing no one in the queue, no one putting their hands up, this item does not have a team member presentation. Council, you have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members.

I do not see anyone in the main queue. Last chance. Okay, we're going to now hear from registered speakers for this report. Public speakers should state whether they are in support or opposition of the recommendations and may only speak once. I will also ask speakers if they are residents of Vancouver if it is not noted on the speakers list. Our first speaker is Ingrid Figueroa.

Ingrid, is Ingrid on the line? Speaker 1 is not on the line. Okay. Speaker number 2, Mariette Gibril?

Speaker number 3, Grace Nombrado.

Hi, please go ahead.

so James I apologize we're at time thank you for speaking and thank you for the work that you're doing okay so that that's the speaker twos back online okay so we'll go back to speaker to Mariette Jabril Mariette are you there

are working every day to strengthen mental awareness belonging community resilience in vancouver thank you for your time and for your commitment to the well-being of our feeding thank you great thank you very much and so uh that's the end of our speakers list and i would like to thank everyone for speaking to council uh would someone like to move a motion okay i think that was counselor class and seconded by a counselor kirby young council is there any discussion counselor fry

Yeah, so just following up on the comments from Grace Nombrado from Free the Fern Society, I'm wondering if a chair through you I can – oh, my gosh, where did the chair go? Oh, there it is. If I could ask a question of staff through you. That's okay. No, I was like – I thought you were – I'm wondering if I could, through you, ask a question of staff on the gap with the Free the Fern-Champlain Heights trails, which was a council commitment to support. And how did this get missed in the review?

And is there an alternate funding mechanism to fund that work as per council's direction?

So you're saying that this is ineligible through this granting stream because it's...

Right, so I guess given the context that it was unanimously approved by council to provide additional support to this organization to do this specific work, is it possible for us to amend this report? I KNOW THAT IT'S A FINITE AMOUNT OF MONEY, BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO A RELATIVELY SMALL ASK TO SUSTAIN THAT WORK AND MEET THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION.

So in plain language, you're saying we would have to specifically and explicitly defund one organization to...

So next tranche, you're saying?

Okay, thank you.

That's perfect. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Zhou. Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Also having the similar question as Councillor Fry regarding the Free the Firm Society. So as the motion passed unanimously, so there's a Resolution C, staff engage with the Free the Firm Stewardship Society to support this stewardship work on the Champlain Head Trail networks. So have staff, you know, Any engagement with the society and what exactly what specific we have done to support a society Understanding is a unanimous support from council for that motion Thank you.

Okay, so other than this grant in this existing report, any other grants that society is eligible to apply to support? Because $30,000 is very important for their day-to-day operations. Any other support, operational grants we can support them?

Okay, so I heard there's also a green initiative grant, something like that, under the engineering department. Are they eligible to receive that grant? I'm not sure if you are aware of that.

Okay.

It's under the engineering department, I think.

Okay. And also, have we provided any reasoning why they haven't received this grant, this run of the grant? Have we ever had any engagement explaining them, help them better apply the grant next time?

When did we connect with the organization?

Last Friday. Okay. All right. Thanks. That's all.

Thank you very much, Councillor Fry.

I'm just preparing a quick amendment, Mayor.

Seeing there's no other speakers, I submitted an amendment. Can you just go to the amendment queue?

Thank you. And as Mayor will recall, describing running around Champlain Heights Forest Trails as a young Ken Sim, playing forts and sticks and whatnot. We do unanimously support this work to... enhance the trail network. And I hope to hear about future capital investments in that. But in the meantime, the work that engages youth and elders and indigenous folk in land stewardship and understanding the the context there and of course removing invasive weeds and and that kind of thing so uh the amendment here is responding to the resolution and i have spoken to the free the firm folks and they uh said that the the grant request was thirty thousand dollars which um i think could probably be supported within this grant funding envelope uh so responding to the resolution unanimously approved by council october 2025 protecting the champlain heights forest trail network for future generations and residents Council direct community services and other social grants to award one $30,000 grant to support complimentary resident-led stewardship of the Champlain Heights Trail Network.

Yeah, I'd like to second, Mayor. Great. Councillor Kirby Young.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Speaking to the amendment, I think it's problematic on a number of levels. And I'll preface my comments by saying that, yes, we all support it in the Champlain Heights Forest Trail Network. And in fact, on the report that council's considering later today with respects to prioritizing work on council motions, that is identified as a priority and work that's continuing on that. So I think there's more to come there. I think, first of all, and, you know, Council Friar and I have sat on council together for two terms now and have often heard from speakers that sometimes folks are disappointed they haven't received a grant. And we know that in order to make changes on the fly, we're, first of all, I don't think giving sort of full weight to the process that staff undertake. There's an adjudication process that often happens. Staff can confirm with this one. If that's the case, and I'm getting nods that we bring in sort of sector-specific adjudicators that provide an additional level of insight and oversight with respect to ensuring people meet grant criteria. There are some organizations in here that I think are more worthy than others. There's some that I wouldn't fund. There's some that I think should get more. If we start adjudicating each one, I think it's a dangerous precedent, and I have not seen us really do this before. I also think the language in this amendment is problematic. It's not suggesting that they be redirected towards an environmental stream. It's not suggesting a source of funding. The language it says here directs the department to award a grant. What type of grant? coming from where uh which stream so i i think that from a governance perspective while i'm very empathetic i think that the big win uh for free the fern and their incredible advocacy was the fact that there is a deep commitment uh with that was unanimous by council support the forest trail network and i'm looking forward to seeing some of that information that comes forward there's other opportunities there's things like we've got a graffiti report here around cleanup programs there's all sorts of other initiatives i think that council or staff i should say really do pay attention to the dialogue around the table here and can take that away and have a conversation with free the ferns and look at potentially options and things and ways to direct them perhaps they can work and do something in terms of a community engagement with the park board you know that would be another avenue is to look at doing sort of community initiatives and cleanups perhaps there's a park board opportunity there because really a lot of the trail network and around in and around so the Champlain Heights here in the community center does overlap sort of with park board jurisdiction so I just think that this is not the most strategic I can use that term approach and how to how to sort of direct it I think it's reactionary to perhaps well-intentioned but I think it opens up a number of issues and if we're going to start adjudicating them then I think we could get into a whole lot of how do we justify this versus another speaker that we heard from for example I just think they're so it opens up a whole number of issues and concerns so I'm not going to support this the way this is framed thank you counselor dominato

Thanks, Mayor. Through you, I have a question to staff, and then I have a question to the mover of the amendment. To staff, could you clarify that with this amendment that it would require two-thirds council support being a proposed grant? Can you just confirm that?

Okay, so two-thirds is required. Okay, thank you. And then to the mover of the amendment, Councillor Frey, could you just comment on, based on your conversations with Free the Firm, what the $30,000 grant would be used towards?

Good question. I cannot clarify.

Good question. I can't specifically quantify what the 30,000, that was just the number that they had brought forward. I will say that the conversation that they related to me was that staff were unaware of council's support of the motion at the time of their conversation just on the weekend. Prior to the weekend, the staff directly involved in the grant process were unaware of the council's unanimous support for the original motion to support this work, so there may have been a communication breakdown.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Frey. And then, Mayor, one more question through you to Councillor Zhou. Councillor Zhou, you seem to be indicating that you had an answer to my question around what the intended use of the $30,000 would be. Could you comment on that?

Yes, I can quickly comment on that. We had a meeting with Grace. I asked Grace to send me a breakdown of all the grants they requested with other details there. They actually request $50,000, so including $34,000 for a part-time staff members. The rest will be all about supplies, plants, soil, and some workshop hosting, accessibility, and some knowledge sharing. And also there's some equipment, some other supplies as well. So that's the breakdown. They were asking actually even more. And this amendment is only providing $30,000.

So it's a portion of what they requested for part-time staff to help with manage the trail network.

Yes, that's right. And I did participate in one of their events with Councillor Maloney. I think they were able to bring a lot of community members together to support that Champlain Trail. It's a very good community engagement organization as well.

Okay, thank you. And thank you, Mayor, that's all my questions.

Thank you.

Before we go to the next councillor, just looking at the time, does someone want to move a motion to extend to complete the business of this item? Councillor Domonato, seconded by Councillor Meiszner. Any conversation? Okay. All in favour say yay. All opposed say nay. Great. We will finish item number five. Thank you very much, Councillor Maloney.

I had a question through you to staff. Is the Free the Fern area in Park Board jurisdiction or not?

Because I'm just referring to the comments by Councillor Kirby-Young that it might be better placed to explore funding through the park board, but how would that work?

Yeah, maybe Councillor Kirby Young could make another comment about this. I'll jump off.

Thank you. Councillor Jewell.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. So also quickly comment that my understanding is the Champlain Head Trail is within engineering department's jurisdiction. So all engineering department within the city, they does all the regular maintenance work for that trail. It's not under park board's jurisdiction. So that was the reason why that motion passed in the fall last year to ask explore considerations for our permanent park destinations. That's why, you know, I think the organization reached out to the park board, but they said it's not within their jurisdiction. So they have to receive some support from other departments within the city. So just want to clarify that. Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you. Councillor Kirby Young.

Yeah, my comment, and I recognize the jurisdiction, is that the park board has done different cleanup initiatives, for example, such as in Everett Crowley Park, in and around, working with different resident groups in the neighborhood. So not knowing, since council doesn't have fulsome information in front of us, what they wanted the funding for, we're just hearing anecdotally from The council are proposing the amendment and from another council who have had a meeting. And I know that a lot of the efforts are around cleanup. Now we're hearing it's for staff. A lot of this is third-hand. I'll say this is very unorthodox because council are suggesting we're going on sort of anecdotal information from two councils that they want to hire staff to do it. I was operating off of some of the work that we've heard from my comment was made that Free the Ferns has done in terms of doing other work and having volunteer events and cleanups and knowing that the park board's done some in and around the area in Champlain Heights and Everett Crowley. But I think the fact that we're having this discussion actually highlights the nature of this issue. I just think that this is very poor governance. I think that Free the Ferns is an admirable organization. organization I don't think this is a way to do it and I think the staff can have follow-up conversations with them about opportunities hearing this robust conversation without $30,000 for something we're not sure what it's for and if it would make sense and that's the best bang for the buck to hire a part-time coordinator versus other things I don't know at this point because I don't have the information and I just think that this is a this is a I think it's very it's poor governance and I think if I was another grant applicant thinking I would just come and sign up to speak to council and hope that a councillor is going to put an amendment down and it invalidates our granting process in the the external third party adjudication that we do thank you thank you very much Councillor Maloney um I am very appreciative of both the amendment and the the concerns raised um by Councillor Kirby-Young can I ask another question um of staff

And I'm sorry, we've got a lot on today and I apologise if you've already explained this. But can you just talk to me again about near-term opportunities for us to provide this financial support to make sure that the work of Free the Fern can continue given that we all want it to?

Is that all? Yep. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, we can put Councillor Fry's amendment to a vote.

And that fails with myself, Councillor Kirby-Young, Councillor Montague, and Councillor Klassen in opposition.

Okay, I stand corrected. That passes with myself, Councillor Kirby-Young, Councillor Montague, and Councillor Klassen in opposition. Okay. So we will go back. Thank you very much. We will go back to main report. Seeing no one in the queue. Oh, Councillor Fry, did you have any other comments?

Pursuant to the question that was asked earlier, does a grant not require a two-thirds vote of all council members, i.e. eight votes? So is that not below the threshold?

Yeah, with respect to the grants.

I'd like to follow up and challenge that. This is not a simple amendment. This is an award of a grant. It specifically says it has an amount, an organization, and it uses the language of a grant. So I don't know if we need a recess for staff to take time to that. We heard clearly from our director of ACCS that this is a grant, and all grants require a two-thirds vote of all sitting council members. In this case, that would be eight. I challenge that.

So if we can have a five-minute recess.

I can skip over you. Thank you. Councillor Kirby Young?

Yes, sir. Can we get clarification on the amendment? It stands, and if it does, then I'm going to request a sever on the final vote. And then my understanding is that that will require two-thirds at that point.

Okay, and so if we can go, I don't see anyone else in the queue here. So if we can go to the voting panel and we will first vote on the severed portion of report number five.

And that does not pass with... myself, Councillor Kirby-Young, Councillor Montague, and Councillor Klassen in opposition, and Councillors Meisner and Maloney abstaining. Okay, so now we'll vote on the rest of report number five.

And that passes with Councillor Montague in opposition.

On the policy around permissive tax exemptions, I know it's not covered immediately in this, but I'm just curious. I've been doing a little bit of research into permissive tax exemptions, and do we have a standing policy going back about 20 years that prevents us from pursuing permissive tax exemptions beyond heritage?

Okay, yeah, because the gist of my curiosity is that this seems like a dated policy that may be an opportunity for revisiting the idea of permissive tax exemptions that were allowed under the Vancouver Charter.

I SEE COLIN HOVERING.

Okay, and on the development relief program, I know it's a five-year limit, and we probably are getting pretty close to that five-year limit on a few of the exemptions. Do we anticipate what that looks like when suddenly we go from subsidy to no subsidy for some of these? Are those conversations active with?

Yeah, I think mostly it's around allowing those rate payers to insulate themselves against the shock of what might be coming.

Communicating that to them so that they're aware that...

Yeah, thanks, man. Just a couple of quick questions. I saw the number of property has been decreasing since 2023. Eligible for the program has been decreasing consistently. So is there any plan in the future, the fifth year or whatever, we can expand the criteria so we allow more property to be eligible?

Nothing can do.

We can change to 90% or something. That's just a provincial requirement.

Okay, thanks. Last question. So the program is to make sure that if the landlord received a... the discount for the property tax. They will transfer that to the renter for the business so there will be some decrease for their rent. Have we do any analysis to see if actually this pass on to the renter of the benefit?

Do we know how many percentage actually passed out to their tenants?

Okay. Yeah, okay.

That's not a question.

No.

I'm now going to call the vote. So.

Great. And that passes unanimously. Thank you very much.

Okay, moving right along. Item number seven, outstanding council motions update. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to disclose it. Seeing no one's hand is up, I'm just going to move along. This item does not have a team member presentation. Council, you'll have up to five minutes to ask team members questions.

I'll go first.

This is a question directed to our team.

Thank you very much. And I know we asked you to do a lot of work on one of the motions, but can city staff confirm that in their analysis and discussions with the province, we as a municipality do not have the regulatory authority to hold Bitcoin. Is that correct?

Thank you very much. Councillor Kirby Young.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I'll go back on after I see Councillor Maloney's there. I'll go after. Thanks.

Councillor Maloney?

Thanks. I've got a question about the truckside guard motion. I'm interested to know the exact number and percentage of the city's fleet that's had this retrofit in the last three and a half years since this motion was passed. You know, a cost estimate is the remainder and an explanation for why this simple life-saving intervention is proposed to be stopped.

Is there a plan to... buy trucks with sideguards as the fleet is replaced, turned over?

And given that this, if this is passed, we stop work on the member motion, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that potential funding exist at all, let alone that it will be put towards other road safety measures?

Thanks. I'm going to hop off for now because I might want to move an amendment.

Thanks. Councillor Blay.

Sorry about that. Just coming off mute. Thanks very much. I appreciate the answers to Councillor Maloney's questions. I'm curious about... What happens with the advocacy element of this motion related to the side guards? There was the city-owned fleet component, but it also extended to traffic planning, transportation planning, generally speaking. So that's not any sort of expenditure on upgrades to our city fleet, but more in terms of how we're traffic planning and high-risk intersections. And then also the advocacy. both through Transport Canada and also the Federal Minister of Transport.

OK, I'll just move along and maybe appreciate that update. I don't agree. I think there is significant evidence that there was an event that proved it to be a high risk, but as particularly in such an urban centers. But we can take that offline for now. I just have a question around process. So. If there's a preference to sever out some motions that have been recommended to stop work or refer in the appendix, what is the process to pull those motions? Specifically, I'm interested in pulling the motion around the safety upgrades on Cornwall, the Granville Bridge suicide prevention barriers and the truck side guards.

I don't want to alter them. I want to vote separately on them.

Thanks.

Okay, so just submit that as an amendment? Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all for me.

Thank you, Councillor Maloney.

Yeah, thank you. I'm... I'm going to ask for an amendment queue, which I'm just going to send through. Sure.

Yep.

I have a point of procedure, or a point of order, is that we don't have it moved. We have two speakers from the public, and this hasn't been moved or seconded, so we are not at the point of proceedings where we can table amendments.

Thank you very much. Okay. Councillor Maloney, so you'll hold off on that? Yes. Councillor Frye?

Yeah, I was hoping for some clarity around the means prevention barriers on the Granville Street Bridge. I mean, we've heard time and time again that this is a pretty pressing issue, and it seems that we are spending money on the Granville Bridge rehabilitation now, and I'm curious if there's not room to move forward on this in a meaningful way, because I hate to think that we're not prioritizing this.

Okay, but we're definitively saying that this is the two-thirds senior government funding that is getting in the way of this?

Okay, okay. Totally shifting to a different item altogether. I'm curious about item number 23, the expanding ownership options for laneway and backyard homes. In particular, as we're contemplating this sort of ODP coming forward, where this would seemingly be a part of what we could imagine in some of these single family home zones that are framed out in the ODP. I'm curious if we're... We're missing a big opportunity here to achieve some missing middle housing that has been articulated for, and if this could be reconsidered.

those deliverables by mid-2026 and then proceed with the full suite of review around r11 or multiplex related motions including this one shortly thereafter so i realized jumping into maybe some gray area as far as the public hearing that's before us with the odp and and where this um i appreciate it's an interim odp so It doesn't necessarily preclude this from being on the table sooner than later.

And just to be... These may be questions for later, but the ODP amendment's not going to require provincial assent or anything like that. That's entirely on us that we can... Correct. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Councillor Orr? Yeah, just a more high-level thing.

Okay, and is there, I know there's not one specific reason, but is there a lot of this, I see a lot of reprioritization of staff resources. This is in response to sort of the recent budget.

I see, I see. And then just a quick question on 17. What is exactly staffing recommends exploring potential for a public event? Could you just read out the name? I don't have the report. Unlocking community potential, collaborating with faith-based groups for affordable housing and social impact in Vancouver. And it's for, and then it's, yeah.

Thank you, Councillor Domenato.

Thank you. My questions are for Jimmy. I wanted to ask and just clarify what I think I understand here is just with the protecting people on Cornwall Avenue, it was the direction of this council to address some of the safety concerns there. Speed limit reductions have been implemented along Cornwall. I noticed that last time I was driving there. But I did note here that work is being prioritized through the city's Vision Zero strategy. So could you just comment on that? Because I think there's a misunderstanding in the public that we aren't continuing safety measures. But what I'm seeing here is indeed it is.

Can you just comment on that more?

Okay. Okay, so it's still ongoing and being studied. And then, sorry, could you just clarify, when is the renewed Vision Zero strategy coming to Council?

Mid-year this year?

Okay, so just a couple of months away. Yeah. Okay, thank you. My other question is for you as well. Sorry, don't go, Jimmy. Just around the... Oh, sorry, I lost my spot here. On the means prevention fencing, I noted in the update here that we have a consultant in place doing the conceptual design and we're costing, we committed funding for that. What's the timeline for that consultant report to come back to council?

Can we get clarification before the end of the meeting as to whether, like, several years seems a long time for a study. Yeah, I can get the answer. Advocacy for the funding, and I think that's... So if we could get an answer on the time frame of the consultant's report, I'd appreciate that. And then I wanted to ask... Sorry, just bear with me.

Um...

I'll leave it there, actually. But yeah, if we could get that before we conclude this item. Sure. Thank you.

Councillor Frye.

Yeah. So one of the items I don't see in here is from December, 2023, the motion from the mayor amendments to the Vancouver charter, which was to eliminate the park board. Is that no longer a priority on the.

Thank you very much. Okay, so we're now going to hear from registered speakers to this report. Public speakers should state whether they are in support or opposition of the recommendations and may only speak once. And I will also ask speakers if they're residents of Vancouver, if it's not so noted on the speakers list. So our first public speaker is Matthew Thiessen.

And thank you very much for coming in. Our next public speaker is speaker number two, Adam Hawk.

Okay. Okay, so that is the end of our speakers list. And once again, Matthew, thank you very much for coming in. Um, and speaking to council, would someone like to move a motion?

Okay.

Second. Perfect. Um, council, is there any, uh, discussion, uh, counselor Kirby young.

Sorry.

I'll wait.

Okay. Okay.

And I will go next. And so I have to see the chair. Thank you very much. Okay. I'm just going to make my comment pretty brief, actually. Thank you very much for, first of all, I want to acknowledge the team's work that they've done on researching Bitcoin and what we can and cannot do. And the effort is very much appreciated. It's leading-edge stuff, so thanks. But this council was elected with a clear mandate to focus on back-to-basics budgeting and the essential services that fall within our jurisdiction. And for that reason, I will be supporting pausing this work and redirecting our team members' capacity towards priorities that will deliver more immediate value for the residents of Vancouver. So thank you. Councillor Bligh.

Thanks very much, Mayor. Can you hear me okay? Yeah, I've submitted an amendment.

Okay, I'm going to move you to the amendment queue.

Great, thank you. The amendment is pretty straightforward, and it's drafted in a way that avoids sort of components of work that's being scaled back or moving forward or what's been done just to sort of... move the identified items from Appendix B to Appendix A so that work continues in whatever stage it can do without sort of being not deprioritized, but seems to, I think what we've heard from staff is that some components are happening, some are not. I just like to keep these on the current motion plan in terms of prioritizing what I think are... important public safety infrastructure motions that have come through and they've come through the Vision Zero work. A number of them, not all of them. So it's highlighting the requirement for the side guards. I think that advocacy work is ongoing. It is something that I think we can show some leadership on. That isn't just unique to Vancouver and particularly around the advocacy. I think that we have a priority or a responsibility to continue to look at Cornwall Avenue, particularly around the new configuration of the Henry Hudson School. And there are a number of ongoing concerns there in terms of traffic safety. And so I think it sends the wrong message to to. not have a motion related to that sort of thoroughfare east-west connector in terms of not just the speed limit, but also the other ways that we can traffic calm that area. And also new pedestrian crossing, I think, is a priority where the school gate opens. And we've highlighted that already. So I just think we need to keep this one as a priority and an appendix A. And same with the Granville Street Bridge. We obviously have done a tremendous amount of work on the bridge itself that I think it's still a major concern. And similarly, with the faith based groups for affordable housing, there has been a lot of movement in regionally and across the country in terms of formalizing more of the opportunity. And I think that the Metro Vancouver. A faith-based alliance is ready to lean in more. And so we should not be sending the message that this is no longer a priority. And I don't want to relitigate each motion, but I'd just like to have these put back on Appendix A as a way to both send a signal to many of the community groups that have been working hard on these motions, but also to our staff and our work plan to keep these. current and make sure that the updates continue to come in to council in the coming months. So I'll leave it there on the amendment.

Thank you very much, Councillor Maloney.

I'd like to second this amendment and then I'll speak to it.

That's the normal procedure, though.

Mayor, can we just follow the normal procedure?

Yeah, so I think, you know, when you... Sorry, clerk, just...

I think the clerk just needs to put Councillor Maloney back on and she can just continue and complete her.

Yeah, so once you're on the queue, you just... I think that the conversation...

So the conversation is, can you just put yourself on cue and then just jump and then... Maybe I can clarify a point of procedure if I might, Mayor, is that when a counselor says, I'd like to second the amendment and speak to it, and they still have the floor, we should not take them off the cue. We should just let them finish. That's all that happened there. So we just need to put Counselor Maloney back on the cue and let her complete her piece for normal procedure.

Mayor, just from a point of procedure, I appreciate I'm virtual. What I heard is that Councillor Maloney seconded and will speak to it when she's ready. And it's her entitled right to come off the list.

Chair, we also have to be on the queue for point of procedure. I was when I brought it up. Councillor Bligh is not. And other councillors are ahead of her. As I know, Councillor Bligh knows.

Just want to make sure our new councillor, not new, but may not.

Okay, sorry, Councillor Blighth, if you want to make a comment, if you can just please get on the queue.

Thank you. I appreciate Councillor Blighth moving this amendment and, in fact, it covers the areas of concern I had, so I'm quite happy to just go with this one. I absolutely support it and...

The clerk also brought to our attention that Karen sent an email to all councillors in response to the question asked on the floor. Jimmy indicates that the Granville Bridge means prevention fencing studies target completion date is Q2 2027. So with that, Councillor Montague.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I'll be brief. I think there are motions in here that we each have an interest in, every single one of us. I think there is – and there's something on this list that – they all have arguably have some level of merit to them. But this isn't about deprioritizing this work. It's about being realistic. It's about coordinating work. It's about pausing some of it, not just shelving it. It's about avoiding duplication. It's about capacity issues. And I think staff have actually given some very logical and realistic... rationale for why they're making these recommendations. And I appreciate staff actually coming to us officially rather than what used to go on and just quietly shelve motions. We actually are getting rationale and reasoning and being told very transparently that some things are just going to have to be either put on pause or be put in place with other work. Like I said, I think we all have a vested interest in one or two or multiple motions that are on this list. But I think we need to listen to staff and really think about what's realistic, what can be done with other work that's ongoing already.

Listen to the capacity issues. and just follow the recommendations. So I'm going to, while I sympathize with, and I understand this amendment, I'm going to vote in opposition of it. I'm actually going to vote in opposition of any amendment that comes forward that cherry picks motions out, because I think all 10 of us or all 11 of us could cherry pick a couple of motions and just have all these things back on the plates of our staff, which is, just a waste of everybody's time. So I'm going to follow the staff recommendation. I'm going to oppose this amendment. I'm going to oppose every amendment that comes forward. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Dominato.

Thank you, Mayor. Just speaking to the amendment, I just want to reflect a couple of things that I heard. Appreciating that Council did move, I think it might have been Councillor Klassen, a motion around the protecting people on Cornwall Avenue. and appreciate that staff have implemented a number of measures related to that. Wanting to acknowledge, as we have with many intersections and streets across the city, there continue to be demands for changes, whether it be zebra lines, pedestrian crossings, LPIs. speed humps and so on and what I heard very clearly is that staff are coming back in just a few months time with a renewed vision zero strategy with respect to safety measures and they're looking to integrate this as part of all of that work and to look at the city holistically and so Maybe Council has heard things differently, but I did not hear that this work isn't continuing. I indeed heard it was continuing and part of the broader strategy, which we all endorsed. And then with respect to the means prevention fencing, I have continued and continue to advocate for this. I've had a number of conversations with the Granville Council. the Granville Island community and others. And what I would like, I was asking about the timeline, which I appreciate, Mayor, that you daylighted that, is that the consultant report will be coming back in Q2 2027. I think that there is an opportunity there once we have that report. to reinforce our advocacy. And I certainly take this offline with the mayor as well, but around with the provincial government. And we'll have a clear costing of what's necessary for that work. But I want to clearly indicate this is still a priority and it continues to be embedded there. But look forward to that report coming back to council. So again, just trying to make sure that there's, I think there's been some misunderstandings around some of the work taking place. So I just wanted to daylight that as well. Thank you.

Thanks, Mayor. I've been on council for my second term now, and I think I had to sort of really read through this report carefully because I hadn't seen one come forward previously for some of the earlier questions that were asked. I actually do think that this is a positive step in terms of daylighting for the public, the status of specific projects and motions. It used to be... a bit of a black hole. And if you're a council, you're trying to find it, you are sending in inquiries to staff or interested members and stakeholder groups who are asking where is something at. And I think what this does is sort of lay out the status and sort of this intended sequencing of the work. And I think that's how I'm reading this report. The city has a lot of ongoing work. I think if report references, there was 181 motions are brought forward between 2018 and 2025, that is a significant number. So it seems sort of incumbent to sort of put some prioritization around the work. I think it's important to recognize, too, and to clarify that something being Appendix B does not mean it is not happening. It may mean that it is the proposed execution is changing it's being pulled into other additional work that is happening so that things can be sort of brought together holistically and or there's a recognition of where the city can be most effective so to that point I know on some of the discussion points that were raised particularly around really important topics like the suicide prevention fencing. It says very clearly that the funding has advanced to create the conceptual design, as was mentioned. This will give us a sense of what a cost would look like and allow that advocacy to happen to the province. Similarly, with sidecars and trucks, it recognizes that if that's going to have widespread impact, that's provincial and federal jurisdiction to change legislation. It's not something that the city can do. So I think what it's trying to do is to provide clear and transparent information around where and when the city can advance some of this work and play a role in that. And that's what I see here. I appreciated the question from Councillor Fry, who asked about the affordable, the options for stratification and layaway housing, which is a motion from Councillor Klassen and myself. And I thought, oh, no, that's in Appendix B. I wish it was there earlier. I'm happy some of the work on single egress stairs is there. But I also recognize that we are subject, we are trying to work through at OCP and our housing staff have an unprecedented level of work with respects to dealing with TOA designations. And as we often hear, it's not always a question of budget. It's a question of bandwidth and capacity in the staff who have expertise in specific areas and their ability to do the work. So So I think in simple terms, it's really important to kind of just walk through what Appendix A and B means. B doesn't mean cancel. It might mean that it's being, as I said, aligned with something else. It might mean the city is zeroing in on where it can be effective. It might mean that work is being sequenced in terms of timing. Things like the pet-friendly advocacy piece, I think, which was brought up by our first speaker, wrapping that into the TRPP. There's a question around when is that happening. Well, now it's very clear for the public that work is commencing in Q4 2026, and there will be some parameters and information around that. What that consultation process is like and how people can participate and blend their great input and expertise so I I think it's not there's no easy task to do all the regular work of the city and to kind of Wrestle and rally all the counselor motion so I actually appreciate the initiative from staff coming forward and I'm not gonna get into sort of cherry-picking them back and forth similarly on the bus priority work Which I'm very passionate about There's a reference that we're going to do the first four corridors, moving forward on those as quickly as possible, and we're waiting for translate funding. And I have every confidence when translate funding is ready for that, then our staff will jump on that opportunity and be ready to go. So I do think, like, you know, providing some, having a bit of perspective around what this report means is probably very helpful for everybody. So I just wanted to make those observations. Thanks.

Thank you. Councillor Frye.

I appreciate all the comments around this. In particular, I appreciate Councillor Montague's comments about cherry-picking motions that matter to us and that kind of thing. That being said, I do think that, you know, a couple of these specifically are around life safety. And I appreciate Councillor Kirby Young's reference around staff prioritization and stuff, but these all clearly articulate financial constraints. In fact, the advocating for requirement of side guards on heavy trucks in urban areas specifically talks about funding constraints and retrofitting the entire city truck fleet would require substantial funding. Now, there's no indication what that funding is. And our job is often about making choices. And so we've, you know, this council has made a choice to go with a zero means zero budget. And that means tradeoffs and sacrifices on what we invest in as a city. Now, in the absence of any kind of articulation, what side guards cost and what price tag we are putting on life safety, I do struggle with making these decisions based on prioritization when, in fact, it is clearly articulated that on at least two of these very critical life safety issues... And motions that reflected like real dire consequences on the very residents of the city that we are tasked to protect and enhance the lives of that. That maybe, you know, at the very least, we deserve a more fulsome articulation of why we are making these tradeoffs. especially when it talks about funding constraints. So I appreciate that this amendment likely may not pass, but I am supportive of it, in particular on those two very specific life safety pieces that I struggle putting a price tag on without even having an accurate reckoning of what that price tag is. Thank you.

Mr. Meisner.

Yeah, thanks. I wasn't going to comment, but I just want to respond to Councillor Fry because I had the same question around the sideguards. So I did send in a question to staff yesterday and received a response. So the response that I got just for council's information was we have 500 vehicles in the city fleet that would need sideguards. This is 25% of the city fleet. We conducted a pilot of three different suppliers on three different identical trucks. The parts and install was $10,000 per truck. Retrofitting the whole fleet would be $5 million and would take multiple years due to the time-consuming nature of the work. So I just wanted to share that piece of information. I'm not making a values judgment around whether or not this expenditure makes sense, but I just want to share that with council.

Thank you very much. All right, seeing no one else in the queue, we will put the amendment to a vote.

And that fails with myself, Councillor Kirby-Young, Dominato, Montague, Classen, Meisner, and Joe in opposition.

So we'll go back to the main queue. Seeing no one else in the queue, I'm going to call the vote.

Okay. So now... There's a lot going on on the screen here.

We're all good? Okay. Fresh screen? Perfect.

All those opposed say nay. Great. The motion carries unanimously. The list of approved bylaws can be found on the city's website. So the next item is notice of council members motions. Are there any notices of council member motions for the upcoming standing committee meetings? A reminder to please state the title of the motion and the date of the standing committee meeting on which you intend to move the motion and be sure to send the title and date of the standing committee meeting via email to the city clerk. So I will go first. And this is a member motion that I will be co-submitting with Councillor Klassen. Thank you very much. I'd like to call notice of motion for the April 1st Standing Committee meeting entitled Supporting the 2026 Vancouver Fisaki Parade and Festival. Councillor Maloney.

To be moved on the 1st of April, 2026 Standing Committee meeting entitled guaranteeing services and supports to protect residents through Vancouver's increasingly hot summers.

Thank you very much. Councillor Bligh.

Notice of motion for April 1st Standing Committee reversing the costly ban on supportive housing.

Councillor Frye. Notice on motions for April 1st. There are three. Number one, establishing a city comptroller bylaw for budget efficiency and asset management framework. Number two, creating a City of Vancouver Festival support fund. And number three, co-submitted with Councillor Maloney, strengthening Vancouver's FIFA World Cup 2026 Human Rights Action Plan with measurable standards reporting and monitoring. Councillor Orr.

Yeah, a motion to be moved April 1st, a motion titled Fostering Inclusive and Diverse Democracy Through Harassment Prevention, and another motion titled Funding Our Services with Taxes on Major Landowners and Investors.

Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, we will move right along now to new business. We have two items of new business on the agenda today. So the first one, is the requests for leaves of absence. And this motion has been circulated to council at the beginning of the meeting and is available on the screen, or it will be available on the screen.

Mayor, I don't know if people are on the queue to speak. This is one edit from mine.

Yeah, there are. Councillor Dominato?

Yes, Mayor, I need to, and I'll send it in just a moment. I just need to add an LOA for both personal and civic business for Friday, March 13th from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m.

I'll send that in.

Thank you. Councillor Bligh?

I see there it says April 14th in the evening. It's actually all day.

You can just verbally say it. Yeah, I just, I can't find the, I can't remember the one where it is. I just know there's, I thought there was a second one.

You see the two on screen, counselor? I see two. I just thought there was one on, there's a different one.

Why don't we take a recess for... Yeah, I'm just searching my email and I can't find it.

Thank you. I have circulated a motion that is being moved by...

myself and Councillor Orr, and I circulated an amended version. Thank you very much to staff for some feedback. It is for a grant, so it will require a two-thirds majority on council. Car Free Days is one of those events that shows Vancouver at its very best. Entire streets open up to people instead of cars. Local businesses have the opportunity to spill onto the streets and generate new customers. Small vendors get a chance to sell their wares to huge crowds strolling past and families come out and neighbours spend time together in their community. And the frustrating part is that we are at risk of losing this wonderful festival for this year due to lack of funding. What's happening here is a symptom of bigger problems. The costs of running events like this have gone up. Policing, sanitation, street closures, traffic control. But funding to support arts and culture events like these aren't keeping pace with rising costs. And when it comes to car-free days, we're talking about roughly $30,000 to keep it alive.

So our budget constraints have made it harder for the city to support events like car-free days that have seen costs increase. And when costs go up and funding stays frozen, the burden gets pushed onto community organisations and volunteers who are trying to run these community building events.

We've consulted with important stakeholders, including Car Free Day Society and the Mount Pleasant BIA, and you might notice that the wording of this motion was taken directly from the recent... motion to reinstitute one night of fireworks so I have to acknowledge my source there thank you for that wording that I have largely replicated so cities reveal their priorities through their budgets and if we can find millions for fireworks and major events we should be able to find the relatively modest funding needed to keep one of Vancouver's most loved community festivals going.

Thank you, Councillor Meister. Yeah, thanks. I was also dismayed to hear about the difficulties that the Car Free Society is facing. This is an iconic Vancouver summer festival. It's something I've been to many times, and it's one of the things that makes summers in Vancouver great, in my opinion, and I know many others. I don't have any issues with the emergency motion, and I want to thank Councillor Maloney and Councillor Orr for bringing it forward. I absolutely am supportive of Car Free Society receiving a one-time grant of $30,000, which I understand is a shortfall, so they can... support the delivery of the car-free days this summer. But I did have some concerns about the amendment language or the motion language, and that may be because it was lifted from the fireworks language. I'm not sure. So I have submitted a strike and replace that gives me a bit more comfort around the language. So if we could go to the queue for that.

Thank you, Councillor Domenaro. Explain. Yeah, sure. So in the original language, it talks about a $30,000 one-time contribution. But it says including – sorry, I'm just trying to find the language here. Apologies. It says including real and value in-kind costs related to car-free days. And my concern around that is that we want this to be in addition to those costs that are already picked up by the city. So in terms of those costs, last year through our FestShare program, Car Free Day received $93,000 for two events. In 2024, they received $104,000 for two events. Those were costs that were covered by the city in support of the festival. So my intention with this language is just to ensure that the $30,000 additional that they receive is in addition to those in-kind costs being covered by the city and not including them. And then the other important part of this is just to ensure that the city receives an event delivery plan prior to distributing the funds. So I have every confidence that Car Free Days Society is going to be able to produce that. And that's the intention of this strike and replace.

Thank you very much, Councillor Claussen. Yeah, thanks very much. Thanks, Councillor Meiszner. Completely supportive of trying to make sure that the car-free event street festival remains. I'm not sure. I know that it hasn't operated for at least the last two years in the West End. To my knowledge, Main Street and Commercial Drive are still going, so... If $30,000 can keep this event going and it comes with some of the detailed planning that is specified in Councillor Meiszner's strike and replace, I'm happy to support that. I just wanted to, and Customizer did identify some of the funding that came through FestShare. Through you, Mayor, I just wonder if I may just ask staff that are present. We've had some explanation as to the existing funding that has gone to support. I think what I was worried about is that it might be mischaracterized that This was a cutback or some kind. I think we have been pretty consistent, the city, in terms of being able to grant and support these events through FedShare and other means. Is that correct? Including policing costs.

Okay. Okay, that's appreciated. Again, I know that the city has tried hard to support these great community gatherings, and I'm hopeful that with this allocation that it will get us over the line and make sure that we can bring this back in September. I'm very much looking forward to being back out in those communities and enjoying the street festivals. Thanks very much.

Thank you, Councillor Maloney.

Thank you. I think that the absolute most important thing here is that we get funding approved quickly and I appreciate Councillor Meiszner coming up with a form of words that is likely to be acceptable to... two-thirds of the majority on council. I'm just concerned that I'd just like to send a message to the evaluator of the detailed plan to please be as helpful and supportive as possible because I know that Car Free Days is not an organisation with a lot of resources and I'm sure they'll do their best to come up with a very best possible detailed plan in a very short timeframe. But I would hate for that to be an overwhelming burden. So I had something else to say. No, I can't remember what that is. So I will just support this amendment on the basis that it will hopefully happen in time for car-free days to go ahead on Main Street and Commercial Drive. Thank you.

Thank you. Councillor Meiszner. Yeah, thanks. And thanks, Councillor Maloney for those comments. So as we just heard from the deputy city manager, we did require some additional language. So I did send that in. We have to go to another queue or I'm not sure how this works. Nope. Okay. So that just adds D and E. That's around the delegated authority, the need for the delegated authority that was just identified by the deputy city manager.

All right. Yeah. Is this a strike in our place? Do we have to go to amendment to amendment Q? I think we're all happy with it, adding it.

I just want to do things correctly procedurally, so I'm not sure what the right approach is.

Eric, what's your recommendation here? All right, we're going to go to amendment Q2. Okay, thank you. Great. Thank you, Councillor. Any discussion? Great. So the amendment to the amendment is adding clauses D and E to Councillor Meiszner's amendment. Okay. Can we please go to the voting panel and register your vote? Amendment to amendment.

Mayor, I'll take a vote assist in favor, please.

Yep. This is Councillor Dominato. Thank you. Great. And that passes unanimously.

So I'm going to go back to the amendment queue. Councillor Meiszner, any other comments? Just to say thanks, everyone, for the support. And I just want to be clear that I very much want to see this festival happen this year. And that's the intention of the support. And again, thanks, Councillors Maloney and Orr, for bringing this as an urgent motion because it is urgent.

Looking forward to the summer. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, we will vote on Councillor Meiszner's amendment as amended.

Thank you. And that passes unanimously as well. So because it was a strike and replaced, there's nothing else to vote on. Is that correct?

Okay. Well, why don't we just do that? So we are going to now vote on the motion as amended.

And that passes unanimously. Thank you very much. And so with that, why don't we go to inquiries and other matters. Council, are there any inquiries or other matters? Councillor Meiszner. Sorry, no, I'm not on the queue for anything else. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue. Last chance. No delays. Perfect. Can we have a motion to adjourn? Thank you, Councillor Kirby-Young. Seconded by Councillor Montague. All those in favour, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Great, this meeting is adjourned.