Referral to In Camera Withdrawn

yeah well I didn't see anyone else on the queue and hearing the questions raised and the last one around I would move potentially a referral to in-camera so that we can address some of the questions raised as for councillor Kirby Young's comments and my questions earlier okay so sir clerk do we have to go to the we can stay on this queue right

Noting that the move to refer this to in-camera doesn't have any specific timing attached to it, and maybe if I could ask of staff or the clerks what that looks like and does that impact this project?

And just a quick follow-up, and I do want to hear from the clerks. What is, if we kick this down the road and it results in timing, does this jeopardize project viability as far as the AHI?

I appreciate that. Fair.

Oh, see, Trina's walked away, but I will just opine. I do worry about the timing and the triggers and certainly the provincial funding component. We know that provincial funding has... magically evaporated in recent months, and that has impacts that have put other projects, affordable housing projects, through the Community Housing Fund completely underwater. So I do worry about pulling the rug out on this through the timing change, and I appreciate the work that has gone in here, and I appreciate my colleagues' concerns and questions, but I don't want to see this completely jeopardized through getting it down the road.

So I don't support this referral.

But I guess since I still have the mic, if the clerk wanted to say about timing for an in-camera.

Sorry, Councillor Frye, can you repeat that? I didn't hear that. Oh, I guess my question, too, was of the clerks, and I guess maybe the city manager is standing up to speak to us. Yes.

Okay, Mike.

Meeting, everyone?

Thanks very much.

Councillor Frye. Oh, I think we were going to get a statement from the city manager. Okay. In response to my concerns around the timing. Stop your timer.

Yeah, and I mean, I think that based on the comments from Matt and the city manager, I am concerned. I think punting this to early 2027 seems like it would be the outcome of going in-camera with this. And I'm not sure to what extent we need to really take this in camera because I think we've been offered a fair amount of clarity. This is a project that we had supported in the last term, and obviously there's been some changes to the outcome, but I think in the fundamental principle about returning this RCMP former land and, you know, an exciting First Nations-led development on this property, I think... is still an excellent outcome including the affordable housing ownership, so I Will not support the referral to punt this to early 2027.

Oh Yeah, thanks chair. I'm gonna make a general comment and that is that I feel that I have a responsibility to have clarity and to achieve support public goals and objectives in return for entitlements that are being given, I have a discomfort with approving a scenario that in the event that the affordable or attainable home initiative is not realized, that we are giving 30% more density for 70% strategy development in an unprecedented era of unaffordability when people are looking for affordable housing. When I believe that the initial approval provided a fairly significant amount of density and was very generous on that. I think that the public are looking for us to champion affordability and they are looking for clarity and transparency and information. It makes our job easier if proponents are willing to share information that can provide council with some certainty to a line of sight with respects to the ability to achieve affordability I think that this council is deeply interested in affordable home ownership or attainable home initiative depending upon the perspective but I think that the public it needs to be understand what benefits council are giving and receiving on particular projects and I do not feel that a level of clarity has been achieved in this particular situation so I'll continue to listen to the conversation

But I'm not seeing the alternative scenarios, specifically the non-AHI scenarios, the one that challenges me. Because I think that there is a good rationale for supporting something that will deliver AHI. I think council is looking for some certainty and more information, clarity, and transparency around how that would be delivered. I do not see a rationale for approving the non-AHI scenario of 70% strata and 30% more density at this point. But I will continue to listen to the conversation. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. I want to echo a lot of those comments from my colleague, Councillor Kirby Young. I understand that we're not a party to the agreement, but I certainly... believe that we need line of sight into that agreement. And I think an in-camera meeting is the appropriate venue for that. I also agree with my colleague that we have an immense responsibility here to ensure that any development is in the best interests of all Vancouverites. And I'm a big proponent of... creating opportunities for people to purchase affordable entry-level homes. I was not long ago one of those people as a first-time homebuyer, and I know how difficult it is nowadays. It's even more difficult. So I really would like to see the Affordable Housing Initiative achieved on this site. But my concern is really around the lack of guarantees to realize that. And the alternative scenario... which has come to light through questions, is the 70% strata that would be built on the site at this higher density should the AHI funding not materialize. And I think that there's a fairly substantial risk that that funding may not materialize. And my concern is around... giving extraordinary increases in density for... what is an extraordinary benefit, but that extraordinary benefit, which is the affordable housing, is not guaranteed. So fully support referring this to NCAMRA and getting more clarity and information for council so we can make an informed decision that's truly in the best interests of all Vancouverites. That's a responsibility that I take very seriously.

Thanks very much. Appreciate the questions and the debate on this. You know, I'm listening to my colleagues around this chamber, and I got to say, and maybe it's the role, more of a national role, where municipalities got a really bad rap for being gatekeepers to progress. and gatekeepers to development. And I don't want that to be something that Vancouver is known as when it comes to a transformational development like this. The money is coming from the federal government. The money is coming from the provincial government. Our job here is to be good partners, to look at the project holistically. The benefit is not necessarily just for all of Vancouverites. It's to look at the public benefit as a way to both serve our commitment as a city of reconciliation, that economic reconciliation is a key component of that that meets this particular moment in time, and that's what this project is. we see such success coming forward in terms of the Sanak development. And now we're going to sit here in this chamber and lose touch with the reality of what's outside of this chamber, which is a great partner in the federal government and a great partner in the provincial government to deliver tremendous public benefit through this project. And I think that... We're all in this chamber, ought to be in good faith. And I see Canada Land Trust here in the chamber, in the back gallery, showing up to this conversation, listening to the debate, and hearing how important it is that affordable homeownership is part of this project. I think people want to be able to celebrate it. I think they want to see it as a win. And I think they want to see all three levels of government coming to the table with a very clear line of sight to what it means to be a city of reconciliation. while delivering much-needed housing, much-needed funding, much-needed childcare space, much-needed cultural and gathering space in an area that has been planned in a previous council for this type of density that, of course, over four, five, six years... has increased, and we have seen similar situations happen in that regard when it comes to the economic viability of projects. So I think this has been an iterative process, and I'd be very sad to see any delays because while we're debating right now on an in-camera referral, what I've heard loud and clear is that it puts... the overall project in significant risk if it goes to in-camera. And so I am voting against referral because I don't think I've heard any rationale or any clear explanation why some folks around this table do not feel like they have the information that they need. We do have the information we need. It is a challenging situation we're in. It may feel somewhat political, but I think we have to come back to remembering our core value as a city of reconciliation and support this project.

Thanks. Yeah, I have listened very carefully to the comments of my colleagues, the public speakers and staff and the applicants. And I'm just not satisfied that there's sufficient reason to delay this and go in camera. We have to approve projects to have them eligible for senior government funding. And in answer to my question, even if the worst case scenario happens with the provincial funding of the affordable ownership housing, It's still 4,200 homes to contribute to the city's housing supply, which is a public benefit in and of itself, which is jeopardised by delay. Apart from the downward pressure on housing costs caused by increasing supply of housing in this city, 4,200 homes are going to reduce congestion on our roads by letting people... live in the city rather than commuting through the city to their destinations, employment or otherwise. And I think it's so important to remember that this project's been described as a significant milestone and benchmark for the city's efforts towards reconciliation. You know, this... This project provides so many public benefits. 610 units of social housing, which could be jeopardised by a delay, apart from the remaining housing, which I've discussed is a benefit in and of itself. An incredibly large amount of publicly accessible park and public open space. The cultural centre, the French language elementary school and childcare centre, and an incredibly lovely local shopping street that's going to provide important retail in an area that needs more of it on a quiet street instead of a busy, noisy, polluted street, which will be a nice change to a lot of the commercial areas in the city of Vancouver. And also the DCLs and other benefits that staff just mentioned. So For me, it's a real travesty to delay this and potentially lose the benefits that are offered, the incredible public benefits offered by this project. So I'll absolutely passionately be voting against delaying this and going in camera.

Mr. Dominato.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. I just have a follow-up question to staff with respect to their advice to Council. They referenced that the challenge in referring this to in-camera for Council to get a bit more information is because on the agenda today is the enactment of the Vancouver ODP. Is that correct? And consequently, it would trigger ODP amendments requirements.

So I guess the question I have is, because I'm a believer that anything is possible, could we not postpone adoption of the ODP, enactment of the ODP today? Mayor has the ability to call a special council meeting. He can do that within a week. two weeks or put this on the next agenda so that we can have this referred to an in-camera meeting, get the information we want from the province we're seeking, and then be able to deal with this before the ODP enactment. I'm looking for some creativity, effectively, is that I'm hearing the concerns from my colleagues that they don't want to see major delays, but I'm also hearing the council colleagues who have concerns that they don't have sufficient information to make an informed decision. So I'm looking for an avenue, if you will, to kind of marry up these worlds and meet everyone's needs. So I would welcome any suggestions on what we could do creatively to move this forward, but get the information we, I think a number of council colleagues are seeking, but also I know others want to see this go forward as well. And I think there's a lot of support you're hearing for attainable home ownership in this. And so... If we have to take a recess again, I would welcome that.

So I guess with that, my question would be, and I'll look for some support procedurally from the clerks, could we Move this on table to give staff time to get that information potentially so that we could follow through potentially with the referral to in-camera, but options around maybe delaying the ODP enactment by a week or whatever it is, and get that advice and move this to later in the day just because I know we have other items on our agenda. And, you know, we're getting... But that's what I would be... suggesting is that somehow we move this post to later in the agenda to give you that window of time to give us that advice, because I'm really just trying to find a bit of a way forward to get the information that people are seeking, but not trigger a whole bunch of administrative complexity.

Yeah, no, totally fair, and I respect that. So clerks, is there an opportunity to do that, to move this to later in the day, this debate, so we can get that information back?

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, we will bring, resume the meeting. Thanks very much. All right, Councillor Domenato.

Okay.

Thanks very much. So we'll have a vote on withdrawal.