All right. Good morning, everyone.

And welcome to the Vancouver City Council meeting of Tuesday, March the 31st, 2026. This meeting is being held in person and by electronic means. Council members and the public may participate by either method. Any members joining electronically are reminded to enable video to confirm quorum. This meeting is being live streamed on the city's website and YouTube, and meeting progress will be updated regularly on X at Van City Clerk. So now in case of an emergency where we do have to evacuate the chamber, please direct yourself to the glass doors, turn left at the post, and please walk down the stairs. If you need any, if that entrance or exit is obstructed for any reason whatsoever, we do have four exits on the side of this chamber. And if you need mobility assistance, please stay in place and one of our super friendly team members will come to you and help you get to a safe location. I also want to note that there is a defibrillator at the end of this hallway here past the glass doors as well. I do want to acknowledge that we are hosting today's council meeting on the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and TTsleil-Waututh peoples. And I do want to thank them for their generosity, hospitality and love and care that they show this great land that we get to live, work and play on. I also want to note that we do have a city councillor from the city of North Ann, Tony Valenti. Let's go on. Welcome. And with that, oh, I also want to recognize all of our, you know, amazing teammates that choose to work at the city of Vancouver throughout all our different departments every single day to make this place a great city for everyone involved. So thank you. With that, can we please have a roll call?

Present.

Present.

Present.

Present.

Thank you very much. So the plan for today, we're going to break at noon for lunch, followed by the in-camera meeting. Return at 3 p.m. to continue the deal with the remainder

20 through 689 West 35th Avenue, a.k.a. the Heatherlands. Before we begin this item, I'd like to acknowledge the cultural liaisons from Muscogee, Squamish, and Swahili.

Sorry to interrupt. I have a point of procedure. Are we not doing matters adopted on consent before moving into unfinished business?

I believe we varied...

So we'll do this, and then we'll go to the consent agenda. Is that correct?

Okay. So the schedule of events is we're going to cover off the unfinished business first. Then we're going to go to the 16 bylaws.

And then we're going to go to matters adopted on consent.

Oh, okay, because on our agenda matters, adoption on consent comes before. I know we varied the agenda because we have to do that item in order, but I'm just wondering if we can do that so that we have more of a plan for the day, if it's possible to deal with what other items might be pulled on consent as we normally do.

Okay.

Just on that, so, Councillor, are you suggesting with the exception of the reports or the bylaws that are dependent on this unfinished business, we go to the consent agenda and... Identify any reports that need to be pulled and pass the others with the exception of the bylaws.

Yeah. So, Clerk, is that...

Reports one, two, and referral report one would need to be held as they're contingent on bylaw approvals. Those need to be considered. The bylaw approvals need to be considered prior to those reports.

So bylaws one and two and referral report. Sorry. Sorry. Reports one and two.

So I'm going to repeat what I heard and correct me if I'm wrong. So right now what we can do is put reports number four, five, and six on the consent agenda, and we can vote on that. and then unless someone wants to hold any one of those reports.

So, Mayor, I'd like to hold Report 6, Council Resolution on Brewery Lounges, and just confirming that I heard you say that Referral Report 1 for the Tax Amendment for Canada Place is not on the consent agenda.

Right, I can't hear you.

I'm just confirming that Referral Report 1 for the Tax Amendment for Canada Place is not on the consent agenda. Is that correct?

That's correct. It's only reports 4, 5, and 6. Okay, great.

So I wanted to pull that one. I'd like to pull Number 6.

You'd like to hold 4. Sorry, Number 6.

Yeah, brewery lounges. Thank you.

Anyone else? I know there's a queue here, but I don't know if it's representative of... Okay, Councillor Dominato?

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I'd like to hold report four for questions. Thank you.

Okay.

seeing no other discussion. Moved by, I think, Councillor Claston first, and then seconded by Councillor Dominato. Any discussion?

Okay. Communication one.

Okay. Okay. So we're back to, we have report number five for the consent agenda. And that's been moved by Councillor Klassen, seconded by Councillor Dominato. Any other discussion? Okay. All those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great.

Okay, so the following have been approved on consent, and that's report number five, front-ender agreement amendment. Great. So now we're going to go back to unfinished business, and like I said before, before we begin

Street, 637 through 657 West 37th Avenue and 620 through 689 West 35th Avenue for information. Council will now make its decision on the application. Do we have a mover for the recommendations?

Great. Councillor Claston seconded by, oh, sorry, Councillor Fry moved it and seconded by Councillor Claston, I believe, right? Awesome. Thank you. Council, is there any discussion? Councillor Dominato?

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I do have some questions, and I'm not sure, maybe just procedurally, because I probably have more than five minutes of questions, so if you could pause my time. Is there a way to enable questions or more than five minutes of questions? Clerk's comment on that?

Through the chair to the clerk.

Councillor council may move for a second round.

Okay. Thank you I want to, and I can only ask questions of staff at this point, but could you walk me through, there was questions asked during the public hearing around the previous rezoning application that was approved in 2022. And this is obviously a modified application. Does that application, what was approved in 2022 still stand despite this application?

Is the rezoning decision?

So one of my colleagues was asking during public hearing about the previously approved heights and densities. Were they applicable to both the CD1 sites? Could you walk me through that in the context of the new application? Because what I've heard is that the South CD1 site stands, and maybe I'm not clear whether the new application now covers both CD1 sites. So maybe you could walk through that. And I'm referring to Councillor Meiszner's question that he asked during public hearing.

Okay. The memo that was circulated to council on March 26, 2020, sorry, March 26, 2026, referred to a legal agreement in place between the province and MST, and I understand it's the ministry leading the work around the attainable housing initiative. Could you comment on The level of line of sight we have into that legal agreement and commitment from the province around the funding, I understand, I think it was 100 million has flowed already. But can you give me some better understanding of what line of sight we have into that agreement?

So it sounds like what's been disclosed is the financial commitments. Were staff, are staff privy to other assumptions in that agreement around if the province is unable to fund this initiative? Or do we have access to that information of what agreements have been reached between MST and the province?

In that vein, given that...

Sorry, Councillor, we're out of time.

Okay, hopefully someone can move a second round, because I have more questions.

Councillor Kirby Young.

Sorry, I need a mic. Thanks. I'm going to follow up on this. And this is an unusual one. I'm just going to preface my question by saying we're getting a lot of... feedback from the public for better understanding around how some of these deals are structured and more clarity and transparency. So you referenced the contribution agreement with the province and the letter there that confirms that. Am I correct in understanding that the letter indicates only an intention to execute the contribution agreement for 2026-2027 or the one year and the approved $105 million, but we don't necessarily have a commitment for the province's remaining several hundred million dollars. It will take a billion dollars of funding between provincial contributions and what the partnership is required to raise there is no commitment from the province is that correct in writing at this point for the balance of the funding required to achieve the aho is that correct and so so um just to be clear that the 476 million dollars in funding is sufficient to achieve the full attainable home ownership package on this project i understand that but has the province has not signed on a dotted line to say they will commit that full amount nor is it in a budget is that correct um

Okay, so that's how I read the memo. I guess, do we have the ability to provide more transparency and have access to this agreement? Because I ask this question in the context that Council is being asked to advance a significant 30% increase in density on the site without a line of sight into how the certainty of that funding and how and when it will be advanced.

We could seek it, but we don't have it and we can't necessarily compel it.

Okay, you mentioned a non-AHI scenario reverting to 15% rental, but it still retains, with some BMR, it still retains a 30% increase in density on what was already a very highly dense site. Why would the non-AHI scenario, if it's not affordable home ownership, not revert to the existing approved entitlements on the site?

Can I clarify in the context of the additional density? Yep. If the primary driver and the goal, and I think people are excited about the idea of affordable or attainable home ownership, and if that is the driver and if that's not achieved, why did we look at other scenarios other than the existing... Pretty substantive rezoning that was passed if the AHI cannot be achieved, if that was the primary goal.

Okay. I'm just going to keep going for time because, as you know, we're limited for time.

Why, if there's two different parcels or rezoning processes, why was the previous entitlements withdrawn for one component and not for both? This is very unusual, and I can't recall something like this in my time on council, and I think back to things like Oak Ridge and other large development areas that come forward for text amendments. Why was one withdrawn and not the other, where the entitlements would remain for one and not the other piece?

So scenarios typically council in a rezoning can either approve, not approve, or add conditions. I've been told we can't add conditions by staff to revert to the previous zoning. What other options do we have? Can we take a pause on this one to get some of the information so there's more clarity and transparency about the pathway to fully achieving DHI?

I'm sorry, we're out of time. But we will have a second round. Councillor Meiszner?

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Following a similar line of questions, Following up on Councillor Kirby-Young's question around the tenure, if the AHI scenario is not achieved, what is staff's rationale for going to an 85% strata scenario with no affordable housing opportunities for purchase if AHI is not achieved, given the 30% increase in density? Why not do 100% rental, for example, with 20% BMR? Why move forward with 85% strata?

Sorry about the error there with the social housing. So 70% strata, but no affordability component in the non-AHI scenario, right?

Okay. That strikes me as unusual. given the additional density that's being asked for here. I'm still struggling to understand why that would be. Looking at Broadway planned, for example, much smaller towers, much less density, still 20% BMR.

Okay, thank you for that. Back to the agreement. Is it fair to characterize this agreement, of which we don't have line of sight to, which is a concern, as more of a commitment than a guarantee? Looking at the letter from the minister, I don't see any number in there. I see 2627, but I don't see a guarantee.

So just for the public who's not necessarily in government, doesn't necessarily understand how things work, if we have a change of provincial government, there's nothing to guarantee that commitment. It could go away.

Okay. And does that non-AHI package still include the reduction of the cultural center space, which I believe is being reduced by 50%?

So the non-AHI version also includes a smaller cultural center as well, even though there's no AHI being delivered?

Okay, thank you. And then my last question for now was around the CD1 South. You said it's enacted and it stands. What portion of this overall development is that? Is that like 50% of it? Is it a different portion? In terms of, like, units?

Okay, so if they want to go ahead with that today, they have every right to go ahead with that previously enacted rezoning. Is that correct?

Okay, great. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Councillor Klassen. Thanks very much. Can I move to the second round? Thank you very much. Seconded by Councillor Zhou. Any discussion? All in favour? All opposed? Great. That passes unanimously. Please go ahead.

Thanks very much. So, Matt, to start off with a general question, as you know, council has already approved at least some staff direction around attainable home ownership. I think that work has been on a bit of a low burn with so much other work that's going on at the city right now. Is the city of Vancouver ready for the attainable home ownership model?

Dan, I might ask you another question just because you've been closely attached to this file, this model. Does staff perceive that there's genuine public benefit in trying to create a more attainable type of ownership housing in the city?

So it's a real acknowledgement of the challenging market conditions, both for development ownership housing, but also the market.

I tend to feel that the public sentiment on this will split two ways. One, between people who are concerned around the heightened density, and then the others that will see this as potentially an opportunity for them to actually own a home in the city of Vancouver, which has been a far-off dream for, unfortunately, too many first-time buyers and young families. How long, this is a phased approach, how long do we perceive the opportunity will be in front of people to actually be able to own a home through AHI at Heatherlands? How long will it be until? Yeah, some of the first housing that might be built.

Okay. Okay, I'll pause there for now.

Thanks very much. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. And just a reminder to Council, we are in debate. So I know there's a lot of focus on questions. We do have a second round, but just wanted to highlight that. If you get surprised after, if you're out of time and you have no time to debate, just wanted to flag that. Councillor Domenato.

Thanks. I just want to circle back to a couple of questions. It was addressed that there is a legal agreement. We don't have full access to the information in that legal agreement. We could seek more information. I heard that through a motion. What I'm curious about is that given that this proposal, which includes the seeking additional density and height to support the attainable home ownership initiative, is there a precedent for having an agreement between the city and the provincial government to reflect that?

Could we seek that?

No, to get confirmation and alignment around the funding commitment. Because effectively, what I heard very clearly is part of this is to accommodate the builder in achieving the revenues necessary to develop this project. But at the same time, it's also subsidizing BC, not BC housing, the province. There's an agreement between MST and between the province, but there's no agreement between the city and the province for us to have an understanding and commitment that that funding will flow. Even an MOU, I guess, is what I'm getting at. Could we seek that?

So we could seek more information about the existing legal agreement. We could seek some form of MOU or agreement with the province. My last question, because I don't want to run out of time for debate later, is the proposal, the application at Arbutus 7th and 8th was challenged in court because there was counsel referred to a document that was not accessible to the public as part of debate. And we got challenged on procedural fairness. Can you comment on that? And if we have to go in camera on this, I'm happy to do that. But that was a legal challenge we faced because of information not available to the public as part of a public hearing.

Okay. I'll pause there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Klassen. Thanks very much, Mayor. I'm sort of generally sensing from the line of questions from council today that there's just a lot of just need for clarification around the certainty around the AHI. So I'm going to ask just... one or two more questions on that subject.

There is a over $100 million commitment from the province, which is not an insignificant sum, but of course it falls well short of the actual delivery. But we appreciate the financial situation that the province is in right now. What's their likely rate of return on that one? Is this going to be something that would be something that for both the development company and for the province that this makes financial sense so that as a carry forward, regardless of who is forming government in Victoria, that they see this that makes business sense?

And do, I don't know, I'm unaware of any other AHI in the province right now, so this is, is this the first out of the gate to our knowledge?

Right. Thanks. Those are my questions, Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Maloney.

Thanks. Even if, say, the worst were to happen and the provincial government were to not provide the funding required for the attainable home ownership scheme and instead we got the 70% strata, would we still be getting, like, what would the other public benefits be from approving this? We'd still get the 610 units of social housing, the 125 space childcare facility, the park and public open space, the cultural centre, the French language school and the shopping street?

Thanks very much. That's all.

Thank you very much, Councillor Kirby-Young.

Sorry, my mic's not going on. Can you put my mic on? Thank you. Yeah, I'm going to ask sort of again, and I've asked this question again, but I want to be very clear. now that we've expanded the conversation. And you're saying that council, correct me if I'm wrong, does not have the ability to attach conditions to the north parcel that if the HI funding is not securely, is fully achieved or built out, that we revert back to the existing, that we can revert back to the existing previously approved entitlements and therefore the applicant, so that's the first part of my question. The second one is therefore the applicant is entitled to a 30% increase in density and to build 70% strata.

So in that scenario, if some members of council don't have a comfort level, it might make sense to provide space for the applicant to review and reconsider how they configure their application?

But we don't have a line of sight into that because we don't have transparency on the agreement. So my next question is, given the legal question raised by Councillor Domenato, which is a concern that I also share because I sat on that council, as did others, when information was referenced in a public hearing about agreements between levels of government or parties that was not made available and which the city did not prevail, do staff feel that we should refer this to an in-camera or take a pause to legally discuss that question?

Let me rephrase the question, please. If I have legal concerns about this, what are the avenues for council? Can we refer it to an in-camera meeting? Can we take a pause? How do we enable a conversation around that concern?

To an in-camera meeting. Okay. I'm going to leave it there for now. Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you very much. Okay. Seeing no one in the queue, I'm now going to call the vote. Clerk, can you please take us to the voting screen? Sorry.

Oh, sorry. Councillor Dominato, you're...

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.

Yeah, I want to ask another.

Sure.

Yeah, if I might ask a point of information, I guess, since we're in debate, Chair, through you to staff, and I've emailed this in, and I feel like I've been asking a similar question in different ways, and I'm asking in the spirit of trying to get to a yes, and I'm hearing a lot of no's. My question, to be very explicit, is can council approve this application, including a condition of removing the AHI alternate scenario, and how long would staff need to prepare such a scenario?

So what I hear you saying is that I'm hearing concerns raised. I'm feeling a lot of pressure that is basically saying council's boxed in and only has the ability to say yes or no. As opposed to in normal rezonings, we have the option to approve, decline, or approve with conditions. And I'm essentially hearing that we have no ability to impose any conditions.

So I'm not hearing any workable options. Council either has to accept a package is what I'm hearing or not accept a package.

Sure. And you keep referring to the fact that timing could impact for future flows of funding, but I'm just wondering what you're basing that on since we don't have that information on the public record and is not available for council, and yet comments are being made continually referencing that somehow a decision by council or any decision results in a delay will impact that. Can you reconcile that for me?

To you, but not to council?

Then I would argue that this public hearing is in breach because all of the information needs to be provided to council and the public in deliberating and making a decision. You have now just stipulated that you have information that council does not.

I would invite staff to very carefully consider my question, and if you would like to come back on or if you'd like to have a legal consideration of that one, I think it's a very salient point. I'm going to take myself off to save my time if staff feel they need to take a recess on that one, but I feel legally that should be addressed before council votes on it. Thanks.

Thank you. I am just finding a lot of this doesn't make sense. I went looking for correspondence from the public and tried to remember how many public speakers raised concerns about the Attainable Housing Initiative and the... likelihood of funding, I found one anonymous email expressing concern in my email inbox. Can you remind me, can someone remind me how many pieces of correspondence were received through the official process about expressing concern about the certainty of funding through the Province for the Attainable Housing Initiative? and how many public speakers raised that. I mean, I heard a lot from my council colleagues, but I really haven't heard much from the public in terms of concern about that. And I've got another question that I can go on with if you need time to look at that. And my other question is, is it the case that we are always given access to contractual documents? or other documents that are not between parties to applications for rezoning, I would have thought it was fairly normal that there would be arrangements or agreements or potential agreements and not certain agreements for senior levels of government to provide funding after a project is approved. I mean, in my view, it's absolutely normal for rezoning applications to be voted on by council as a first step in then seeking provincial or federal funding. Isn't that the way we normally do everything? What's the difference between this and that? Anyone?

Is that a question through the chair?

I believe the question was how much correspondence do we get about AHI?

Yeah, two different questions. How much correspondence or concerns raised by public speakers and also the normal course of action in applying for Senior government funding, please.

Okay. And then my second question is about the normal way senior government funding is achieved.

Alright, well thanks very much and my comment to that is that I'm surprised and disappointed that we seem to be trying to find reasons to delay this that aren't backed up by either public concern, clearly, or by the normal process for receiving senior... government funding. I'm at a loss to understand what's going on here.

Are you questioning whether...

I'm making a comment, which I understand.

The chair is asking a question. One moment. Are you questioning the due diligence of other members of council?

I'm saying that I don't understand. I'm at a loss to understand what's going on.

Thanks very much. Okay. Councillor Domenato.

Thanks, Chair. I'm able to take a stab at addressing the question my colleague is. This is about housing affordability. That's what's in question here. And I guess my question back to staff is, We do have the ability to impose conditions. And I say this respectfully. I do not believe that we could not amend this application suitably today or tomorrow or sometime this week by making amendments around where, to my colleague's question, which is to remove the non-AHI scenario. When I worked provincially, we made changes to legislation before it went in the House the night before. I'm humbly requesting some scenario where this could be achieved. And yes, to my colleague's question about where are we coming from, because the AHI... provides affordable housing and that's what we want to see inner striving for and so I liked the notion of a Direction with a condition around removing the scenario the the alternate scenario It's very rare that we have seen this and and I I think counselor Kirby Young has alluded to that. So You I'll pause there because I would like to figure out how we could achieve this quickly, swiftly, because we have done it before. But this has been very unique, this particular application, to have an alternate provided, which makes me think that there's concern that the AHI piece won't be delivered. If the applicant feels so strongly, there had to be an alternate scenario that is not. So I would like to see a condition imposed.

Councillor Maloney.

Thanks. Yeah, just to address the points just made by Councillor Dominardo, 610 social housing units will make a significant contribution to 610 families in terms of... having below-market housing available to them. And 4,200 homes, whether they are strata or whether they are attainable housing initiative homes or incorporating those social housing units, will put, once they are built, downward pressure on the cost of housing through the addition of housing supply into the market. So I... I don't think that it's reasonable to...

Sorry, Councillor, you're over time. Councillor Meiszner.

Yeah, thanks. In my eyes, this project is really about the affordable housing ownership opportunity component. That, to me, is the most important part of this project. And that, to me, is why council should consider allowing an extraordinary ask by this proponent... which is towers up to 46 stories in an area where they would not otherwise be allowed. I want to be clear that I'm comfortable with increased density if council has a guarantee that we are going to receive those affordable housing units, those affordable ownership units. I'm not okay with giving an extraordinary increase in density if those affordable housing units are going to be pulled away due to a change in government or funding not coming through. And instead, we end up getting extraordinary heights in density on a site where it would not otherwise be allowed. And 70% of those homes are market strata. That's what I'm not comfortable with. It's unfortunate to hear that we can't remove that second option. In my view, the delivery and allowance of this additional density and height must be tied to the delivery of those affordable ownership units. Otherwise, I don't support the project. So it's a really difficult situation to be in. Unlike some of my colleagues across the aisle, I'm not just going to approve a blank check to build market strata units. This is about the affordable housing component, and that's what I want to see here. Mr. Fry.

Well, I appreciate the various interpretations of what this project is or isn't about, but I can say as somebody who was here on council when this project first came to us, What I believe this project is about is reconciliation. This land, and just to give it further context, when we had the presentation initially, it really referenced the history of the RCMP land, the use of the Fairmont Academy and the Fairmont Building on this site, the role that the RCMP had played in erasing indigenous culture, the very people who are now looking to develop this land. So this land was always about reconciliation and atoning for injustices that were perpetuated by the colonial government of the time. and recognizing that history. And so this is about self-determination for Musqueam, Squamish, TTsleil-Waututh people in this territory. And this was fundamentally what this project was about. And at the time of that original project, I don't think I've ever spoken as effusively about any project in my entire time on council. as I did about this particular project. Now, yes, the design and the affordability and the housing tenure typologies have changed. The heights have changed. But let us remember that fundamentally and first and foremost, these lands, these unceded territories, these former RCMP barracks and headquarters and academy that were directly involved in the erasure of Indigenous peoples' history on this land, that is what this project is about as well. And I think that it behooves us to remember that context when we're talking about it. I don't believe that the changes are so significant that it warrants us effectively putting this project away till 2027, which will be an entirely different municipal government, I'm sure. And more importantly, There is a very distinct possibility that, as we've seen with provincial funding so far, that that funding may actually evaporate by the time that this project comes back for some reconsideration by some future council. And I think that would be a real shame and likely get not as good a project. So I will not support any referral in camera or otherwise.

Thanks very much, and I just want to lend my support again. I mean, I think I'm hearing this sort of tension around the AHI units that are part of the proposal, but as we know, and I think councillors around this chamber have had many discussions about the tradeoffs, and so I just, I think it's important that we remember that we're not in a strong position right now economically for a condo market delivery imperative we can't forget that so i think there's motivation to make the project work and deliver units that people can actually afford so i think that for me um looking at it pragmatically uh there's incentive right across the board to deliver the affordable uh homes initiative portion of the units And there are 601 social housing units, below-market units embedded in that. And so what we know, and I know counselors, again, know this well, is we have to be careful not to start to hive off this project and create a value decision around components of it. It works together. And so we can't criticize one portion of it and say we're really supportive of the other part of it. It works holistically. And there's an acre of land for a school. There's almost five acres of park space. There's 125 units of childcare. There's 601 units of social housing. There's 700 units of market strata and 2,900 units of attainable housing, ideally affordable home ownership component to that. All of that works together. And so again, while I appreciate

We'd like more certainty and guarantee around that. The more we delay this project, the less likely that's going to happen. So we have to, in good faith, take a chance on this, recognizing the moment that we're in. And I think it's actually a pretty good bet that it's going to be delivered based on what we have before us today. We know that the more we delay projects, the more height is required, the economics get more challenging. We've seen this time and time again. We see it in other projects unrelated to... the kind of partnerships that we see here, just in a straight up private application without any senior government funding. So I think we've just got to band together and look at this and, and know that when it's built, it'll really be something to be proud of. So again, as I've stated before, I'm full support.

Thanks. Yeah. Thanks for the rigorous debate and discussion. It's really been fascinating. Hard to follow along at some times as well. But, you know, some really great questions. And I understand the hesitation, you know, particularly around the second option and particularly around whether or not a new provincial government will come in. But I think, you know, what I heard from my other colleagues around, you know, gatekeeping, you know, progress and economic reconciliation, all the benefits from this as well. And just the fact that it's kind of always the case that funding... even contracts the city gets for infrastructure funding are dependent on future year budgets when there are multi-year funding programs. This is very common, and we've seen this in, you know, my short time here on council that, you know, oftentimes we need the rezoning first to get those other levels of government on board. That's not new to me. I mean, we've heard that numerous times that we do the rezoning and that money comes. But in this case, the money is already kind of flowing. We've already seen that money sort of committed. And I understand the trepidation, absolutely. But I also understand that the delay factor, I think, is what is really important here. And delaying would really put this project in jeopardy. And like my colleague said, 610 social housing units and school, child care. I mean, I just don't think we can risk further delaying this. So I will be supporting it. Thanks.

Yeah, thanks very much. I'm just sort of struck by the dates. I think that if you go back to the public hearing, which happened on March 5th, almost three and a half weeks ago, I think council was very clear, a number of members of council, on expressing questions and concerns around the viability of achieving the AHI component. And here we are three and a half weeks later being told that everything needs to happen today. I would observe that there was time, potentially, for staff to do some preparation. to provide options here. I think that AHI is a really important part of economic reconciliation. In fact, I think it is the magic and sort of potentially an important missing piece of our housing mix. I think that people do aspire still to own and I think providing a pathway for that is important and it is exciting. I'm also realistic in The current environment in which we find ourselves, because not only is it economically challenging to develop and deliver housing, we have governments that have record deficits. And with the province exceeding that of Ontario, yet despite our population being smaller and sitting around $13 billion and expected to go up. read very carefully the memo that came from staff that talked about the funding commitment in the letter from the province and what I saw there was a hundred and five million dollar commitment and then I saw a motherhood language around this being part of an overall envelope okay okay put myself on the queue for a moment here and see the chair to

so I have been listening very carefully to discussion here and I can see what steps that counselors are making in terms of in terms of accountability I also see the limited options that are before us in terms of being able to enable this project to move forward. So I think what I'm sort of generally feeling is that there is a very challenging path forward. First of all, If there are others who still want to speak, I mean, I'm quite prepared to move for a second round. But third round, sorry, third round, unless nobody does, then we can move forward.

Sorry, Councillor, Chair, are you moving for a second, a third round?

I can move for a third round if there really feels like there should be more debate.

It's up to you if you want to move one or not. It's your time. Do you want to move a third round?

Yeah, I'm going to move for a third round.

Okay, moved, seconded by Councillor Domenato. All in favor?

Being none opposed. Go ahead, Councillor.

So, again, I feel like this is a lack of options. The fact that this was sent back for more detail and around this project and its viability has really made it, I think, challenging for Council to do full due diligence on this project. notwithstanding that we've heard from speakers, we've heard from the applicant, and from staff on this one. So at this moment, I sort of remain finding this still a very difficult decision in many ways, but I'm happy to sort of continue to listen to more debate on this one. So I'll take the chair back from you, Councillor Kerr, and advance you.

Thanks, Chair. I appreciate the consideration, and I'll try to be brief in finishing those comments. I did read carefully the memo from staff and the letter from the province, and what I see in terms of confirmed, and this certainly doesn't necessarily signal intent, but just the information we have in front of us is $105 million, and a $900 million reference in the budget for all housing initiatives in the province, including non-profit assisted living supports for seniors, persons with disabilities, et cetera, and not an indication of how and when the other funding will flow. It was referenced by one of my colleagues that this funding could evaporate. I'm concerned that it won't materialize in the first place. And that, I think, is the challenge. I think this debate, for me personally, has been about fighting for attainable home ownership and providing, as was referenced, a third more density, 30%, on what was already a fairly significant develop. And I really will, I think... concepted development in terms of the components with the park space etc to support residents but this is significant and there is not a pathway to do it I think that council has been put in a very difficult position on this one it's an all-or-nothing scenario without the ability to prioritize in terms of the type of housing we want to see we are not talking about a simple rezoning approval of one building or two buildings this is a major significant development and those deserve, I think, a level of diligence and attention by... Council, I wholeheartedly support AHI. I wholeheartedly support that scenario. I would happily support the 30% increase on that one. I don't have confidence, nor have my questions been addressed for me sufficiently or fully, that we cannot revert to the other scenario or that we're going to a 70% strata component People will argue some of the public benefits. Those are only benefits on paper with DCLs, et cetera, unless things actually get built. And there is a long road ahead in this in terms of the economic environment. I will note that regardless of what decision council makes on this one, the entitlements still stand. It's divided into two parcels, the north and the south piece. It still stands in terms of entitlements on half of that project. But I really struggle with council not being able to prioritize. That's actually our job. is to try to set priorities around what it is that we want to achieve, and that's not just housing, but that's also quality housing, and that's also affordability. None of this has a guarantee here. So forgive me for being skeptical. I would love to have been provided with additional information that allayed those fears, but I'm not sure I see the province coming out with the other $400 million anytime soon, nor have we been given information about a pathway and phasing here. And the economics still have to work for MST to do it because they have to come up with the other half a billion dollars. It requires a billion dollars altogether. So I'm just trying to look at this economically and realistically. It's not jiving. It's not. My gut is telling me right now that this is a tough road to hoe and that this council should be fighting for Vancouver rights and putting the pressure on the province to come forward and actually provide us with, and the proponents, so that they can have confidence with more of a guarantee that that additional funding money will be there. And I don't have that confidence at this moment. Thank you.

Thanks very much. I think it's really important that, and I appreciate interpretation is really everything when it comes to much of what we do and the analysis that's provided by each of us when we're making these decisions. The provinces, I'm going to read from the memo, the provinces AHI funding commitment was recently outlined in the 2026 budget, VC budget. That was less than a month ago. $900 million to support demand for existing housing services and programs. This includes increased funding for nonprofit housing operators, assisted living support seniors, persons with disabilities, and supporting thousands of new below-market homes through the Attainable Housing Partnership with MST. The 2026 budget specifically identifies this commitment to continued funding for the AHI program in contrast to the reductions or repacing of funding for other affordable housing initiatives. The province's commitment to funding and advancing the delivery of AHI Heatherlands program is further described in the letter from the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. Bear with me. It's important. That letter states... We're writing to confirm the province of BC continued commitment to advancing attainable housing and delivery in the city of Vancouver, including our support for the AHI on the Heatherlands. As outlined in the budget and fiscal plan, funding has been identified for the AHI initiative in this budget, which reflects the province's ongoing priority to increase the supply of, you know it, attainable home ownership for British Columbians. In this context, the province confirms its commitment to enter into and execute the contribution agreement with the developer of the Heatherlands, subject to final terms and conditions consistent with provincial requirements. The province views the Heatherlands project as a significant opportunity to deliver attainable housing at scale, and we remain committed to working collaboratively with the City of Vancouver and developer to advance this project. I'm sorry, I don't know what else we need. We need to kind of check where we sit in terms of a power broker in this deal. Respectfully to my colleagues, we have very little other than to act in good faith, knowing that those that have the financial plan to deliver this project are acting in good faith and transparently communicating with us as a council. It is the best, in my mind, very sufficient to what we need in order to be confident to vote to support this. So that's the facts. That's the reality. Not an interpretation of it. It's exactly what has been stated. And to me, that is as good as an MOU that this will be delivered and funded as outlined.

but only if we move forward with this project today.

Great. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Maloney.

Thanks. Yeah, I just want to address the idea that there are no guarantees that the attainable home ownership portion of this will be built. But we need to make it clear that if we don't approve this, we're guaranteeing that it won't be built. We're guaranteeing it won't be built. We can't get senior government funding for this without the rezoning being approved. So by not approving the rezoning, we're guaranteeing that we won't get this attainable home ownership portion of this site. And I think that would be a travesty. Thanks.

Thank you. Councillor Dominato.

Thanks, Mayor, and appreciate the debate around the table. I think there's lots of different perspectives that have been shared. And I would say I think that a lot of really good questions have been surfaced. A number of those were surfaced several weeks ago during the public hearing and again today. And I just wanted to reflect. I think there's still some questions being raised about why... There is maybe, Councillor Kerby, I'm referred to skepticism, but maybe a lack of confidence and concerns around this proposal. I think that those concerns are warranted when you look at the current economic climate in the province. And as people are referring to facts, these are facts too, is that Budget 2026 projects a record-breaking $13.3 billion deficit for the 2026-27 fiscal year. The total provincial debt expected to rise from $154 billion to $235 billion over the next three years. And so it is not unreasonable for Council to question whether there will be funding will flow in commitment in support of the Attainable Housing Initiative. Governments have stepped back on programs like this in the past. We know the current government is stepping back on other files. And so it is incumbent upon us. People talk about how wonderful it is to be in local government because you're closest to the people. We are closest to the people. We get direct phone calls all the time. We are responding to questions. We are very accessible. I've had people ask me questions on the bus when I'm going downtown with my kids about something we just voted on in council. and so for us to be doing the due diligence saying we want to better understand the construct we're working with and what's going to be delivered, I think is part of our job, and it's not an easy job, and, you know, what I see here is I'm hearing the provincial government is committed to this. I'm hearing that from staff. I'm hearing that from the applicant.

What I am also seeing is that there is a plan B in here, and it's for the applicant, and it It is not an attainable housing initiative in the Plan B. It's a completely different housing tenure and delivery. What I want to see, and my hope, and I've supported my colleagues in debate at this council, is around the attainable housing, because we've had motions at council both last term and this term, to say that's something we'd like to see, if possible. And so where I've been wrestling with was the inability to impose, as I spoke to earlier, is that specifically that condition, which would be to remove that scenario, the alternate scenario, so that what we'd be approving today is simply a model that includes the attainable homeownership. and not a Plan B option. And so that's where I think, because I think the first one really addresses housing affordability, and that's what we consistently hear from the public, and getting entry, staff talked about this, entry into homeownership is incredibly difficult. And so... That's where my priority lies. Where I'm going with this is despite not being able to impose conditions to support it. But I wanted to put on record that I don't think it's unreasonable for us to be asking these questions. And I think I might be at time.

You're at time, Councillor.

I can see the looks. I'm getting the hook. Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. Councillor Klassen. Oh, by the way, can we have a motion to extend?

Councillor Bligh, thank you. Seconded. To finish this item. Awesome. Seconded Councillor Klassen. Thank you very much. Any discussion? All in favour, say aye. All opposed, say nay. Great, that passes. And can we please restart Councillor Klassen? To advance me. You haven't advanced me yet.

Thanks very much, Mayor, and thank you. I think this has been an incredibly important and healthy discussion and debate. I think right off the top, we should make sure that this is very clear. This is not about reconciliation in the sense that the debate today has been not about reconciliation. Reconciliation is an immovable goal of this council, and that is not something that we're debating here. I realize that it is woven into... The work that is going on in this program, I want to just say that I recognize it, I acknowledge it, and I think it's incredibly important. I value it. But we are talking about something that is unique and new, attainable homeownership. So, Councillor, remember I brought a motion last year that was unanimously supported to try and explore and look into attainable homeownership. The answer for why we did that is really clear. This is a new housing model. We just heard this happiness index story that played out a couple of weeks ago saying that if you factor in younger people in this country, we're ranked number 70 in terms of happiness index in this world. It's insane. And that's because in all the discussion I heard about it from people who are looking at this, affordability is a huge factor, and especially around housing affordability. And so having attainable housing, and I have to say, I'm prepared to support this, but I'll be profoundly unhappy if we do not see attainable homeownership this first try at doing this. And so the applicant is here, and I know that... The three local nations are here as well. I thank you for bringing this forward, and I urge you to try and do everything in your power to try and make sure that we do have attainable homeownership on the Heatherlands, because this is really an important reason for making this project move forward with the increased density. It is, I think it's imperative to our city. I think, in fact, I think it will be breaking ground that other parts of the country will be looking at. And I think certainly other projects in this city will start to look at, knowing that we can't rely entirely upon the provincial government. There'll have to be other parties and players. But at the end of the day, it is the federal and provincial governments that are able to backstop some of the seed funding to try and make these kinds of projects work. And candidly, a lot of the public don't understand this. They don't understand what attainable homeownership is. And I think all of us are still trying to learn about it. But at the end of the day, this is a way for people to be able to get over the threshold of very high down payments that have made it almost impossible for first-time homebuyers and young families to get into the homeownership marketplace. And I have always said that owning a home in this country is part of the Canadian dream. On for everyone. but for a significant number of families. That is one way to be a part of the Canadian dream. So I will support this. I will continue. Regardless of where I am, you know, several years from now, I want to make sure that I'm able to... Visit this site someday and see that people are able to get into this site and be able to begin, own their first homes here. So with that, those are my remarks, Mayor. But again, I would like to... just really underline how important this attainable homeownership is. And I am grateful that we have a first try at this. And I realize that this is pioneering a new model for housing. And I think a lot of people are going to be very curious what it means after this debate and discussion. But I think it's too important to turn away at this point. And I think our staff have heard as well. It's really important that we get the information. The council gets all the information they need on important decisions like this. And I know that they try often, but in this one, we spent a lot of time trying to figure out how we could get that information. It just wasn't available to us without jeopardizing potentially this project. Thanks very much.

Great. Thank you. Seeing no one else in the queue, I'm now going to call the vote. So clerk, if we can please take us to the voting panel and council.

Okay.

And that passes with Councillors Kirby Young, Montague and Meisner abstaining. And that completes the item. Thank you very much.

And so looking at the time.

What we're going to do is we are going to reconvene in camera from 1 to 2.30, and then we will be back here at 2.30 to continue the business of council. Thank you.

Bylaw 14. Would someone like to move the adoption of Bylaw 14? Moved by Councillor Zhou and seconded by Councillor Bligh. Okay. Councillors, any discussion? All those in favour, say aye. Any of those opposed, say nay. Motion carries unanimously. Would someone like to move the adoption, the motion to adopt Bylaws 1 to 13, 15 and 16? Councillor Domenato and seconded by Councillor Montague. Is there any discussion, council? All those in favor say yay. Any opposed? That carries unanimously. The list of the approved bylaws can be found on the city's website. One moment. Just kind of resetting here. Communications.

Communications one, changes to 2026 Councillor meeting schedule before we begin this item. If anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, Now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict to disclose? I believe Councillor Maloney, you held this item. You have five minutes to ask questions to team members.

Thanks. This should be pretty quick. My first question is, is there any scope for using these dates that are being – given up as a result of the ODP passing to move forward any other planning work? Is it a matter of meeting times or are there other limiting factors that would prevent that?

And my second question is with regard to the Villages project planning exercise, when is that coming to Council and is there any risk that that won't come to Council before the end of July?

Great. That's all I have. Thanks.

Hey, thank you very much. Okay. All right. This item does not have a presentation. Would somebody like to move the motion? Councillor Dominato, seconded by Councillor Maloney. Councilmembers, any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Any opposed?

Very good. Thank you very much, Councillor Kirby-Young. So that passes unanimously. All right. I did say to go to the panel, Clerk, but I think we're just going to do... That's fine. Thank you very much. Okay. All right.

Sorry, let me just go back.

All right. Okay.

Very good. Let's do that.

Chair, may I have a vote assist in favor, please?

You bet. Thanks, Council Member Young.

Okay, and counselor.

favor with sorry just saying that we've noted the absence thanks very much clear okay so now we will go to item number two consultation for city initiated Vancouver ODP amendment for the villages planning program before we have any before we begin this agenda item if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest now is the time to declare it does anyone have a conflict of interest to disclose Okay, this item does have a presentation. We have team members to present this item, and there's just six slides. So please go right ahead.

Very good. All right. Go right ahead.

Thank you, and I'm happy to do a point of information. Yeah, no problem. I just noted in the areas or the stakeholders to consult with, and we've been hearing some feedback from BIAs around just understanding how some of the villages in concept will, in their adjacency to existing BIAs, maybe it's a block or two difference, how that starts to potentially expand into their area of responsibility, let's call it. So I just wondered if there was a consideration to add them to the list of the many stakeholders, Vancouver School Board, what have you.

too we could consider including them as part of our notification on the ODP amendment specifically yeah I mean I I'm happy to move an amendment quite quickly if that it just wanted to make sure there wasn't anything obvious as to why that wasn't It wasn't identified. Maybe they don't have any feedback, but those that do will want the opportunity to provide it. And at least that can come in terms of the Folsom report back to council.

Chair, there's no one else in the queue. I may need a recess. I'm just going to add that as a quick amendment to the...

Okay. We'll take this to the amendment queue then. Right to council by. I'll put you on there. Go right ahead.

I'm...

Yes. You need a second, don't you? I'll just pause the timer for a sec while you just draft the language. Thank you. It'll be very quick. Thank you.

Councillor Klassen, while Councillor Bligh is drafting that, I might just ask, if I may, a question to staff.

Go right ahead, Councillor.

In terms of the consultation envisaged with the BIAs, do you consider how much of a time pressure will that add to your consultation? Do you think that will be something that you can incorporate into existing timelines?

I'll leave that up to Councillor Bligh to consider.

Okay. Councillor Bligh?

Thanks very much. And I see the amendment is confirmed. So just putting forward the amendment to add business improvement associations. And I do... And I do so just because we do meet with them on a regular basis as a council quarterly meetings. And since there has been engagement, I think a letter to sort of follow up to let them know that this amendment is coming forward to the ODP and that they have a chance to provide their feedback in a response letter perhaps. And then that can basically be compiled in terms of how it comes forward. or how we understand some of the implications of some of the villages so we can reference back to that in future. And maybe they'll want to expand their area. That's what I suspect could happen. Karisdale being one of them, one of the villages is literally a block away from the edge of the Karisdale VIA. So I think there might be some helpful information that comes back through this process. And it just shows us in good faith, making sure that they have a chance to respond. And while they've given feedback, it's not just simply, checking a box exercise, which I know it never is for staff, but sometimes it can be perceived that way when that final amendment comes forward. So that's the rationale, and I would appreciate support on that.

Can I get a seconder for that? Seconded by Council Member Malino.

Any further discussion? Okay, we'll call the vote.

Chair, may I have my vote assistant in favor, please?

Yes, Councillor Kirby Young.

Okay, so that passes with everyone here in favor. All right, so we'll go back to the main queue. Any other further comments, Councillor Orr?

Yeah, just a similar sort of question around, consultation around tenant organizations as well as community housing organizations and land trusts, which would include nonprofit housing associations and cooperatives, if that consultation has been taking place.

For clarity's sake, I think this was moved and seconded, so you're directing the question to the chair. Okay, sorry, directing questions to the chair. Okay, go right ahead.

Okay, I think I'll move a similar amendment just to include those languages.

Okay.

We'll take you to the amendment queue and advance you. I'm sure you probably want to quickly type something.

Yeah, I just typed it up.

Did you send that? Okay.

Yeah. It might not be formatted properly.

Thanks very much.

Yes, just to include tenant organizations and community housing organizations and land trusts.

Okay. Councillor Maloney?

Yeah, I have a similar question as last time. So do you consider that...

Sorry, we need a seconder on that. Councillor Zhou, second. Okay. And again, through the chair.

Yep. So what I'm interested in asking is... Do you see that adding this language would allow you to communicate by letter and consult by letter without adding, you know, what I'm interested in preventing is any delays in the villages planning process being coming to council for decision in July?

Okay. In that case, I would probably want to give staff a little bit more clarity just so that it's not a... There's more certainty about what staff are required to do to fulfil that obligation. So I don't know quite how to proceed with that. Perhaps I could ask for a brief recess and perhaps staff could suggest some wording. A couple of minutes. just to give staff certainty about exactly how to fulfil this. Otherwise, I'd feel conflicted in voting in favour of this.

I mean, I absolutely support the intent, but I would want to make sure that it was very clear to staff how to fulfil this direction without adding unnecessary

time uh staff time in position okay thanks uh also kirby on the amendment yeah chair if i might ask uh point of information through you um if that's okay yeah go ahead uh yeah i'm just looking for clarification from staff i understood that the intent of these two reports the one we're considering now is alignment with the provincial bill and requirements for the organizations that were outlined in the legislative requirement and the bill, not necessarily to be an exhaustive list per se, but a list of organizations at minimum that the city, according to the new provincial legislation, has a requirement to participate in. I'm just wondering if staff can provide some clarity on that, because there's obviously many organizations at different types of planning exercises and applications that stakeholder groups that will vary from project to project. So I'm just looking for a bit of clarity around what the intent of this report is. It was simply to align with the requirement as indicated in the province's bill.

Right. And maybe if I may ask a follow-up point, Chair, through you, is it fair to say that this is more of a high-level land use planning exercise and that with respects to how the city is growing and ensuring the piece of rdp are fitting together and if and when we get to any specific project should council enact a new villages program that based on those projects or initiatives that so a more macro a more micro level of different stakeholder organizations could be things like track could be uh non-profits could be a whole host of groups but they would have a chance to comment on projects i'm just trying to reframe this in terms of the bigger picture land use piece versus specific consultation when we get to projects or areas where we might have projects that might impact existing tenants. Can you help?

depending on the different scenarios of development that may occur right that's very helpful um for me and hopefully for council in terms of when the more detailed level of stakeholder engagement comes in and just thank you for level setting that i appreciate it uh thanks uh counselor i'm going to um cede the chair to uh deputy mayor kirby young for a moment here and just ask a couple questions of my own um i'm getting a pretty clear picture here that What we have in front of us in terms of the main item is legislative in nature. It's an important part of the overall process. This is confirmation because ODP is clearly a legislative requirement for the city. And so it sounds to me that we can certainly find sundry opportunities to work with stakeholder groups And these ones are obviously very jurisdictionally based. The ones that are in the amendment are more broadly sort of groups that would be from potentially the whole city rather than the actual neighborhood villages themselves.

Thanks very much. Thanks a lot. I'll take the chair back, Councillor Kerbiong. Councillor Maloney, on the amendment.

Yeah, that... Thanks to my fellow councillors for asking questions that clarified that the positioning of this is a more high-level exercise in consultation and more statutory in nature. I think I'll withdraw my intention of... I think that I'd prefer to just leave it at the statutory obligations rather than imposing additional obligations to staff, knowing that we really need to not go beyond the four-week consultation period, but also that further detailed consultation will take place at a future date.

Thanks very much. Councillor Bligh.

Yeah, I think I'll just say that I agree with Councillor Maloney on this particular amendment and won't repeat what she said, but agree with that. So I won't be.

Okay. So we will call the vote on this one. Thanks very much, everyone. For the voting panel, please clerk and vote assist.

Vote assist in favor. Thank you, chair.

Camera was just on and I heard in favor.

just looking at the boat here so it looks like it's a tie so it fails okay okay so let's go back to main queue counselor or any more comment No, that's everything. Thanks. Okay. Any other comments or questions?

I have a point of view. Okay. It's Councillor Kirby. I believe that was my error. I meant to say in opposition.

But if the outcome is the same, that the vote will not pass anyway, I don't need to take up time for reconsideration. Just clarifying that.

absolutely thanks counselor okay all right so now we will conduct the vote on item to go to the vote clerk please go to the voting panel in favor please chair yeah thank you

Okay, very good. All right, so that concludes that item. So now we're on to item three, finally. And I know our speakers are very excited. They've been here all day, but I made sure that they got some cookies because they looked hungry.

All right, so item three is the single room accommodation SRO upgrading and SRO cooling and warming retrofit grants. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict of interest to disclose? Okay, seeing none. This item does not have a presentation. Council, you will have five minutes to ask questions to team members.

Okay, so nobody is coming on right now. So we will now hear from speakers.

I do have one question if I might. Oh, you do.

Okay. Sorry, Councillor Kirby. I'll put you on the queue here. Hey, go right ahead.

Pretty much. I sent him one question to staff and it was about source of funding. It referenced approved fund for capital retrofits in the capital plan. Previously, we had supported some of this work through things like EHT funding. I sent in a clarifying question, and I believe staff responded back saying they thought that was the case, but they would confirm to me, and I don't have an answer back. So I would just like to better understand if HT is or can't be used as a source of funding.

Okay, thanks very much. We have staff here to answer that question.

Okay.

Is there a reason why it was not considered as a source of funding, given the budget pressures and the ability to utilize that and then redeploy? funds from the non-EHE budget to support other things? Is there a reason why it was not considered?

If I were to bring an amendment or council would bring an amendment for the source of funding to be HD funds, that would be consistent with our past practices on similar initiatives. Is that right?

Okay. Thank you very much.

I have a question. So I'll see the chair to actually, I don't need to because I haven't moved the motion yet. That's very good. Just a question for, for staff. I recently was contacted by somebody who managed an SRO in downtown Eastside. specifically asked me how they could be potentially allowed to access this these retrofit funds is there a clear path forward for and I know that the criteria is that we're looking at privately in this privately owned in this particular case but maybe you could just give a high-level explanation how that they might be able to achieve that

Excellent. Very simple. Thanks very much. OK. All right. We will now hear from speakers and speaker number one is.

We're both hitting buttons here. Oh, it's over here. When you have you have your own brand new podium there.

Great. Thanks very much, Wendy. Okay. So continuing the speaker's list, is Joe Lazon here? Okay, Misha Sample. Okay, Paul Sumner.

Thank you very much, Paul.

All right, Heather, come right up.

Thank you, Jean. I appreciate it. Okay.

Roger Haskins.

Brian O'Donnell.

I don't know if they're available.

All right. Go right ahead.

Thank you very much. Right on time. Our final speaker is Mohammed Rafi Arafat.

Bear with me for one second here.

Okay, great. Thank you. Sorry, was that Councillor Bligh? Great, and seconded by Councillor Kirby-Young. Council, is there any discussion? Councillor Kirby-Young.

Yeah, thanks, Chair. I want to thank all the speakers. It's always a privilege to hear from everybody, and thank you for coming up to City Hall and sharing the impact of the work you're doing. I really appreciated reading about the pilots and the work that you've done and the ability to extend them over to six sites now. I do want to propose an amendment, Chair, if you want to take us to an amendment queue.

Sure. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much. And it's simply with respects to the source of funding. I had sent this question in earlier to staff, and I don't think I visited an email, but I got an initial response back saying staff would double check, but they had thought that that was the source of funding. And then hence my questions earlier today. And so I'm looking for council to consider this addition that says that council direct staff to utilize the EHT bracket empty homes tax as a source of funding. for the grants detailed in this report informing recommendations A and B.

Great. Seconded by Councillor Klassen. Any discussion? Councillor Bligh.

Yeah, thanks very much. Just a point of information through you, Chair, to staff is around the empty homes tax. As a funding source, would that, recognizing that the funding is coming through the SRO cooling and warming room retrofit grant and the upgrading grant and the capital budget, could we be optimistic in saying that if this was approved, there'd be more funding available through those grant streams that are already identified? Because my understanding is that the empty homes tax funding is... fully subscribed and so it's not coming forward obviously as a recommendation from staff so feedback and context would be helpful

Great. And how quickly could staff turn around more funding that could be used in other buildings if this was approved?

That would mean the close to $900,000 and then the $500,000 would be covered by the empty homes tax. So we could, in theory, have another $900,000 and another $500,000 from the funds that are identified here to do even more necessary work.

Okay. So an interpretation of this motion is then we can, in fact, double the amount of funding we have for the needs that have been outlined based on the speakers and, of course, the staff report.

Okay, great. Just a quick follow-up, Mayor, point of information, just to get any thoughts or feedback from our city manager on the empty homes tax, just given that finance is not here and that sort of flagged. There's a question that was raised, and I appreciate your feedback, Margaret, sort of being asked on the spot to reference things that are not necessarily in your purview.

Okay, thanks. Any other feedback, finance or empty homes tax folks?

There's other speakers, and I'll save my time, and then maybe you can come back on. Thank you.

Thank you, Chancellor Frye. So I guess maybe if I could ask a question of the mover of the amendment, just because I am cognizant of when we shuffle around grant allocations, it can sometimes take away from something else. Is the intention to... keep the climate retrofit grants and the sro upgrade grants intact as they are and this is just funding this particular project through a different form or is this intention to supplant those existing grant streams

Yeah, through the chair. It's not just a plan. My intention, and I think it would be great to hear back from staff, even if that's after this meeting, was that we have a lot of pressures within housing in general. It's not to take anything away from the grants. The recommendation may be to do more in the grants. The recommendation may be to support other affordability or nonprofit measures on additional housing, but that it does free up some capacity as opposed to... leveraging or levering I should say property tax funds so I had sent this question in ahead to staff so hope to have more fulsome information on some of the impacts of it but I didn't receive that back ahead of the meeting but no I mean that the grant streams continue we may well be able to do much more with the grants as Councillor Bligh has pointed out there might be another worthy nonprofit project as well that potentially could fit under there. But I'd love to hear that information back from staff. But the intention is to spend it on similarly community benefiting initiatives in those arenas.

So in follow-up, then, if there was an amendment to your amendment that kept those two grants intact, the SRO grant and the climate grant, kept them intact.

So when you say the grant, are you referring to these specific grants or are you referring to the streams?

The streams, the streams.

I'm not proposing doing anything to the streams for very...

So an amendment to your amendment would be, okay.

I'm not proposing any changes to the streams at all.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Maloney.

Yeah, so I've got a question to staff about the purpose of the empty homes tax funding because I'm just interested to know is empty homes tax revenue intended to be spent on housing and If so, by spending it on other things, are we depriving ourselves of the ability to build new housing that would probably incorporate things like cooling rooms? I'm just trying to make a judgment about whether it would be best to use the allocated grants funding rather than dipping into empty homes tax revenue.

Thank you. Okay, seeing no one else in the queue, we will put the amendment to a vote. Oops, sorry, Councillor Frye. Preparing an amendment to the amendment, if we can. Okay, so we're going to go to amendment queue number two. Councillor Frye, let's just add you. Perfect. Please go ahead.

Yeah, and I'm just making this look pretty. And, yeah, so this is an amendment to the amendment. Just for clarity that we'll be keeping those two grant streams intact. So I just sent it in.

And it reads, following AMB, while maintaining the SRO upgrading grants and emerging climate adaptation priorities allocation streams intact.

so that it's clear we're not defunding those.

Yeah, thanks. Just reiterating from in response to Councillor Fry's earlier question, I was not proposing any changes to the streams. Otherwise I would have put that direction in there So I don't think that this changes what I proposed if it provides council with greater comfort great But I did not they I will note the original amendment did not propose any changes to the streams It simply switched the source of funding there were no changes proposed As further to the earlier question that was asked thank you Motive just wanting the clarity

And that passes.

unanimously. Great. So now we're going to go back to the amendment queue. Councillor Frye? I'm good. Thanks, Mayor. Councillor Bligh?

Yeah, I mean, I'm pretty much there, but I just noted a previous comment from the mover of the amendment that hopefully we'll get more information after the fact from staff, and I just want to offer any opportunity if there has been any updates that that could be provided before we're making a decision on this motion.

So a point of information through you.

Yeah. No, the question was not doubling the grant funding. The question was that if we transfer to the empty homes tax, the grant funding stays intact, and assuming that there's a limit to that funding, that that funding would be available for different projects.

Okay. Thank you very much to the city manager for quickly getting that answer. I'm happy to vote now. Thank you, Mayor.

And that passes unanimously. So now we're going to go back to the main queue. Seeing, oh, here we go. Councillor Kirby Young.

I know that's all. Thank you.

Great. Councillor Bligh.

Yeah, thank you. I'm happy to support the recommendations from staff for these particular projects. And I also want to thank the speakers, not only for speaking, but also for waiting all day to speak. I know you have been here since nine o'clock this morning. So I suspect there were a number of voices that couldn't be heard as a result of the delay, but I would assume they're going to be equally as eloquent. provide an example of the community and the hope that is created around the work that SRO Collaborative continues to steward. So very happy to support this, notwithstanding, of course, the life-saving aspects of what this will provide in terms of necessary cooling and heat waves and elevated heat events, which we know can be many, many, many days in the summer. And in the beginning of what it means to retrofit these buildings to a place where both in extreme cold and extreme heat, there's a pathway to provide grants where that work can be done, to know it's done in community, and also to know there's an added benefit of community gathering in these spaces. And shared experience, I think, is incredibly important and can't be undervalued just in the practical terms of providing a cooling room. I heard that loud and clear through the speakers. And thank you so much for the work of the researchers and those that also stuck around to and continue to work today to speak, but also just continue to work in the downtown east side where there's a great need. And we know that SROs are not the end goal. And, in fact, I'd say the Arlington I've been to, it's a great community there, and I appreciate the work that does happen. So not to devalue your housing where you have community and you have safe space, and it's being... created in a way that I think reminds us of our humanity at a time where we really need that and also in an ideal world you know housing transition and housing transformation when it comes to the downtown east side is multi-generational work and so what we need to know is that we've got practical supports and systems in place to make sure that people are supported in the here and now while looking forward to a new day where purpose-built Supportive housing and purpose-built housing that is affordable becomes that angle that has a lot of what's covered in terms of sustainable and resilient buildings. So a big chunk of work. So thank you, Wendy Peterson and SRO Collaborative, for the work that you do. I'll leave it there.

Thank you very much, Councillor Klassen. I'll be very brief. I just want to acknowledge the speakers and... Wendy Peterson, who is a true tour de force in this community and was able to kind of bring everybody together and has been the driving force on this and so many positive things that are happening in the community. So thanks very much. So excited to support this and bring comfort during cold times, during hot times, and make sure that we can actually continue that work. Thanks very much. Thank you, Councillor Maloney.

Thanks, and thanks very much again to the speakers for sharing the benefits of cooling and warming rooms, both in saving lives and building community. This is a particular area of interest of mine, and I've met with the network of researchers and organisations working to document and improve conditions for people who are very vulnerable to excessive heat. And what UBC researchers found is deeply concerning with regard to indoor temperatures in the downtown east side SROs running on average five degrees hotter than outside during the day and 10 degrees hotter at night, as one of the speakers did mention. And this begins in June. It's not just during excessive heat like the heat dome. It's just in summer with heat building up. and buildings not being designed for the excessive heat that's coming through climate change and becoming more of a business as usual thing rather than a one-off event.

So tenants are not just exposed during heat emergencies, I said, but throughout summer months. And residents are enduring dangerous, prolonged heat exposure in their buildings. And on top of that, can face a lot of barriers in accessing the city's cooling centres.

So, you know, we know that the BC Chief Coroner's Review in 2021 was already clear on this point that vulnerability to extreme heat is compounded by socioeconomic factors. So SRO residents are amongst the most at risk. So I see these retrofit grants not only as a meaningful step towards climate resilience, but as a matter of basic social justice for our community. Thanks very much.

Thank you very much, Councillor. Seeing no one else in the queue, I'm now going to call the vote.

Great. Thank you very much. Okay.

No, it's on the queue because I held this item.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I just wanted to follow up on the questions I sent in advance of council, which was around the selection of Champlain Heights Community Center and how it was prioritized amongst other potentially other community centers. And thank you, staff. You came back and noted. that there was five applications from Park Board that you felt met criteria and then you refined it. But in light of the fact that four of the five aren't being submitted for this application for funding, I'm just curious if you could comment on... where these sit in terms of capital priorities as we go into the planning process for the four-year capital plan. I don't know if you have that information or if you need to report back via memo, but I am curious. And I don't know if I'm allowed to cite these publicly, the sites that were named in the email, but I would be interested to understand where they sit in our planning process. So I'll leave it there.

Okay. I'll leave it there in the interest of time, but look forward to further discussions as we prepare for your capital plan. Thank you.

Clerk, can you please take us to the voting screen?

That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Okay, item five was approved on consent. Item number six, council resolution brewery lounges. Now, before we begin this agenda item, does anybody have a conflict that they wish to disclose? I don't see anyone here. This item does not have a presentation. Councillor Kirby-Young, you held this item, so you have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. The question that I had, and I also sent this one into staff, but I wanted to ask it here to be clear about it, is that I understand that what is being proposed in this report is an extension of the non-enforcement sort of approach to better enabling breweries to expand their serving areas with respect to the floor space. It's been about three years so far. I think about a year of getting started in terms of engagement with the hospitality sector. We formed a group. We had meetings with the craft brewers. We've had a two-year resolution, and now we're proposing. another two-year one so I guess my question to staff is but is there not a way to do this work faster so it doesn't take five years for changes I know that staff cited that there's other work I'm sorry this is a long preamble to the question but I also and I know that they said there's two establishments that took up this opportunity but it is limited to operators not having to that can't don't have to undertake any sort of changes or modifications and within inside their buildings and doing renovations and I wonder if that was an impediment there because I don't see operators wanting to invest unless they have certainty so a bit of a two-part question there but I'm I guess I'm looking for is there a simpler way to get somewhere versus taking five years to make a change that supports the craft brewers in our city

I appreciate that. I'm just going to jump in just because I'm short for time. But if you said we had hoped to learn, but we didn't, what are we going to learn by taking another two years? What do you need?

Okay, and it has to take two years?

Okay. Thanks. I appreciate the answers to questions. I will support the report. I just I know that we've really tried to expedite a lot of changes that have material benefit to different establishments. And we've done things like modernizing liquor regulations and aligning reducing business license types and putting permitting online. And I think some great work has been done in that. These are the kinds of things that I think do make a difference. I suspect in my conversations with some potential operators, they would be interested in taking it up, but they don't have any tolerance for risk right now in such huge areas of pressure and affordability. So I'm just hoping that we can move the work along and maybe perhaps there are opportunities along the way to do it more quickly than a year and a half if it's Q3 potentially, but I just want to ask those questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, Councillor Kirby-Young, seconded by Councillor Zhou. I think you had your hand up. Councillor, any discussion? Seeing no one else in the queue, I'm now going to call the vote. Please go to the voting panel.

And that passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Did we cover the referral reports?

Okay. Referral reports. Number one, CD-1363, text amendment 1055 through 1085, Canada Place, and 1001. Sorry. Yeah, 1001 through 1045, West Waterfront Road. Does anybody have a conflict that they need to declare? Seeing none, this item does not have a presentation. Councillor Kirby-Young, I believe you held this item. Is that correct?

I did, Mayor.

You have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members.

Great. Thanks very much. I had engaged, and I know a number of councillors have been aware of this application coming forward, and I engaged to sort of try to help direct them through the appropriate channel at the city, recognizing this is a very unusual time. not typical rezoning application because it is a ship and it doesn't sit on land having said that my question through you to staff is really around the process and so two-part question which is I understand that council does not have to refer this to a public hearing but staff are recommending it given the unique nature and the option of the public to weigh in So based on that understanding, I'm happy to be corrected, but that's my understanding. When would this come forward if we take the public hearing approach? When would it land on a council agenda?

So regardless of whether we take a public hearing, just to reflect back if I can, regardless of whether we go to a public hearing or it goes to a council meeting, you're saying it's the same timeline?

On April 14th? Yes. Okay. Explain that to me. Why is that happening so quickly? in two weeks and that both paths take the same amount of time. And what is the distinction from the public's benefit? Because the public hearing process is normally considered more robust and it was positioned that there's an opportunity for the public to provide input and questions. I know a lot of folks have done that already. So can you just really distinguish that for us?

But what is the difference between it's gonna be the same council on the same day on the same floor? One is a council meeting, one is a public hearing. So just carve that difference for me, please.

I understand that. And I guess I'm just trying to understand the difference because in... practical non-planning speak terms. It's the same council, same day, same process. It's not like it's a longer period of time or there's a distinction around The process, the public engagement's already happened, correct? And I'm sticking to process questions, obviously. Correct.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Great. Thank you very much. Seeing no one else in the queue here, would someone like to move a motion? Councillor Kirby Young, seconded by Councillor Domonato. Any discussion? Okay.

Thank you very much. Okay, administrative motions. Number one, regulatory changes regarding Vancouver official development plan. Does anybody have a conflict to disclose? Seeing none. Council, are there any questions to team members?

Great, thank you. Councillor Domenato, seconded by Councillor Bligh. Council, is there any discussion? Okay. Seeing that, no one's put their hand up. I'm going to call it to just a simple vote. All those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great. The motion carries unanimously. Great. So notice of council member motions. Are there any notices of council member motions for upcoming standing committee meetings? 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. Okay, so I'll go first. I do have one, and I have sent it in. I'd like to call notice of motion for the standing committee meeting on Wednesday, April the 22nd, 2026, for a motion titled Enabling a Process for a Major Sports Initiative in Vancouver. Councillor Kirby Young.

Thanks, Mayor. I have one notice of motion called Back to Community, Establishing Strategic Priorities and Consolidating Council Direction for the 2027-2030 Capital Plan, and that is for the April 22nd Standing Committee.

Thank you very much.

Sorry, Councillor Zhou.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Also notice of motion, Holodomor Memorial Statue honoring Ukrainian Canadians for Standing Committee meeting on April 22nd. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Councillor Dominato.

Yes. Notice of motion renewal of British Columbia board position with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the Standing Committee, April 22nd, 2026.

Thank you very much. Councillor Orr.

Thank you. For the Standing Committee, April 22nd, two motions, one titled reconciling provincial housing funding with mandated housing targets and another called no penalties for vehicle shelter during FIFA.

Councillor Maloney.

A notice of motion for the Standing Committee meeting on the 22nd of April called Recognising the International Day of Older Persons as an Official Celebration and Observance.

Thank you. Councillor Fry?

Yeah, notice on motion now. Excuse me, my apologies. I didn't realize that the meetings had been shuffled. So I've submitted these, in fact, for May the 6th Standing Committee. Number one is supporting community stewardship for eco corridors and neighborhood communities.

Thank you very much, Councillor. Anyone else before we move on to new business?

Well, we are going to move right along to new business. We do have one item on the agenda, which is requests for leaves of absence. And so the motion is being circulated to Council.

Oh, Councillor Domonato?

Thanks, Mayor. I just started talking to clerks. I just did men's April 22nd to all day for civic business still. Thanks.

Thank you. I'll advance myself. Councillor Bligh?

Hi, thanks very much. I just, and I'm not sure if it needs to be noted for the record, but the leave of absence request for April 14th and 15th is a medical leave.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Great. So can we please have, could someone move a motion? Councillor Zhou, thank you. Seconded by Councillor Bligh. Council, any discussion? All those in favour, say yay. All those opposed, say nay. Great. The motion carries unanimously. Council, is there any other new business? And I actually have something here.

It's actually with a pretty heavy heart that we'd like to sort of recognize the passing of Howard Grant. He was just a revered elder and... very good friend from Musqueam Indian Band. Howard, as we all know, was a respected leader, a cultural steward, and a proud representative of his people. And his contributions to strengthening community, preserving culture and language, and advancing understanding will have a very long-lasting impact across Musqueam and beyond. So I just want to say that our thoughts and prayers are with his family, his sons, Member of Parliament Wade Grant and Musqueam Councillor Gordon Grant, his Musqueam friends and the entire Musqueam community during this incredibly difficult time. And we just hope his legacy will continue to guide and inspire future generations to come. Once again, it's with a lot of sadness that we acknowledge the passing of a very good, dear friend of a lot of us in this chamber. Councillor Fry.

Yeah, and thank you for that acknowledgement, Mayor. I had an inquiry, a couple of inquiries for city manager, actually. I've received a request from media asking about traffic impacts from FIFA and the understanding that Toronto has published a sort of projection of potential traffic impacts and. uh but the city of vancouver has not and that we may have such information but we haven't released it yet can you share anything about traffic impacts for fifa that we're projecting or if we'll be releasing public information to advise folks thank you through your worship uh i'm not aware of anything but we'll include that in the next fifa briefing which will be publicly available as well so uh in the memo that will go to council shortly Okay, I appreciate that. I had a second question, and I didn't receive, I did submit this last week, and I didn't see it on the updates of council questions, and it was regarding some concerns around sex worker safety and potential deprioritization of the murdered and missing women and indigenous girls work.

Is there any conversation around that with regard to FIFA and our human rights action plan? the gender-based violence work that we had approved as a council last year, and that work is, I understand, going through the same department.

seek to have that answered in the next council and anything as it relates to people will be included in our okay thank you thank you very much okay uh seeing no one else in the queue um last chance before we move on okay uh inquiries and other matters council are there any uh inquiries or other matters

Oh, we just did that, I guess, new business. Sorry. Okay. Then may we have a motion to adjourn? Great. Councillor Hugh came first. Was that? Yeah. Councillor Kirby Young seconded by Councillor Bligh. All those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great.