← Council Meeting May 5, 2026
City Council meeting of Tuesday, May the 5th, 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 us? Don't worry about that. 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. In case of an emergency where we do have to evacuate the chamber, I would like to direct your attention to the glass doors. If you can walk through them when they open up and take a left at the pillar and walk down the stairs, that would be great. If that exit is obstructed for any reason whatsoever, there are four exits on the side of the chamber and more instructions will follow. If you do need mobility assistance, please stay in place and one of our super friendly team members will help you get to a safe place. There's also a defibrillator at the end of the hallway if you so need it. I do want to acknowledge that we're hosting today's council meeting on the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and TTsleil-Waututh First Nations. And I do want to thank them for their generosity and hospitality and love and care. They show this great land that we get to live, work and play on. I also want to acknowledge and celebrate all of our team members throughout the city of Vancouver who work incredibly hard every single day with passion and purpose to make this city a better place. And in fact, yesterday we did get the honour and privilege to acknowledge a lot of individuals that have been here for over 25 years serving our city really well. So I want to thank them. With that, can we please have a roll call?
Mayor Sim in the chair, Councillor Kirby Young, Councillor Dominato, Councillor Bligh, Councillor Fry, Councillor Montague, Councillor Klassen, Councillor Meiszner, Councillor Zhou, Councillor Orr, and Councillor Maloney. Of course, Mayor Sim.
Thank you very much. Okay, so today is May 5th, the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women. girls, and Two Spirit Plus people, known as Red Dress Day. So Red Dress Day was inspired by an art installation created by Métis artist Jamie Black. The installation features red dresses displayed in public spaces across Canada and the United States. symbolizing the many Indigenous women, girls, and Two-Spirit Plus people who are no longer with us. It stands as a powerful visual reminder of loss, resilience, and the urgent need for awareness and action. On Red Dress Day, people are encouraged to wear red to honour lives lost, raise awareness, and support collective efforts to address the gendered... and racialized violence impacting indigenous women, girls, and two spirit plus people. This day also reflects the city of Vancouver's ongoing commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples. As a designated city of reconciliation since 2014, Vancouver continues to work in partnership with the Musqueam, Squamish, and TTsleil-Waututh nations and urban indigenous communities with a focus on building respectful relationships advancing Indigenous rights and addressing the ongoing impacts of colonial... Always a great reminder. Okay, so the plan for today. We will be breaking at noon for lunch, followed by the in-camera meeting. Return at 3 p.m. to continue to deal with the remainder of the agenda. Adjourn or recess by 5 p.m. as we do have a public hearing at 6 p.m. If we do recess, the reconvene date is Thursday, May 7, 2026 at 3 p.m. In camera. Council is required to meet in camera later this week. The reasons and authority under the Vancouver Charter are listed in the agenda. Would someone like to move a motion to move in camera? Thank you, Councillor Claston. Seconded by Councillor Dominato. All those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great. The motion carries unanimously.
Minutes. Minutes 1 are from the Council meeting following the Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities on April 1, 2026. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Would someone like to move adoption? Councillor Meiszner, seconded by Councillor Bligh. All those in favour say aye. All those opposed say nay. Great. The motion carries unanimously. Minutes 2 are from the nomination subcommittee meeting on April 7, 2026. Are there any corrections? Would someone like to move adoption? Councillor Claston, seconded by Councillor Zhou. All those in favour, say yay. All those opposed, say nay. Great, the motion carries unanimously. Minutes three are from the council meeting on April the 14th, 2026. Are there any corrections? Would someone like to move adoption? Councillor Zhou, seconded by Councillor Kirby-Young. All those in favour, say yay. All those opposed, say nay. Great, the motion carries unanimously. Minutes four are from the public hearing on April the 14th, 2026. Are there any corrections? Great, Councillor... Uh, Meisner, seconded by Councillor Orr. All those in favour, say yay. All those opposed, say nay. Great. The motion carries unanimously. Minutes five are from the business licensing hearing on April the 21st, 2026. Are there any corrections? Would someone like to move adoption? Councillor Zhou, seconded by Councillor Klassen. All those in favour, say yay. All those opposed, say nay. Great. The motion carries unanimously.
Okay, matters adopted on consent. Council will now consider matters adopted on consent. We have communication number one, reports one, two, four, and six through 15, and referral reports one and two on the consent agenda for council's consideration. We're going to hold reports three and five to hear from speakers. Council may adopt the recommendations for communication one, reports one, two, four, and six through 15, and referral reports one and two on consent. Does any member want to hold any of these items for debate or questions? Team members. Councillor Dominato.
Yes, thank you, Mayor. I'd like to hold Report 11 for questions. That's CD1-892, Text Amendment 1290, Hornby 889, Drake.
Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Frye. Yeah, thank you. I'd like to hold reports one and two, please.
Was three held? Sorry. Yeah, okay. And six? Six is not held. I'll hold six.
Eight. 10, sorry, 12, and 15. And can I declare a conflict on 13? Okay.
Give me two secs. We'll do the conflict in a sec. So you've held reports 6, 8, 10, 12, and 15. Is that correct? Yeah.
Okay. So now, before we consider the consent agenda, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict? Counselor or...
Yeah, my family member owns property there, and this will impact his view and has told me repeatedly to vote no, so I can't.
Thank you very much. Okay. So just bear with me for two seconds. Sorry, Councillor Orr, was there anything else during the queue here? You're good? I'm good. Thank you. Okay, let me just make sure I have everything correct here.
And clerks, if you can make sure I got this correct, we have communication number one, reports number four, seven, eight, nine, 11, 13, and 14, and referral reports one and two for the consent approval. So I'll repeat that. We have communication number one, and then reports number four, seven, eight, nine, 11, 13, and 14, and referral reports one and two for the consent approval.
Sorry, can I just check? I believe that Councillor Orr held Report 8.
That's why we...
So I have 8, 10, 11, 12, and 15 held now. Okay, so I'm going to repeat that one more time just so we're very clear, and thank you. That's why we... There's a lot of Tetris going on here. We have communication report number one, reports number four, seven, nine, 13, and 14, and referral reports one and two for the consent approval. Is that correct? We're all good? Didn't miss anything? Thank you very much. Okay. Would someone like to move adoption of the recommendation? Great. Thank you very much, Councillor Kirby-Young, seconded by, I think, Councillor Dominato. Was that you? Perfect. All those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay.
great the motion carries unanimously okay so just bear with me for one sec so we have communication number one changes to the 2026 council meeting schedule we also have report number four operator appointment and lease approval for social facility at number 300 through 485 west 42nd avenue then we have report number seven cd-1908 text amendment 185 through 193 southwest marine drive and 7980 manitoba street and we have report number one cd-1 rezoning 5635 through 5655 canby street and 511 west 41st avenue Then we have report number 13, CD-1 rezoning 354 through 380 East 10th Avenue. And then report number 14, CD-1 rezoning 1728 through 1738 Alberni Street and 1706 Alberni Street and 735 Bidwell Street. And then we have referral report number one. Uh, 2026 financing growth update bill 16 compliance update to density bonus provisions and inclusionary zoning and, uh, referral report. Number two, CD dash one, eight 47 text amendment one 33 through one 59 West 49th Avenue, formerly one 31 through one 63 East 40 hours. Sorry. West 49th Avenue. Okay.
Stop being sad.
The first item on the agenda will be report number one, City of Vancouver commemoration framework. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict to declare? Seeing no one in the queue, this item does have a presentation, and we do have team members to present.
morning elena marley managing director of arts and culture um can you see the presentation we're sharing at the minute doesn't seem to be coming up
Hi. Today I'll be providing a brief overview of the proposed commemoration framework.
Next slide, please. The commemoration framework is intended to guide the receipt and approval of commemoration requests made to the City of Vancouver for the limited public spaces and assets that are owned and controlled by the City. The proposed framework does not apply to the park board or public library. However, staff from both have been engaged in the process to develop the framework and are committed to collaborate on joint requests. Commemorations take many forms, including the commemoration of community, people, places, events and ideas. And the framework proposed encourages the prioritisation of commemorations that are meaningful and significantly relevant locally. It also establishes key roles and accountabilities for intake, review and decision making.
To frame this, commemoration is an act of knowledge, acknowledging the memory of communities, people, places, events, and ideas, through many forms, including proclamations, monuments, public arts, plaques, street names, and places of remembrance. Currently, there is no policy to guide commemoration for the City of Vancouver-owned and managed land and assets, so historically, public requests have been handled on an ad hoc basis. the exception being flag protocols and illuminations which fall under the civic protocol policy. The lack of a single guiding document has caused issues with inconsistent processing of commemoration applications, which can be frustrating to the public and perceived as inequitable. Additionally, there is limited city-owned and operated public space available for commemorations, which requires being selective and judicious when assessing applications and committing public assets.
As stated, the proposed framework is centred on assets that are owned and under the full control of the city. The types of commemorations which are defined as in scope are new and honorary commemorations for streets, laneways, buildings and plazas, developing and acquiring or deaccessioning commemorative civic monuments, public art and plaques, and commemorative protocols including official celebrations and observances which are also guided by the civic protocol policy. Commemorations which will be managed outside of the framework are local indigenous naming, which would be guided through a separate indigenous naming process through the indigenous relations team. Temporary and community activations, including roadside memorials and memorial murals, as these tend to be spontaneous community activations rather than following a formal request process. And also land and assets not wholly controlled by the city, including leases, which are also out of scope.
We're proposing five assessment criteria to guide the application assessment and decision-making process.
The only criteria that is required for all applications is that the commemoration be locally relevant and grounded in Vancouver. After this, not all criteria need to be met for an application to proceed. However, together they intended to guide the decision-making process. These criteria reflect local nation consultation, public engagement, best practice findings, and the premise that public space and assets are limited. Staff recognize that historically commemorations have largely reflected a particular histories and perspectives, and the assessment criteria grounded to encourage a broader reflection of the diversity of Anki's people and experiences. I'm just going to take a moment just to walk through the five criteria. The first criteria is a requirement for all applications to be locally relevant and grounded and connected to Vancouver. This is to encourage the prioritisation of the diverse local community and history on limited city assets. While the framework places emphasis on local history and incidents as a priority, this does not diminish the significance and impact of devastating events that have happened and continue to happen in countries across the world. The second is to hold broad community interest and support, and this is speaking to prioritising significant events, groups and individuals where there is a broader connection and meaning to the wider local community. This is not to minimise the importance and impact of individuals, but to recognise again the limited public space and the need to be intentional about what gets commemorated. Next is the commitment to advance the city's under it priorities and recognize the diversity of Vancouver's residents, which captures the intention to recognize traditional knowledge, stories, and those who have been historically underrepresented in the fabric of our community.
Staff also recommend there is a minimum of a two-year pause for consideration of applications following a person passing or an event. This is commonplace with other municipalities and provides some breathing space for those impacted. And finally, applications will be assessed against their operational feasibility from a city perspective. So through the staff review process and the recommendations to council, we will consider the feasibility of the location, the potential future uses of that asset or space, and whether there is a whole life funding plan in place.
The framework outlines the process and accountabilities from intake through to staff review and either staff or council decision subject to council approved staff delegated authorities. The process for each application would be dependent on the scale, nature and complexity and the proposed location. The intention is the process is centrally coordinated and standardised where feasible. And as part of the staff review, the lead department will engage with the applicant for information and clarifications. The lead department is the team that operates or is responsible for the asset where the commemoration is being proposed.
So the report for you recommends that general manager of the lead department be granted delegated authority to approve fully funded time-limited plaques where there is strong alignment to the relevant assessment criteria.
Staff would also have the authority to decline applications where the assessment criteria are not adequately met and would encourage the applicant to seek locations on private land.
All other approvals would require council direction, which is consistent with other jurisdictions where typically council make decisions on all commemoration requests. Where feasible, staff recommend utilising existing council processes to seek council direction. An example would be that street naming would be managed as part of the wider area plan development and redevelopment processes led by the planning department in collaboration with the asset owner, which would likely be engineering. Outside of these existing processes, staff would prepare a six-monthly Omnibus Commemoration Council report to provide an update on applications and seek council direction as needed.
Okay, subject to Council's direction today, staff would begin to implement the framework by developing public-facing online guidelines and resources. In addition, we would review current on-hold applications to assess and progress towards a decision. The framework is recommended to be reviewed in a four-year cycle with the opportunity to be reaffirmed or amended by Council.
And to wrap up, the staff recommendation for you today is for council to approve the commemoration framework and direct staff to implement internal guidelines and public-facing resources to implement the framework by the end of the year. Staff also recommend that council delegates authority to city staff to decline applications where assessment criteria are not adequately met. And that the general manager responsible for the city asset or space to be used for the commemoration has delegated authority to approve fully funded temporary plaques for up to 10 years where there is a strong alignment to the assessment criteria.
So can we, sorry, the procedure, did we put Councillor Fry first since he held this item?
Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Sorry. I was fighting for you there, Councillor. Okay. So just a reminder, we do have five minutes, Council, to ask your questions. Councillor Meiszner.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor, and thanks to staff for bringing the framework forward. A few questions that arose for me. The first one was around the plaques, and I'm just hoping you can expand on the rationale as to why you support having staff support those plaques and approve those plaques without it coming to Council.
Yeah, the intention is to simplify the process. And if there is an asset that is not adversely encumbered, it's a non-contentious, it meets the criteria of being a broad interest, then it would be a simple process for applicants to be able to progress those. So we saw those as a lower risk commemoration. Anything that was not aligned with the assessment criteria broadly, those plaques would still come to council. Mm-hmm.
Okay, but the plaques that, if this was approved, that would be approved by staff under delegated authority, how would council be updated on those plaques? And how many plaques are we talking about? Like, could hundreds of plaques start proliferating all over the city?
To be confirmed. At the moment, we don't have that many plaques, but often when a commemoration framework is approved or a policy, there is an influx. of an application. So we're anticipating that. Anything that was staff approved or declined would be included as part of the six-month Omnibus report back to council.
Okay. Presumably that six-month report would come after the plaque had already been... essentially screwed to the wall, so to speak.
Yeah, yes. If that's a delegated authority that council wants to pass to staff, then yes, that would be after the event.
Okay.
As part of that six months, if we were mid-process, we'd say we'd had an application for a plaque. So it depends where we are in the approval process.
So let's say, you know, obviously, you know, the world is a fast-moving place and things change. And let's say staff did approve a plaque under the delegated authority. But then for whatever reason, you know, an issue arose with that organization or the language or something, what would be the process for council to ensure that that plaque was removed, if need be?
Any plaque would need a clear applicant, and there would be a legal agreement with the applicant in the city, and that would include some clauses if there was anything that came up that made it inappropriate to have that plaque up.
Okay, so let's say the person was honoured with the plaque, you know, had committed a crime, for example, and was convicted of a crime. There would be a process to have that plaque removed?
Yes. Okay. In the legal agreement, we would capture that.
Okay, that's good to hear.
And there would be due diligence around whatever the plaque commemorating was to make sure it was broad interest and wasn't contentious.
Okay. And why 10 years for plaques? I'm thinking of some plaques around the city, like on the Canby Street Bridge, the Burrard Street Bridge. Those are pretty old. Yeah. So I'm just wondering why a 10-year limit for a plaque.
We looked at other jurisdictions. 10 years seemed to be sort of acknowledging that this was a moment in time and not a forever thing, which meant delegated authority would make sense. If it's to be extended past 10 years or longer, that that be something that would come to council. Okay. You could keep it there for longer. Okay. But it would have to come to council. Yeah, exactly.
Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. And then my bigger question is, what were the challenges around having a commemoration framework that applied to both the city and the park board? Maybe you could expand on that. Why are we not bringing something like that forward?
Yeah, I think the sense was there was different decision-making processes. This was an element that we could control and be able to approve and start to move forward the applications that sit with City. We also have been working really closely with the Park Board team, so actually our position on commemorations and theirs is very close, and we would just follow their due process. So it's not exclusive of the Park Board, but this is our framework. It hasn't gone to their board for approval.
Okay, but what would be, you said it's very close, but I assume it's not the same.
Correct. They were ahead of us in the process, and now if this framework gets passed, we're ahead of them where we've got something formal. Okay. But the sentiments, the assessment criteria are very similar.
Okay.
They're not contradictory.
Thank you. And one last question was, and you kind of alluded to this when, you know, new things like this go live, if approved, you know, we can anticipate maybe like a new, you know, a higher rate level of applications coming in. So how do we guard against abuse or, you know, overwhelm with like an excessive number of applications coming in should this be approved?
Yeah, and I think this is where we have to decide on the assessment criteria. They're crucial. So if it's not meeting that sort of locally relevant grounded, if it doesn't have a full funding envelope, which could include council approving funding, then needing to navigate those and then the feasibility of the assets and places. So really using that due process of the assessment criteria.
Okay. Thanks for answering all my questions.
No worries. Thanks.
Thank you. Councillor Zhou. Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Also, thanks for bringing forward this report. I think it's a long overdue report on the policy because of, as we all know, the commemoration in our city does not reflect the culture and the gender diversity in our city. Thank you for bringing that. Okay, question. So about the first criteria, local relevancy. So I still don't understand if we have a clear definition what we consider as local relevant, which one is not. Because the definition there, it's not even that definition is so vague.
Yeah, this is a framework. So it's trying to provide the bookends and the sort of umbrella of where we go. As part of the implementation, we'll be looking at different policies across the city to kind of refine those things. And those will come back to you. So we've kept it relatively broad to provide some flexibility. But really due to the fact that there is limited assets and places, really making sure that it really is of significance to the local population.
So locally, if it happens locally and it's grounded in Vancouver, that would absolutely be a yes to that assessment criteria. If it's locally relevant to the population of criteria, this is where we get into a bit of a nuanced grey area. which would involve considering each one on an application basis.
Okay, so I'm just making something up. So let's say if one person did a huge contribution to Canada, to the whole country, but he has very limited connection with Vancouver specifically, but maybe he come to Vancouver before, he visited Vancouver before, would that consider as local relevance?
The recommendation from staff is that probably wouldn't be local, but it would be brought to council to decide if it was important enough for Vancouver to commemorate. Yeah, that would be a council decision, yeah.
Okay.
And commemorations are very sensitive and nuanced, and not everyone is individual and different, so there has to be some kind of consideration of those circumstances.
Okay, so for the future application, they will come to council for final approval. Is that right?
Everything apart from a non-contentious, fully funded 10-year plaque would, yes.
Okay, thank you. Other questions. I saw there are minimal two years requirement for the happening of the events. Why we have two years waiting period for this?
We've done quite a bit of review across other jurisdictions in Canada and outside of Canada, and it gives a moment to just sort of catch your breath after a tragedy. That could mean that it's actually implemented at the two-year mark. You can start having conversations earlier than that, but to give some breathing space from that moment of shock to when a memorial happens. Okay, so I'm just thinking about, like, for instance, for the Lapu-Lapu tragedy, we cannot do anything until... We're in conversations with the families and victims, but if this was to pass, it would be a two-year mark that something would be installed. But there's plenty of time to do that. It takes time for a community to come together, pass the grieving process, consider what they actually want collectively. and then go through the process. If it ends up being a work of art or monument, to do that and then install it. So a two-year was deemed very sort of, normal is the wrong word, but it was the appropriate amount of time at most jurisdictions we spoke to.
Okay. And have we talked to the community about the two years? So everyone's buying for that two-year idea?
No, we haven't. We've had lots of engagement with public as part of the consultation process. We haven't presented what this framework would be yet because it hasn't been passed specific to the Lapu-Lapu families.
So if the council would like to do something urgently within the two years, it's still... Everything is up to council, yeah. Thank you. Other questions. This policy does not prevent any commemoration on a private lunch, right?
No, this is just city-owned and controlled, so it wouldn't be included in even our lease spaces unless it was part of the contract. We could actually look to build this into lease agreements in the future, they comply with the commemoration framework.
Thank you. So my last question is, I saw one thing probably is missing in this policy is how do we make sure the protection of the commemoration? Because in the past few years, there might be some violence against some of the old commemoration in the city. So do we consider any protection for the future commemorations?
Yeah, this does include maintenance and deaccession even of the existing commemorations. We have generally... had some funding be identified for maintenance, particularly public art. It's not necessary for the whole life. So yeah, the assessment criteria would be considered as part of that deaccessioning process.
And that would include preventing the vandalism and also the maintenance of the commemoration?
Yeah, the maintenance would be really down to the asset owner. So if it was a public art collection or engineering, they would just follow the usual protocol on restoring vandalism.
Thanks. That's all my question. Thanks, Mayor. Councillor Kirby Young.
Thanks, Mayor. Good morning. Thanks for the presentation. I'm going to follow up on the earlier questions from Councillor Meiszner for a bit more specificity on the park board. And I know that it says out of scope includes assets and space is not wholly owned and controlled by the city. So obviously the city does wholly own all the assets. So I guess the controlled is the... Is that the key piece there?
Yeah, that's correct. Because we have lease agreements or other jurisdictions' governance that need to be gone through.
Okay, so on that note, you mentioned that Park Board is considering a similar or largely similar policy. What are the... differences contemplated?
We would have to go back to the park board team on if they were looking to do anything different. Through this process, everything was aligned, except we're just talking about going to council for the approval, not going to the park board.
So if I can reflect that back just so that everyone's understanding. So we're talking about two different approval processes, but we expect it will be the same commemoration framework. We're not hearing that it will be different? I I'm not hearing that it would be different, but it would be subject to the staff at the park board and the park board governance. Which would certainly be beneficial for the public that they don't have to deal with two different sets of criteria.
Either way, we have a number of applications that are on hold that could potentially be a city, let's say public art, sitting on a park board space. Either way, that would still need to go to the park board. But our assessment would be based on our commemoration framework. We would talk to the park board staff. It would then have to go to the park board's
itself to actually i understand the process i'm just thinking in terms of the reality if somebody comes along and they are they have a proposal for commemoration that they are not choosing which body to go to because one allows something and the other does not for example if it's put on a street next to a park versus in a park and we don't end up with a mishmash of distinct policies but you're not expecting that to be the case it would be subject to the staff going back to park board decide what their commemoration priorities are but the
The feedback we got from staff was that our combination framework assessment criteria aligned with theirs.
Okay. So we don't have cause for concern, but we don't have comfort on that necessarily either. Yeah. The joys of two different bodies for the public. Okay. With respects to, I think in terms of this conversation that came up about locally significant. Yeah.
How would you define that in your own words?
In importance? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, the commemorations for city spaces, municipal-owned and controlled spaces, our sense was to prioritise those things that meant the most to the local population and that was grounded. So that was a way of gating... commemorating everything from across the world how do you determine like how do you how do you judge that because it's still going to be a subjective process it is so we would do an assessment to see whether it was 100 local or not and then bring that back to council with um whether there was parallel commemorations that had already been done that was similar um or not so this is it's a very nuanced process commemoration
Is there any criteria for things like letters of support from communities or representatives or engagement with communities that the proposed commemoration is purporting to support or represent?
Yeah, so as part of the implementation process, we'll be capturing what things are to provide as part of an application and having those letters of support or that connection of the truth on the history, all those things will be part of the application process.
Okay. Switching gears, obviously this allows for Indigenous commemoration separate from Indigenous naming. We have some robust work we've done in terms of reflecting Indigenous art on public art lands, et cetera. Do you think this provides a level playing field for all cultural communities as well as Indigenous to have opportunities?
Yeah, this is just honoring the undrived action plan and also the indigenous processes for naming. Naming tends to be gifted.
I'm asking, sorry, I just clarified my question for time. I'm asking about all the other cultural communities. Do you think they have equal opportunity for representation? Vietnamese community, Chinese community, South Asian, on it goes. Anybody can put in an application. Okay, and would they all have equal opportunity if they're considered locally relevant?
Yep, anybody can put in an application from any cultural group. Would they all be weighted if they're similarly? The only assessment criteria that's required is the local, relevant, and grounded. All the others are optional subject to what's being brought forward.
Okay, so some assessment criteria might not be as relevant to an application. I understand it needs to be relevant, but you're saying you think that it's open access for all cultural communities in Vancouver? Is that a fair comment? Yeah, all applications would be welcome. Okay, I'll leave it there. Thanks, Mayor.
Thank you, Councillor Fry. Yeah, thank you. And many of my questions... I mean, I was quite interested in how we define the locally relevant grounded and connected in Vancouver and also the conversation around deaccession. And so looking at some of the existing statuary, like, say, the Vietnamese Boat People Memorial at Macaulay Park, would that be considered locally relevant? Would that be something that if staff were to recommend it was to be deaccessed? It's a hard word.
It's a great word, though.
It's a great word. Who would pay for that kind of thing? Similarly, you know, I wasn't here last week for council's decision to cite the Holodomor statue on City Hall grounds. Would that have fallen under the locally relevant criteria? And in the event that staff come back with recommendations, who pays for existing statuary in those kind of cases?
So the framework is sort of leaning towards an applicant coming with a fully funded model for the whole life of an asset commemoration and also having those tough conversations up front of is this a forever thing or is this a 10-year thing because commemorations can have a life cycle and that tends to be the trend. So the idea would be that they'd be fully funded. If there was a gap, we would bring that forward to council to say there is a gap, this is what it looks like, did you want to fund from council directly? Past commemorations probably don't have any funding for ongoing maintenance and the deaccession process. So we'd be looking at existing things like our public art, civic collection type funding if there was a lean towards deaccessioning.
Is the intention here to go through sort of the list of existing? I mean, I know this isn't Park Board, but I think Stanley Park, we've got Robbie Burns, Queen Victoria.
Yeah. There's no plan as part of this commemoration framework to do an audit of an assessment of deaccessioning. As part of our public art civic collection, we should be doing that all the time of when maintenance makes sense and when the end of a life makes sense. But we would again bring those back to council.
Okay.
When we talk about more sort of timely contemporary activations, thinking, you know, commemoration like Taylor Swift coming to town, we put up some charm bracelets where we projected the Rolling Stones logo on City Hall. Are those covered under this kind of...
No, the commemoration is really grounded in an individual that has passed or a significant event that has cultural significance to the city. So I think those moments that are spontaneous activations or very short term wouldn't be covered by the commemoration. They're not commemorating, unless they're commemorating a deceased person. They're commemorating a living artist that wouldn't be deemed a commemoration. It would be outside of the scope of this.
Okay, so that would be considered a sponsorship naming, right? Exactly, yeah. Okay, so this doesn't at all cover any...
potential sponsorship there is a small overlap it's probably unlikely if there's a sponsorship that's coming forward that's commemorating a past event or a past a person is an individual who's passed then there is potential for um the sand policy and this to be brought together and i mean similarly if there was a corporate naming kind of context that involved commemor i can't think of an example i don't know president trump Again, if it was a living person, it wouldn't be part of the commemoration. Let's say some future commemoration of... Yeah, commemorating someone who's passed, then it would be, yeah.
Then that would fall under the... But if it was sponsored by, say... I mean, that's a horrible example, but... Yeah. Let's say, you know, a complicated legacy corporation wanted to commemorate their founder through private sponsorship.
Yeah, so the sponsorship policy process would take the lead. If they see it's commemorating someone who's passed, they would then pick up the commemoration framework and say, okay, these are the assessment criteria. I need to come back to council with this one.
Thank you, Councillor. I don't know if you're going to commemorate President Trump, but okay. Councillor Dominato.
Thanks, Mayor. Yeah, thanks for the presentation. Just a couple of follow-up questions. One, just with respect to the delegated authority over plaques, I noted the temporary nature of them of up to 10 years. Can you just expand on that and why we would undertake a plaque in commemoration of someone or a group or an event and make it temporary?
Yeah, just acknowledging the limited assets that the city has. If something comes down, it makes room for something new. We've limited the general manager of that asset to 10 years. It's kind of a best practice across other municipalities, but it also gives the opportunity to extend that. If we want to go to council for a forever plaque, we can do that. Or if we want to extend a 10-year plaque longer, we'd come back to council. But we'd see that as a council decision because you're really encumbering that asset for potentially indefinitely.
Okay, so the option is there. I'm just thinking there might be some instances where people want to see that permanence. Yeah.
Okay. That's going to be longer than 10 years, but that would be a council decision, not staff.
Okay, thank you. My other question is when it comes to notionally our interest in advancing more recognition of Vancouver's history and heritage, so more heritage markers and wayfinding pieces. Would that be outside the commemoration framework? I know we're trying to advance more of that as part of some of our ODP and planning work in different neighborhoods. Most recently profiled was Renfrew and Diaper Hill. Remember we talked about that. Is that outside of the scope of this?
If it's commemorating anything, the commemoration framework would stand if it passed, but it would fold into that wider process. Yeah. Okay.
And then I was curious what the... You mentioned that there are pending applications. Can you give us a sense of what those applications are that we have sort of outstanding that would now fall under this framework?
Yeah, there's probably 35 on the list, and there's 11 that are either city-specific or city and park board. So it's a combination of donations of a sculpture, monuments, plaques, potentially... flags. So there's a wide range of them and they would sit on different, we'd have to go reconnect with the applicants, get more information and then bring that back to council.
Most of those have been externally generated. They've come to us as applicants saying we haven't.
Yeah, nearly all of them. Yeah. Okay. Okay.
And then I think I'll leave it there. That's it.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Councillor Maloney.
Did you consider creating a separate deaccession policy or framework to deal with the ethical and possibly legal considerations of that?
With the public art policy, we already have deaccession criteria in there that follow, like museum and art collection and best practices. So, again, this would be sitting, this is a commemoration, so if it's just a regular deaccession of a public art piece, we have that in place. If it's now a commemoration... we would fold in these assessment criteria and the requirement to come back to council.
Yes.
Okay. Councillor Claston. Just a couple of quick questions. I've been involved in other, and I won't call them commemorations, just more recognitions that have involved lighting up civic assets. around significant cultural markers around our music industry and other things that kind of really have Vancouver has kind of been able to put itself on the map, whether it's the technology sector, video game companies, like great milestones that really led to much bigger things that had global impact. Are these the kinds of things and opportunities that may potentially fall under? a commemoration opportunity and maybe an individual, maybe an institution, a recording studio. It could be any number of things, but these are the kinds of things that I think that we sometimes fail to celebrate as much as we ought to.
I think celebrating an event that's current and happening wouldn't fall under the commemoration. So we'd be having our eye on things that were coming forward and is there a commemoration component to it. It is a bit grey, it bleeds into, but I think if there is a big event coming to town that's celebrating that event, it's not a commemoration of it. And the illumination policy, illumination is covered by the civic protocol policy.
Not necessarily an event, but either an institution or an individual. So a very famous artist that came from Vegas, somebody like Jeff Wall, for example, or having something that would be able to – he's obviously still alive and still has a great career. But at some point, being able to recognize, again, great artists from music and – other visual arts potentially, and I'm just sort of thinking other organizations that have left a much larger global footprint that had their origins in Vancouver.
I would lean to those. We'd have to look at each one, but that'd be more of a celebration if it's of a living person. Commemoration is really grounded on someone who's passed. I think it gets an area would be if it was an organization or something like that. We'd have to look into that. But the difference between celebrating to commemorating would be what we try and assess as part of the process. Okay. Thanks very much. Thank you very much. Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, would someone like to move a motion? Great. Councillor... Kirby Young is seconder. Councillor Dominato, I heard your voice first. Council, is there any discussion?
I don't see anyone. Oh, Councillor Meiszner. Thank you. Thanks, staff, for bringing this framework forward. As mentioned, long overdue and needed, and I totally understand that it's a complicated thing to develop. So that's not on you for the fact that this has taken a while. I fully understand that. Overall, I think this is going to streamline commemorations and recognition in our city. And I'm supportive of that. Just some comments. And I am going to support this, by the way. But, you know, I... I do have a bit of lingering concern around the two different frameworks, one for park board and one for the city. I would have preferred that perhaps some more coordination could be done behind the scenes to align the two frameworks that they come forward at the same time or that they're the same. I know they're quite similar, but when I hear they're almost the same, I get a little bit concerned. But I'm going to put faith that that's going to work out in that regard. On the two-year waiting period as well, I think that's wise. Sometimes things need to cool off, and we don't want to be making decisions kind of on the fly about a significant public recognition. I would just say that in regards to the tragedy at Lapu-Lapu, I would be supportive personally of an exception being made there given the gravity of that tragic situation. And really the community's need and desire for some sort of public recognition of that from the city beyond, I know we've had the temporary space where people have been bringing pictures and candles and that sort of thing. Overall, support the two-year waiting period, but I just, in that particular, given the scale of what happened at Lapu-Lapu, I think, you know, getting that recognition and memorial moving as fast as possible, I would support personally an exception being made there. But overall, I think the framework makes a lot of sense, and I'm happy to support it. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kirby-Young.
Yeah, a couple of comments. And I think the proof's sort of always in the pudding on these things. The framework provides the guidelines. It's really about how the framework is applied and how the community feels throughout the process. And so my kind of measure of success, I think, will really be if we start to... see that we're seeing new and different type of plaques and commemorations coming forward that really do honor the breadth and diversity of our different cultural communities and if those same groups also feel that they have the opportunity now to apply and to have their contributions and experience and history and roles in Vancouver actually reflected. So that's really what I'm going to be looking for from that perspective. And, you know, we hear from community a lot, so I'm sure that council will have the opportunity to provide feedback into how that's going. Policies are great. They can always be updated as they go along, but It's a high-level framework that sort of provides guidance. I think with respect to the park board piece, I'd also like to see a mirror policy, ideally. It's challenging, I think, for applicants, given sometimes that, you know, some spaces, where do I put mine if there's sort of a loophole on one for the other on a street versus on an adjacent park? Is there a different criteria because something is designated as a permanent park and the other is not designated as a permanent park because the city needs to retain street right-of-way for utilities? And then different criteria apply. So I'm hopeful that the part board can see its way to adopting the same policy. I think it's high level enough. I don't see any reason why we can't align on that. It just makes it much easier, I think, for. And then also for staff to have these conversations with folks who sometimes often will request and start off a process requesting a particular location and then have conversations and realize that there might be an option that's better suited as they go through the process. And that would, I think, enable better service to residents there. So I'm hopeful that we see that. and we don't end up with sort of distinct hodgepodge. It's just not efficient, and it's not a good experience for people that are applying. But other than that, I'm happy to support it. It's been a long time in coming. I have a couple of individuals that passed away that people are interested in recognizing, and now I have some certainty to share the process with them. My last comment would be with respects to larger-scale tragedies like Lapu-Lapu. I actually think two years is wholly appropriate. I mean, I think a number of us attended recently a number of different church services and commemorations at one year, and it's still very, very raw. I also know that just practically it takes a fair amount of time to determine what does an appropriate commemoration look like. For stakeholder engagement, sometimes it's a plaque, sometimes it's a piece of public art. and it takes time to sort of work through that with the community and develop it. So I think what was heartening to me is that all of those conversations can happen. It may not be installed for two years, but a lot of those conversations can happen well ahead of it, and that's part of the process sometimes of communities working through some of those tragic situations. So in balance, I think that works, and I'm happy to support it. Thanks, Mayor.
Thank you very much. Okay, seeing no one else in the queue, I'm going to call the vote. Please go to the voting panel, and if you can please register. Thank you very much.
Great, and that passes unanimously.
Thank you very much, and thank you very much for all the hard work you did on that. Okay, we're going to go to item number two now, the 2026 Property Taxation Development Potential Relief Program Bonds.
law tax rating bylaws and averaging resolutions before uh we begin this agenda item if anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest now is the time to disclose it um counselor fry is that for a conflict or you're just getting on the queue okay awesome learned from the last time awesome okay uh this item does not have a team member presentation counselor fry you do have up to five minutes to ask questions so please go ahead Thank you.
So first question is around the DPRP. And just what is the future of the DPRP? I know it's sort of approved every year, but I also appreciate that it does have a time-limited framework. So what happens... What are we doing around DPRP and preparing for its... Rob Evans, Director of Revenue Services and Tax Policy.
So, yeah, we're in the fourth year of the DPRP, so starting next year will be the first year... Sorry, it'll be the first year... Next year, people will be in their last year of receiving relief if they received relief at the start of the program. So we expect that we'll do a review and see how things are going. As a result of changes in the market dynamic and situation, like the number of properties that qualified is significantly lower this year. And so we will be reviewing it in the context and we bring forward a report every year. both to initiate the consideration of the relief program and then in March to actually approve in principle the application of the relief program. So we would bring forward analysis at that time to consider about whether to continue the program.
So to be clear, that we would require some kind of provincial legislation in order to extend it beyond five years, is that?
No, the legislation would continue. The only restriction would that people who received relief starting in 2023, I believe, in the first year of the program, would essentially no longer be eligible to receive relief. So a property that received relief more than four years in the past could not get relief again. And that's because of the provincial... That's the way it's written into the charter.
Okay. And will, as part of this review, will we be talking to, or will you be talking to the stakeholders, the rate payers, these small businesses and art spaces and cultural...
We would typically do analysis to understand who is being affected by this and the number of people. But at this point, we haven't done that analysis because we're waiting for... We essentially have two years before anyone is affected.
But currently the applicants are the landowners, the landlords, not necessarily the tenants. Yeah.
So we have discussed before about, you know, being more transparent and so people haven't been... getting more education out there so people know that this is coming, so they're not expecting relief, but beyond the five years, the measure was always meant to be a time-limited relief effort for redevelopment sites.
Okay. Totally skipping to a different subject altogether. Provincial school tax, seeing that it's jumped pretty significantly again, what, 2026 is almost $660 million. Does that money, that's obviously a separate... request from the province, and does that money get reverted at all into the city of Vancouver, or is that entirely at the provincial discretion to spend?
My understanding is that the provincial school tax is a general revenue for the province, and the funding framework for the school boards is based on a different mechanism that's independent of the revenue generated directly within the city of Vancouver.
Right, and it's strictly on properties, what former Councillor Swanson would have termed probably a mansion tax.
With respect, so the additional school tax is for properties over $3 million, and that's separate from the regular provincial school tax. It's obviously also additional revenue.
Okay, and I appreciate that, too. We don't know how much of the additional school tax is captured in here? Okay.
Sorry, we know how much is captured. So the number was like 86 million, I believe, for this year, which was down significantly from last year because of the reduced assessments.
Last question from me. Are we seeing a lot of the conversion to Class 8 from Class 1 and Class 6 with the sort of temporary garden phenomenon that we anecdotally seem to see a lot more of them being converted from vacant lots?
I don't have the number in front of me, but in our last report in April, we presented the number of new folios that have converted to Class 8 this year.
I'm sorry, we're at time. It looks about a dozen folios, about a million dollars in taxes.
Yeah, so within, as we presented in our last report in April, there were just under, just about 10 properties that converted from Class 6 to Class 8 as temporary parks and gardens. And the impact in terms of tax revenue to the city was about $900,000.
Okay, so almost a million dollars that we're missing out on because of those. Okay. And I realize that they're all different in different areas and whatnot.
So if I remember correctly, this is the portion that they are sort of discounted on, the 50% lower than the blended. That's just the city portion of the tax rate. The province doesn't also give a discount?
Yeah, it's an interesting part of the provincial legislation. When we apply the averaging relief to properties and residential and commercial properties and Class 1, 5, and 6, if we choose to apply averaging to the city taxes, we have to apply the same averaging basis to... The other taxing authorities like TransLink, whatever, but with the DPRP, it's actually just the city portion of taxes under which they're entitled to relief.
Okay, and with the upcoming review, is there sort of potential to lobby the province to sort of, you know, hey, can you also kick in, you know, your portion?
Yeah. Our understanding is that the biggest challenge with the province is the minimal uptake of the DPRP by other jurisdictions. And so with Victoria having taken it up, perhaps there is a chance to re-engage and consider updates over a period of time. And we can do that as part of our review over time.
So that's interesting. So we have 303 properties, but that's only Vancouver, and only Victoria also does this program?
Yeah, my understanding is Victoria is the only other jurisdiction that has a limited application of the DPRP.
Okay, so you would foresee if other jurisdictions jumped on board, maybe the province would...
Well, I think the province was interested in continuing to only updating the program if there was significant uptake by municipalities. I'm also aware that some other jurisdictions are still advocating for the original commercial subclass approach that we had advocated for in the past.
The idea was essentially to be able to...
Right now, for the DPRP, we essentially have to... determine ourselves the the amount of the development potential we are not provided information from bc assessment to say this is the value and use of a property and this is the highest and best use of the property and and here's the the difference we we look at um we essentially have to um look at the We don't have that information property by property and rely on it. With the application of a commercial subclass, the idea would be that the development potential would be in a separate class that we could then, and we could choose who is eligible for that rate and what rate to tax that at.
So that would be like a province-wide thing to change, sort of get BC assessment on board kind of thing?
Yeah, that was the original advocacy that was done by the intergovernmental working group.
And then just sort of a question on this program and how it relates maybe to sort of large sort of upzonings of properties that may be coming in terms of, you know, on high streets and things like that with the Vancouver plan or with the LDP and other things like that. Do you anticipate a sort of an uptick in applications because of that sort of, you know, are we essentially changing the highest and best use?
Well, properties that apply for rezoning would not be eligible for the program. The problem is the program is more for properties that are affected by speculative activity in the market in the area where a certain area is sought after and people think that there is additional value there and that it therefore increases the development potential of those sites.
Okay, thanks. Thank you very much. Okay, seeing no one else in the queue, would someone like to move a motion? Councillor Domonato, seconded by Councillor Klassen. Council, is there any discussion?
Seeing no one in the queue, I'm going to call the vote. And that passes unanimously.
Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Item number three, quarterly capital budget adjustments, May 2026. Before we begin this item, does anybody have a conflict that they need to declare? All right. Seeing no one's hands up, this item does not have a team member presentation. Council, you may have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members. And seeing no one in the queue, we're now going to hear, oh, sorry, Councillor Frye.
quarterly capital budget adjustments, yes.
Are these questions for now or are they for later?
Yes, we do have a speaker. Okay. Counselor, is that the same with you? Okay. Yeah.
Okay. The only reason I'm asking is we already went through and we jumped in, so I just wanted to make sure that I didn't miss you. So...
Curb cuts, engineering. $2.5 million moving to operating expenses. Could you just walk me through what that looks like, why curb cuts are moving to operating from capital?
Yeah, Colin Knight, General Manager of Finance and Supply Chain. So that's just administrative in nature. It's just as we got more clarity as to the types of expenditures, then we apply our counting thresholds around what should be capital versus operating. And then we've determined with more clarity that some of these expenditures will be operating. And so we're administratively making that adjustment to facilitate advancing the program.
Okay. $915 million for a new police patrol boat. Why are we just hearing about this now and it didn't come through on our regular budget?
So I'll speak generally around the process. So it is typical that we have items where, for a variety of reasons, the timing of such is that those items aren't ready to come forward for council approval during the budget. So we do routinely provide these quarterly reports that contain... additional details around items that have emerged subsequent to budget. So it is something that does happen where we have these items come forward. If there's specific questions about that item, I can...
It seems a big item to just sort of come up after the fact when we had a pretty robust budget process talking about police budget.
SO AGAIN, I THINK IN TERMS OF THE QUESTION AROUND WHY IT WASN'T READY TO BRING FORWARD IN THE BUDGET AND IS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD IN THE QUARTERLY, I WOULD NEED TO GET BACK TO YOU WITH MORE SPECIFICS OF THE OPERATIONAL TIMING CONSIDERATIONS, BUT I CAN DO THAT.
Okay, last one for me is on the Peony Amphitheater. Obviously, it's from when we first approved it. I think it was estimated around $65 million, and it's gone up quite a bit. The funding sources in here talk about $16 million from reserves and then plus housing accelerator fund. How much from the housing accelerator fund is going into – it doesn't seem – it's not totally clear to me.
And just to confirm, I'll just take a second.
And I guess while you're thinking on that or conferring on that, more generally, how does this qualify as housing accelerator fund?
Yeah, I'm just retrieving impact specific to that adjustment.
YEAH, SO WE WILL BE, LIKE AGAIN, LIKE THE HOUSING ACCELERATOR FUND CRITERIA ENABLED A VARIETY OF ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES THAT RELATED TO INCLUDING INVESTMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WOULD SUPPORT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, AND SO I THINK ULTIMATELY WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT IS APPLYING WHERE THE FUNDS ARE ELIGIBLE, APPLYING THOSE. SO AGAIN, INFRASTRUCTURE THAT SUPPORTS A GROWING POPULATION AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IS GENERALLY AN ELIGIBLE CATEGORY. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE LOOKED AT.
NEW SPEAKER HOW MUCH IS IT? I mean, it just lists $16 million from reserves plus housing accelerator fund.
Yeah, so $16 million is the total. And so essentially... That's all coming from HAF? Yeah, so that's the total that's being deployed. So in general... The approach that we take is where we've got restricted funding, we look to apply that funding where we can in eligible uses, and what that does is it preserves unrestricted funding in our reserves to be able to use for future priorities of council through the capital plan and budget.
Thanks. I was going to ask about the Housing Accelerator Fund. There's empathy. There's also a digital transformation program. Can you maybe go into a bit about that? Is that because they were speeding up housing permits or something?
Yeah, the eligibility related to the Housing Accelerator Fund for digital transformation relates to supporting acceleration of permitting, which advances housing development.
Okay. Yeah, I've seen it in a few other places. There's something about with trees as well, right? We're using it for trees at some point. Sorry. I don't know where it is. Anyways, yeah, I can skip that. And then for the Vancouver sign, sorry, there's an
an extra 500 000 going to the vancouver sign is this am i reading that right so um so just in in respect to the housing accelerator fund just to mention that we will um be providing updates to council so that's something we can provide updates on around the deployment of funding that's eligible for half with respect to the um the sign the prior direction from council requested the staff um identify a funding source and we have looked within the budget and identified um budget within the existing approved budget that can be applied to cover the cost, which is what is being adjusted in the capital budget.
Thank you, Councillor Meiszner. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, Councillor Rohrer actually touched on Vancouver Sign. So I know there's been a few updates recently. Can you give me an updated timeline on when we can expect to see that installed?
Go ahead.
Long Leclerc, General Manager of Engineering Services. We were anticipating that to be constructed in September, so just after summer.
Okay. I know we had wanted to get it in place for FIFA, but can you maybe touch on what some of the challenges were there in terms of getting it installed?
Yeah, so some of the challenges are coming up with a design that was supported by all the First Nations, which have a representation in the sign, which is quite unique in itself. Also, we secured funding from a number of partners, which was really terrific, Destination Vancouver and others. The actual construction of the sign isn't on city land, but is actually on structure. which is at Canada Place. So again, that necessarily complicates the matter. It's not fully within our control.
Okay. And just to confirm, because I know there's been a lot of political misinformation out there around the cost of this sign, the city is putting in $300,000. Is that correct? Someone could confirm that for me, please.
Yes, that's correct.
And then what was the external contributions from Downtown Van and the Hotel Development Association, Destination Vancouver? I think they're putting in half a million.
That sounds about correct. I can get the exact answer, but it's significant contributions from the others.
Much more than the city. Yeah. Okay, just want to clarify that. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Kerby-Young?
Yeah, thanks. Just so that we have full clarity with respects to the amphitheater, which has seen some cost escalation, as have most major projects in the region, the original premise was that although the city is underwriting the financing for the amphitheater, that there's a business plan that was put together and that the AP&E, as a separate operating entity, is paying it back. So can you just clarify if the $60 million is now different than that arrangement and they don't need to pay that? portion back because I just want to get clarity on that.
Yeah, so I think I'll come back to the there was a budget adjustment that was approved by council and is available on the public record and that was a more recent budget adjustment based on updated cost estimates for completion of the amphitheater. Through that funding, we did apply funding to the project that was in addition to the funding to be repaid by future revenue from the P&E, and that was just based on limitations around projected incremental revenue. I think with that being said, the P&E is seeking to generate as much revenue as possible, and if the estimates are exceeded, then there is an opportunity to have... revenue paid back faster towards the project.
I understand that, but for clarity, they are, like, in simple terms, is it correct to say that they are paying the full cost of the project minus the $16 million from the half?
So we can provide the breakdown, but there is funding in addition to the $16 million that's present in this report that was approved from alternative funding sources, including the Hastings Park Reserve as examples. So there are other funding sources. We can provide a summary. It's in the now public report.
But also fair to say that we pivoted because we're building a major asset that's going to provide huge benefit to the P&E, the surrounding community, the music community, et cetera, and we want to get this over the finish line.
Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, seeing no one else in the queue, we're now going to hear from registered speakers for this report. Public speakers should state whether they are in support or opposition of the recommendations and may only speak once. Our first public speaker is Brenna Lloyd.
Brenna here.
Speaker is not present. Okay.
Well, that's the end of our speakers list. Would someone like to... Pardon? Thank you very much, Councillor Kirby-Young, Councillor Domonato. I think I heard your voice as a seconder. Council, is there any discussion? Seeing no one else in the queue, I'm now going to call the vote.
Please go to the voting panel.
Great. And that passes unanimously, and that concludes item number three.
Now we're going to move on to item number five. Closure and sale or lease of lane adjacent to 1750 Franklin Street and 1717 through 1771 East Hastings Street. So before we begin, does anybody need to declare a conflict of interest?
Seeing no one else, no one in the queue. This item does not have a team member presentation. Council, you may have up to five minutes to ask questions of our team members. Councillor Frye.
Sorry, and let me just pull that up. Yeah, so I do recall that we received this and rejected this same application back last term. And it comes to, I think, the question, should we be enabling a super poultry factory slaughterhouse in a residential part of East Vancouver? I'm curious because looking at the zoning under here, MC-2 food or beverage products manufacturing, Class A conditional 2.21 suggests that animal or fat business must be completely enclosed. Yet the report suggests that this alley needs to be contained within Hallmark's application to enclose. How are they doing business without enclosing the smells?
Yeah, Dan Parker, City Survey Engineering Services. I think some of our planning folks probably answered the zoning question better and enabling them to operate perhaps as they do.
Because my understanding is this will also enable them, they've purchased additional lots, and this is going to consolidate the entire block into a slaughterhouse.
Yeah, my understanding of this proposal, half the site's listed with M2, half the site's listed with MC2, and the proposals to allow for further enclosure of those poultry uses within the block.
But so, I mean, because MC2 suggested it needs to be enclosed and the report suggests that they need to purchase this alley so that they can enclose it, it suggests that they're not currently compliant with the zoning conditions. Am I misinterpreting that?
Because it certainly smells bad now. I can't speak to the compliance of the existing operations. What I know is the intent of the enclosures to ensure the operations are consistent with the zoning in place.
Perhaps that's a good question for the applicant. Are we allowed to ask the applicant questions?
I think they were intending to speak, so I think they would have the opportunity to answer questions.
Yeah, I mean, okay. Well, I'll reserve my comments for after, I guess. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kirby-Young.
Yeah, so I'm going to preface my questions by saying I was on council last term when council rejected this opportunity. to enclose at the time. I think it was an eight to three vote, and I was four. The rationale, am I correct, and I'm looking at page three of the report, is that enabling the sale of the lane would allow for actually building an underhead or overhead infrastructure that would address air quality issues and actually allow... operations to be more fully contained than they are now, thereby limiting and minimizing the impact on area residents as opposed to the current situation where it's a lease. They are not permitted to put in that infrastructure and therefore they are transferring across the alley and not allowed to put in larger infrastructure that would mitigate some of those impacts of running this business. Am I right?
yes when we brought it to the previous council I would say staff didn't receive clear direction as to why the report was rejected though we have not really permitted public access to the lane for quite some time we've been renewing it on an annual lease that I would say puts the us in an awkward position and we would like some clarity on that So, of course, acquiring the lane, they operate in a number of buildings on both sides of the lanes right now. And, of course, that means that necessarily things have to leave a building to cross the lane to enter another building. And so that would simplify them. We do have an option or an alternative if council doesn't want to support the sale of the lane, which is a longer-term lease. Of course, that would allow them some minor investment, which could improve the situation. But of course, a full sale of the lane would allow them to kind of join the buildings in any way that they prefer.
Okay. And are you aware, and if you can answer this question, great. If not, the applicant can listen, maybe address it. How significant is this in terms of providing poultry, chicken, et cetera, in our city and in our region?
Sorry, I can't really answer that.
Yeah. Okay. And do you know how long the business has been operating here?
Good question. I don't have that answer.
Okay. I am going to leave it there. So just to be very clear, lease is pretty much status quo with some minor improvements. Sale allows them to build out infrastructure and mitigate some of the impacts and improve air quality.
Thank you.
Thank you. So am I allowed to ask? Questions directly to the applicant at the moment? No. Do I get an opportunity to do that afterwards?
What's that? So do we have to put suspending the ruling to a vote?
If council would like to vary the procedures in the procedure bylaw to ask questions of the speaker, they may suspend the rule by two-thirds vote of members to ask questions.
So then a councillor would have to move a motion, second it, and then we vote on that?
I would like to move motion to suspend the rules to be able to ask the speaker a question, but I will try and...
ask staff my questions first if that's see if I can get answers sure okay so are you moving the motion so I am moving the motion awesome seconded councillor Kirby Young any discussion all those in favor all those opposed great we're going to suspend the the normal procedures please go ahead
All right. Is it possible to put my timer back to zero or have I used it up doing that?
All right. We're all muddling through with this new procedure. But, okay, I would like to ask the applicant, please. What alternative pollution reduction technology might be available to reduce odour instead of this solution, please?
Sure.
Yeah.
Okay. So there might be a more efficient way of doing it. So if you can ask questions of our team members, the applicant is actually a speaker, may have a bunch of comments that answer your questions, but then bring up a whole host of other questions.
All right. Excellent.
And I'm sure we'll figure out a way if we need more questions answered, we'll figure it out. So with that, I'm going to start your timer again. Thank you. Thank you.
Alright, I will ask staff then as a first stop, what other pollution reduction technology might be available other than enclosing the area to reduce odour?
That's not an easy question for staff to answer. I would just mention that regardless of the operations, when we do have a property owner that owns all the land on a block, we're very supportive of eliminating a lane because it's one less asset for us to manage. And of course, we can service... the property as a single property from any of the four streets that front on it. So it's a good process for us to kind of eliminate lanes when we can.
And do you know, I mean, I doubt you know this, but do you know how many jobs this operation has for Vancouverites at the moment and how that might be affected by enclosing the lane?
I think the speaker might be able to answer that question.
Okay, great. And what are we seeing in terms of community opposition to this operation because of the odour? What's the level of complaints that we're currently receiving?
We haven't heard any recently, certainly not at the engineering department. I don't know, Josh, not in the planning department. At this point, we haven't received any recent concerns or complaints.
And do you think that that's more just because people are used to how it is or because they don't feel empowered to force a change?
It could be that or it could be that they've made changes that reduce order. I really don't know, but we haven't received any concerns or complaints from the neighbourhood.
So that being the case, what is the urgency about enclosing the lane from city staff's point of view?
Well, for us, I guess there's a limited amount of delegation that council provides to the city engineer. And we have not had public access to that lane for quite some time. Because they own all the buildings on both sides and they operate across the lane, it's safer to keep the public out of that area. So we've been doing temporary leases. And it would be far better for us to do an extended lease, that's the alternative, which is in the report, or to do a sale, which is even simpler.
And we haven't had many complaints about the lack of access. It sounds as though the public already doesn't have access.
They don't have access. And there is, again, the only people that have an interest in accessing the lane are the property owners because lanes are only for local access only. So there is no other party that has an interest in being in that lane.
Thanks. That's very helpful.
Thank you. Councillor Fry.
Yes. So, Councillor... Kirby Young kind of gave me a little bit of a memory conflict, and I had to go back and look, because when this application came to us back in 2021, and I'm actually looking at the report from May 14, 2021, there was no mention of this being enclosed for odor purposes. In fact, this was a project that sought to consolidate the block to build a giant, larger poultry processing plant, which I can tell you as a resident of East Van does bring significant impacts to the community, and And also the conversation at the time was because there was protests in the alley for folks who were protesting the slaughterhouse and some of the alleged workplace challenges for folks. And a gentleman had died. And there was issues around that. There was a security nature, nothing to do with odor. So I'm curious how this has now changed to a completely different...
Again, for us in the engineering department, when a large property is subdivided into multiple properties, that's when we actually request a lane or require a lane to service those properties. When a property becomes fully consolidated by a single ownership, we don't really have an interest in owning that lane. So I guess we bring forward a sale of lanes as a... recommendation when we no longer see a purpose for them. So it's not related to the activity of what's going on that site. It's related to just the land deal itself. Okay.
I mean, this is significantly beneficial to the company expanding its footprint and the vacant lots that they've purchased and the buildings that are sitting empty now will be consolidated. I mean, it's a big...
In recognition of that, the sale price is actually probably double what the value would normally be sold at because it recognizes that there is a strong interest, there's a value in it that's over and above the regular market rate. All right. Thank you.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I do have one follow-up question, and my memory was jogged by that. And it was with respect to the sale price, which I know is about $6 million versus around $2.9 million. I'm going from memory in the report. With the recent Auditor General report around the city doing its due diligence with respects to consideration of use and market value, do we have just one independent valuation, or how is that price derived? I know it's an external valuation, but do we have more than one?
I believe we do have someone from REFM online. Andrew, are you there? Thanks, Lon. Yeah, Andrew Newman here, Director of Real Estate Services. Yeah, I can confirm we have one independent third-party appraisal on that value. It came in at $3.25 million.
With the Audit General's report, did we consider seeking a second one, or have we changed any practices around that in terms of setting a beneficial sale price to the city?
This is very much consistent with any of the recommendations that flew out of the Auditor General's report, in that we would seek a third-party opinion. Certainly, if there was complications around the valuation, we would perhaps seek a second, but in this case, only one was necessary.
Why was only one necessary?
We did an internal valuation which supported this, as well as a third-party valuation, and ultimately the sale price exceeded that to Lon's point by roughly double, paying some premium for the business efficiencies that it allows for in this assembly.
Okay, and did that contemplate future uses of the site?
It did. Yeah. Now, what is complicating in the site is that there are two zonings, as you're aware of. There's an M2 industrial zone and MC2 on the East Hastings Street. So the ability to actually assemble and develop this site as a contiguous parcel would be very challenged and that you'd have to seek Metrovan industrial exclusions on this property. So it's not a smooth walk towards combining and assembling these sites for redevelopment.
Okay, thanks. And I will look forward. I know the applicants can speak. I'll look forward to hearing from the applicant about their intention to operate longer term on the site. Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay. Council, you have up to five minutes. Done that already. So now we're going to hear from registered speakers for this report. Public speakers should state whether they are in support or opposition of the recommendations and may only speak once. So our first public speaker is Murdoch Pollan.
Good morning. My name is Murdoch Poland, and I'm the general manager of Hallmark Farms, a poultry processing company established by my grandfather in the 1970s in East Vancouver. Hallmark has grown a significant amount as a distributor in the region, and we currently process over 50% of the poultry's province. Sorry, the province's poultry. We're an active community member, a member of our BIA. We sponsor the Chinatown Foundation's Autumn Gala, and we're also donors of the Vancouver General Hospital Foundation. We're currently asking council to support staff's recommendation to proceed with the sale of the laneway between two of our buildings. Paul Bark has been located on the 1700 block of Franklin Street since the 1970s. My family began by supplying poultry to Chinatown processing plants and evolved over time. We have grown with the city, starting with 30 employees back in the 1970s to over 600 employees today at the Vancouver site. We've invested heavily in this area with a number of cold storage and light industrial buildings. And we have significant investment in the infrastructure at this site.
The site is located close to our employees, and it's a strategic location for distribution to over 80-plus grocery stores, butcher shops, and restaurants throughout the city, including Save-On Foods locations, Choices, Buy Low Foods, Safeway, Sobeys, and Fresh Street Market. We've leased the laneway since 2017 after demonstrating through traffic studies that over 95% of the laneway traffic was attributed to homework. Our ongoing operations include heavy forklift traffic across the laneway, so restricted access ensures public safety. Our acquisition of the lane would allow for upgrades that are not possible with the proposed term lease. Acquisition allows the enclosure of the high traffic area of the lane between the receiving building and the processing plant. The enclosure provides an opportunity to further enhance environmental performance and odour management. Enclosing this area would allow the facility to install a controlled ventilation system to capture air from these activities and direct it through ducting to appropriate emission control treatment systems. This approach would improve the capture efficiency of odors, odorous air streams, reduce the potential for fugitive emissions, and enhance overall air quality management for the surrounding neighborhood. We're willing to make this significant investment in the facility for the odor control works if the sale goes through today. The acquisition would support Hallmark's ongoing effort to improve operational efficiencies, strengthen odor error emission control measures, while also ensuring public safety by restricting access to high-traffic industrial sites. Thank you for your consideration. I'm here to answer any questions.
Thanks, Mayor. Thanks for being here today. I just wanted to ask a couple of clarifying questions. What I read in the report and what I just heard you say is that not only talked about the operational efficiencies that could come from access to the lane, but that this would enable you to do more upgrades to the facilities to address odorous contaminants, which I know was raised by a couple of my colleagues, and I happen to live in that neighborhood. Can you just expand a little bit more on that and what that looks like for you in terms of the ability to enhance the facility?
Yeah, because there's like an air scrubber system. So you would, because right now we have bay doors open throughout the day between the processing plant and the holding building. So there's forklifts going across all day. So if we're able to close that, there's going to be less air escaping. And then all the air that is currently in that crossover portion would be contained and then go through the scrubber system.
Okay. So you anticipate that you'd be able to make these changes with this sale?
Yes.
And then just confirming that because of the nature of your business, you do hold a permit under the Air Quality Management Fees Regulation with Metro Vancouver, and that as part of that, you pay those fees annually, but then also there's some expectations as a company that you are going to address odorous contaminants because that regulation covers that as well as that. Yeah.
Any change in process, it requires you to rewrite your permit. So it's not, yeah, we would have to go through a whole process with Metro Vancouver to calculate the volume of the error and how we're going to treat it and everything.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm interested in knowing how many people you employ and how that will change if the improvements contemplated by the sale of the laneway go ahead.
We employ 600 people directly. And then...
Sorry, I got to interrupt for one sec. Can we get a motion? Could someone do a motion to go for a second round? Councillor Maloney, so it's time.
Thanks.
Councillor Claston, thank you. Seconded by Councillor Zhou. Is there any conversation? No. All those in favour, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. That passes. Thank you, Councillor Young.
Please go ahead, Councillor Maloney.
Thanks. I'll let you answer that question.
Yeah, so we employ 600 people directly, but there's a number of different other services at the facility. So the actual number of people that the facility supports is a lot larger than that. So in a lot of ways, just this enclosure, it's going to help us protect those jobs and keeping them in Vancouver.
And is there any expansion of employment likely?
Um... There's nothing significant planned, kind of. It's just kind of keeping the numbers like where we're at now.
Thanks. And are you still planning to potentially rebuild the facility like was contemplated in the previous application?
No, we're not. We've quite a bit already...
Yeah, it's quite a significant cost just purchasing the lane and kind of working on this enclosure. So that's kind of as far as our plans go right now. So are you contemplating covering the whole lane or just a... No, just the portion where the bay doors are so they can cross without the open air.
Okay. That's all my questions. Thanks.
Yeah, thanks Murdoch for being here and for answering questions for council. I want to just clarify around what you're wanting to accomplish. Am I correct in understanding that right now you're transferring, you know, things between the two buildings through the laneway and there's obviously associated odor with that. And you're wanting to, if you're able to purchase the laneway and close, like attach, connect the two buildings, is that correct? Yes. Okay. And would that be like an overhead connection or is that like on the ground level?
We've looked at overhead and then also below the lane as well.
But we would have to get all of the engineering and architectural drawings to kind of decide which made more sense.
Okay. And then just because I'm not in this industry, obviously, although I do enjoy chicken, can you explain to me how an air scrubber system works? What does that do? Is it a ventilation system?
Yeah, you're capturing the air through ventilation and then treating it and then dispersing it through a stack.
Okay.
And how effective is that, like in terms of reducing odors? It's very effective. Yeah. Yeah. But you want to try to capture as much air as possible. So the way that the building works with the bay doors open all day right now is not as effective.
Okay. So essentially right now, like some air is escaping and then you're not able to capture that, obviously. Okay. And if it was connected or enclosed, then you'd be able to capture the majority of the... The air. Yeah. Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. And then I guess my final question is, you know, given the fact that the assessed value of the land is half of what you're wanting to purchase it for, like you're willing to pay essentially twice the price.
Yeah, well, we recently bought some other property in the area, and then if you calculate it, it would be closer to 5.250. Okay. We've been trying to resolve this matter for quite some time now, so in the interest of moving forward.
Yeah, I guess my question is, like, can you just –
you know reiterate to council or clarify like how essential is it that you are able to do this to continue your operations there and continue to employ 600 people and you know be an important part of our food supply yeah um we have a whole bunch of independent farmers that ship to us too from the Fraser Valley and 600 employees so it's important to us to to kind of upgrade the facility so that we are able to keep it functional so we're able to support um the independent farmers and our employees. Okay, great. Thanks so much. Thank you very much, Councillor Kirby-Young.
Yeah, I have one follow-up question. If the lane purchase was approved by council and you put in these additional air quality mitigation measures, would that also be a better working environment for staff?
I think it would, yeah, well, it would improve the air quality. Like in the area they're working as well, yes. And then a big part of it also is just with the lane being closed, it's a lot safer for our employees.
So it would be more pleasant in a working environment and a safer working environment for employees versus the other option of leasing where they're moving between four cliffs or coming and going. You wouldn't have the same quality of air mitigation that they are subject to. They're right there breathing it every day, right?
Yeah.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay.
Mayor, I'm happy to move the staff recommendation for the sale.
Councillor Kirby-Young, and I think seconded by Councillor Claston first. Sorry, you took the punch. Council, is there any discussion? Councillor Meiszner.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. And again, I just want to thank Murdoch for being here and speaking and answering all our questions. I'm supportive of this land sale. for several reasons. This is an important part of our food system that, you know, I think a lot of us, we don't think about, we go to the grocery store, you buy chicken thighs, you know, it's important that we have local product and have that business in Vancouver that's processing that product that, you know, many families rely on every day. We talk a lot about, you know, resiliency of our food systems. And in my eyes, this is part of it as well. I also think financially for the city, this makes a lot of sense. I think we're getting beyond what's fair market value for this laneway. We heard from engineering that generally they have pursued other laneway sales when properties are adjacent like this. I can think of several development sites downtown where this has happened. I think this one has even more benefits. Obviously, it's going to allow the operator to continue on the site, to continue to employ 600 people, to continue to support those Fraser Valley farmers, to continue to provide food supply for our region, and also to help further mitigate some of the odor that's associated with a chicken processing facility. And I know this operator is committed to continue to working on that. And I know this operator is an excellent corporate citizen that donates to many causes that I also support. So I'm in big support of this and I want to see it move forward. Thanks. Thank you. Councillor Kirby Young.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I'll be brief. I was on council in 2021 when this came forward. So five years later, here we are. Essentially the same decision in front of us. It makes sense to me from a safety and from an environmental point of view and also from a business operations perspective. This is a business that is local, family owned, started in the 1970s. It makes sense to have a central distribution point. for something that supplies half of the poultry in the province. That's a pretty significant stat when you think about it. Half is a lot. And so that's impacting a lot of people's daily lives. The alternative is that we start to lose a lot of our industrial jobs and operations here. And if operations eventually are not sort of effective in terms of operations, economically, environmentally, etc., they tend to end up leaving the city. And then that doesn't necessarily make goods become less expensive, particularly with increasing costs, the increasing cost of transportation, et cetera. And I do think that Vancouver, as was referenced by the applicant here and the proponent, provides a very important central distribution hub. So I'm glad that we're able to advance this today. I hope that council will be supportive of it. It makes sense to me for a lot of reasons. Again, supporting employees supporting industry and local business supporting environmentally and if you are concerned about safety there is a huge amount of activity and there's a lot of moving parts literally in a facility like this and I I would tend to wholeheartedly support this versus a lease option that essentially does not change the status quo It just relegates sort of an ongoing perpetuation of some of the existing issues, and it doesn't provide any mitigation, which doesn't really make sense to me. So I'm happy to support it, and I hope that council will as well. Thank you.
Thanks, Mayor. And also, like my colleagues, I'm happy to support this application. And noting that I think a really pertinent comment that was made by my colleague, Councillor Meiszner, is increasingly we're talking about food security and doing things locally, not having to rely on imports from other jurisdictions. And so I think that speaks volumes to the importance of supporting the expansion of the business here. I noted in the correspondence that we received, you have an example of another local supplier, Quantotech, that provided a letter of support. Again, speaking to that issue of food security and local production. I think also noteworthy that not just the legacy and tenure of the business being here since the 1970s, but the significant number of employees that the business supports, 600 employees. And particularly in a market right now where we're hearing concerns over affordability, job security, this may present opportunities for more employees in the future. and also just the supply chain aspect of this, of supplying other local businesses that employ other people. So I just wanted to note that. And with respect to concerns raised over odor and contaminants, I just wanted to highlight that wearing another hat, as I chair the Air Quality Committee at Metro Vancouver, And we just recently updated the air quality management fees regulation, which deals with volatile organics as well as odorous contaminants. And the reason we actually have a regulatory environment is just this, is so that we strike that balance of addressing odors in the environment, complaints, because there used to be many, many complaints that they've actually gone down since we put this permitting process in place. But Hallmark Poultry actually holds one of those permits. And it also helps encourage sort of a collaborative approach to seeing upgrades at these facilities to try to mitigate and minimize those odors over time. And what I see with this land sale is the opportunity to do that. So not only those operational efficiencies that were highlighted, but also to do necessary upgrades to eliminate or mitigate some of those odors as well. For all of those reasons, I'll be supporting the request. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Frye. So I might be the odd one out here not supporting this request. I do appreciate that there are 600 jobs regional. I do appreciate the Poland family's history of donations and contributions to all sorts of causes, including political causes. I want to acknowledge that, yes, lots of people do eat chicken, and this is food security for locals, but I do not believe... that this is a good location for the expansion of a massive poultry processing plant. I do note that the report does talk about the consolidation of all these lots from commercial to Salisbury for two significant lots. So despite the assertion that this isn't about expansion, it would seem to be a pretty significant expansion. We know that those buildings adjacent on this side of Salisbury are being held for this potential. And I'm troubled by the idea that it's almost extortion that were we not to – sorry, no, that's the wrong choice of words, sorry. But it's the suggestion that if we didn't sell this lot off that the smell mitigation wouldn't happen and that we would continue to sort of impact a neighborhood that is – Largely lower income, largely urban indigenous. We have an application across the street for the Anya site, which is going to have significant social housing. I've lived in this neighborhood for a long time. I do know the impacts of the smell from large-scale chicken processing, and not just at this location, but the other one on Cordova Street. So I do not fundamentally believe that this is an appropriate location for this kind of industry in what is a growing, dense urban neighborhood with a lot of low-income folk. And I think that this particular sale will facilitate, yes, it will facilitate... Yes, it will facilitate mitigating some of the folks who have regularly protested out in front of this poultry processing plant for as long as I can remember. But I don't think this is the right location. And so I don't support the sale of this lane to facilitate the expansion of this. Thank you.
Thanks. I will be supporting the sale of the lane. I was reassured by the advice from engineering about the considerations to take into account with regard to the normal process for consolidating land. I'm reassured that if this facility were to cease operation as a poultry manufacturer or processor, that it would be easy enough, uncomplicated, to return the sites to separate uses. I do want to make a comment about safety because my eyebrows did raise at the idea that these alterations would increase safety. And I think that's pretty alarming because safety of the operations on this site, there should be already sufficient precautions being taken in the operations to protect both employees and the public, and I don't think it should be operating if the public or employees are at danger with current operations. I also think that it's very important that we note that... businesses, industry needs to operate so that it doesn't have an external detrimental effect on surrounding land. And I think that's one of a really important thing to take into account when we're considering rezoning industrial land, of course, and surrounding land. So that's all I have to say. I will be supporting this.
Thank you very much. Seeing no one else in the queue, I am going to call the vote. So if we can please go to the voting panel.
Councillor, if you can register your vote.
Great. And that passes with Councillor Orr abstaining and Councillor Frye in opposition.
Thank you very much. Okay. So we're going to move on to item number six, development approval procedure bylaw amendments to include consultation requirements for inclusionary zoning and density bonus provisions. So before we begin, does anybody have a conflict that they need to declare? Councillor Orr, are you just getting in queue or are you declaring a conflict? Nope. Perfect. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Okay. This item does not have a team member presentation. So, Councillor Orr, you did hold this item, so you have up to five minutes to ask questions to team members.
Oh, I held this. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Let me see. Where am I? Yeah, I just have a question around... It's probably a question better asked to the province, but it's just a little confusing. It seems that... So... There's no consultation required to repeal a density benefits zoning bylaw, but there is consultation to implement. Can you sort of give some color onto why that kind of discrepancy?
This is in the context of CD1 bylaws and privately initiated rezonings that were amending the DAP bylaw to include consultation requirements. This is to align with the Bill 16 legislation from the province. Essentially, this would make these applications consistent with our existing rezoning consultation practices, whether that be a Shape Your City page, postcards, site sign. etc. etc. postcards that happen at or ad wording that happens at council prior to council decision so your question is related to what the province does or yeah no just the discrepancy in terms of it seems that repealing doesn't need consultation but implementing does so it's just sort of just why I have to defer to maybe Templar or Josh on this
Thank you for the question. We didn't get a very clear answer to that during the consultation process on that, but effectively the creation of it and the imposition of it was more the concern for public involvement. The repeal of a bylaw was less of a concern because usually it's being replaced by something else that would have needed some consultation too. But that's mostly speculation.
Oh, so that's just because putting something new will sort of trigger some sort of... A new requirement, yeah. A new requirement, and it'll try... It's just that you can see my sort of line of thinking where if we're getting rid of, you know, below market or density bonuses, that also should have some sort of, you know...
larger impact but again i'll simply suggest like as the legislation was drafted it was more intended for broad city-wide initiatives think of large district schedules or the establishment of a broad city-wide inclusionary bylaw for example and less to do about site-specific individual cd1 rezoning bylaws so this is an opportunity for council to simplify and streamline the rezoning application consultation process where we are already doing that kind of engagement Whereas council will still have the opportunity if they want as part of our scoping exercises on these bigger initiatives as well.
Thanks. I just want to clarify. So the main restrictions with the ODP relate to public hearings, not consultation.
The restrictions from the Bill 16 legislation is related to inclusionary zoning and density bonusing. It's not related to the procedure changes that happened. That was Bill 18. Okay. Yeah.
And so what's the purpose of why have we got particular focus on public consultation about inclusionary zoning?
Sorry, I'll also introduce myself. My name is Leisha Desjardins. I'm a project manager with the rezoning center. I forgot to do that. So for this, this is just to align with the Bill 16 legislation to bring in, law basically flagged that the Bill 16 legislation was very specific in our consultation requirements. So we brought that into the development approval procedures by law to continue to be on side with that legislation. So it's a kind of a housekeeping and alignment exercise, this report. This one?
Yeah. Okay. So if we don't pass this, say, I mean, I guess what my concern is is that if there are additional requirements about inclusionary zoning, which means more affordable housing, why are we worried about more consultation where people with less money are...
allowed to live somewhere? We would continue with our existing consultation practices. This actually just adds the language must. And in all cases, when we have projects of this scale and scope, we would be doing our existing practices, which I listed earlier. The essential distinguishing factor is adding the word must with these things for those particular types of inclusionary zoning and density bonusing.
You'd have to ask the province, but it's the Bill 18 legislation where it does add that to the Vancouver Charter, this requirement for those types of uses, or, yeah.
Because I thought the general direction of policy was that we're moving towards consultation on a broader policy... viewpoint rather than a site-by-site analysis.
We are, and this practice, again, aligns with our existing consultation practices through rezoning in the first place. Yeah. Maybe Templer can add to that? Just to add to that as well, so again, just to clarify, under Bill 18, there's the prohibition of public hearings. And the idea and the impetus to that is to establish our citywide official development plan as the point in time where we engage on the type of city that we want to grow and become over time. Bill 16, on the other hand, was the specific consultation requirements around the introduction of inclusionary requirements. As I mentioned before to your colleague, the whole premise of the bill initially was to ensure that there was adequate consultation with the industry and the public around the depth and the type of affordability that might be proposed in a bylaw. So in this case, for rezoning applications, rather than coming to council to ask you who you'd like to consult with on every single rezoning application, we're trying to streamline that and fit it into our existing process. you'll still have the opportunity to weigh in on that on other broader citywide initiatives as well.
Thank you very much. Okay.
Would someone like to move a motion? Councillor Claston, seconded by Councillor Zhou. Council, is there any discussion?
Seeing no one in the queue, I'm going to call the vote, please.
And that passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Okay.
So now we are on item eight. Is that correct? Great. Thank you. Okay. CD-1 rezoning 6012 through 6088 Canby Street. Before we begin, is there a conflict of interest anyone needs to disclose?
This item has a presentation, and we do have team members to present this item.
unless someone would like to waive the presentation.
Councillor Klassen, seconded by Councillor Zhou. Is there any discussion?
All those in favour of waiving the presentation say aye. All those opposed say nay.
Clerk, does it have to be unanimous?
So it doesn't have to be unanimous. Okay, so then that passes. We've waived the presentation. And there will be an opportunity to ask questions. Yeah, sure.
Sorry, I have a point of procedure, if I might. We had a different practice last term. I'm just looking for clarity for the clerks, and it was a general practice that if any councillor or councillors wanted to see a presentation that we did. Has that changed, or is it enshrined in the procedure bylaw that it's waived on a vote? Because that seems to have been a newly adopted practice, and I'm just looking for clarification.
The motion to waive a presentation is just a regular motion, so it requires a majority vote. But it's up to council how they want to proceed with managing hearing from presentations.
I guess my question explicitly, if I can, to follow up is, is that actually explicit in the procedure bylaw that council can make motions to waive presentations?
Council may make a motion to take any action during the meeting. So it could be to waive a presentation.
Okay.
Okay, thank you.
The applicant here.
Hi, my name is Andrew Emerson. I'm a principal with GBL Architects. But at this point, we're not looking to make a presentation, formal presentation at this time.
Okay, great. Thank you very much. Council, you do have up to five minutes to ask questions of the team members and the applicant. And Councillor Orr, you're on the queue. Please go ahead.
Yeah, thanks. So just first sort of a broader question. In today's sort of consent agenda, there's a lot of strata units. And I don't know, maybe if someone from staff could ask sort of in general, is this a sign that that sort of market is kind of rebounding and there's a greater demand? I think there's like almost... 600 strata units total in today's consent agenda. That's quite a lot. Is that a sign that there's more market for condos?
I would like to defer that question to my colleague in housing who's joining us online.
Yvonne He, Housing Regulation. We don't have any indication of where the market is going and if this project can be a marker for a rebound.
Okay. Do we have, again, a very generalized question. There's been sort of reports online and various sort of commentary around, you know, a large supply of unsold units. Do we have any sort of figure of how many, you know, what we're at with how many unsold units? I've heard upwards of 10,000 unsold units in the city of Vancouver for strata units.
I would have to check with our housing policy team to see if that's something that we track, but we can get back to you.
Okay. And then just a question. Like I said, we haven't seen many strata, so I'm not as familiar with the sort of affordability requirements or how that works when it comes to strata. So obviously, you know, 126 units, 94 hotel rooms. not a lot of affordability other than what the report says around CACs and such like that. Can you just give me a sort of general reminder of the policy around is there generally sort of a thing where we require affordability when there's a strata project?
There's no affordability requirement with the strata project. In this case, there is sometimes a requirement for social housing or affordable units. In this case, they've opted to go under the hotel development project in lieu of any rental units.
Correct.
Just jumping quick on Templar directory zoning as well. So this project was subject to a CAC review as well. And the proponent is providing a nonprofit social service space in the amount of about $10 million. So that's generally where the land lift went in this project.
Yeah, that was going to be my next question was just to ask the sort of nature of that. What do we sort of anticipate the general kind of uses for this space?
I'll have to defer to our colleagues online if there's some specifics to it, but it's to be delivered turnkey, fully fit and finished for that social serving space, but if there's some suggestions on what that could be.
Hi, James O'Neill, Senior Social Planner for Arts, Culture and Community Services. And as per standard process for when City receives a CAC of this nature and amenity, of this one we have specific program models will be developed in the near future once it's confirmed whether the project will proceed. And a nonprofit operator would be selected at a subsequent time. And then we would be seeking council approval for that appointment of operator. And they would be delivering social services from that space.
Correct.
Nope. That's a holdover.
Oh, that's a holdover. Okay. Would someone like to move the motion? Great. Councillor Zhou, seconded by Councillor Dallman-Addo. Councillor, is there any discussion?
Seeing no one in the queue, I'm going to call the vote.
Councillor Kirby on.
Great. Thank you. And that passes unanimously.
Great. Moving on.
Yeah, that passed.
6012 through 6088 Canby Street. Before we begin, is there a conflict of interest anyone needs to disclose?
This item has a presentation, and we do have team members to present this item.
Unless someone would like to waive the presentation.
Councillor Claston, seconded by Councillor Zhou. Is there any discussion? Okay, all those in favor of waiving the presentation say aye.
So it doesn't have to be unanimous. Okay, so then that passes. We've waived the presentation. And there will be an opportunity to ask questions. Yeah, sure.
Sorry, I have a point of procedure if I might. We had a different practice last term. I'm just looking for clarity for the clerks, and it was a general practice that if any councillor or councillors wanted to see a presentation that we did. Has that changed, or is it enshrined in the procedure bylaw that it's waived on a vote? Because that seems to have been a newly adopted practice, and I'm just looking for clarification.
The motion to waive a presentation is just a regular motion, so it requires a majority vote. But it's up to council how they want to proceed with managing hearing from presentations.
I guess my question explicitly, if I can, to follow up is, is that actually explicit in the procedure bylaw that council can make motions to waive presentations?
Council may make a motion to take any action during the meeting. So it could be to waive a presentation.
Okay.
Okay, thank you.
The applicant here.
Hi, my name is Andrew Emerson. I'm a principal with GBL Architects. But at this point, we're not looking to make a presentation, formal presentation at this time.
Okay, great. Thank you very much. Council, you do have up to five minutes to ask questions of the team members and the applicant. And, Councillor Orr, you're in the queue. Please go ahead.
Yeah, thanks. So, just first sort of a broader question. In today's sort of consent agenda, there's a lot of strata units. And I don't know, maybe if someone from staff could ask sort of in general, is this a sign that that sort of market is kind of rebounding? Is there some greater demand? I think there's like almost... 600 strata units total in today's consent agenda. That's quite a lot. Is that a sign that there's more market for condos?
I'd like to defer that question to my colleague in housing who's joining us online.
Yvonne He, Housing Regulation. We don't have any indication of where the market is going and if this project can be a marker for a rebound.
Okay. Do we have, again, a very generalized question. There's been sort of reports online and various sort of commentary around, you know, a large supply of unsold units. Do we have any sort of figure of how many, you know, what we're at with how many unsold units? I've heard upwards of 10,000 unsold units in the city of Vancouver for strata units.
I would have to check with our housing policy team to see if that's something that we track, but we can get back to you.
Okay. And then just a question. Like I said, we haven't seen many strata, so I'm not as familiar with the sort of affordability requirements or how that works when it comes to strata. So obviously, you know, 126 units, 94 hotel rooms. not a lot of affordability other than what the report says around CACs and such like that. Can you just give me a sort of general reminder of the policy around is there generally sort of a thing where we require affordability when there's a strata project?
There's no affordability requirement with the strata project. In this case, there is sometimes a requirement for social housing or affordable units. In this case, they've opted to go under the hotel development project in lieu of any rental units.
Correct.
Just jumping quick on Templar directory zoning as well. So this project was subject to a CAC review as well. And the proponent is providing a nonprofit social service space in the amount of about $10 million. So that's generally where the land lift went in this project.
Yeah, that was going to be my next question was just to ask the sort of nature of that. What do we sort of anticipate the general kind of uses for this space?
I'll have to defer to our colleagues online if there's some specifics to it, but it's to be delivered turnkey, fully fit and finished for that social serving space, but if there's some suggestions on what that could be.
Hi, James O'Neill, Senior Social Planner for Arts, Culture, and Community Services. And as per standard process for when city receives a CAC of this nature and amenity, of this one, we have specific program models will be developed in the near future once it's confirmed whether the project will proceed. And a nonprofit operator would be selected at a subsequent time. And then we would be seeking council approval for that appointment of operator. And they would be delivering social services from that space.
Correct.
Nope. That's a holdover.
Oh, that's a holdover. Okay. Would someone like to move the motion? Great. Councillor Zhou, seconded by Councillor Dallman-Addo. Councillor, is there any discussion?
Seeing no one in the queue, I'm going to call the vote.
Councillor Kirby on.
Great. Thank you. And that passes unanimously.
Great. Moving on.
Yeah, that passed.
Yep, sorry. And I apologize. I understand your concerns, but this isn't actually a public hearing. You know, the format's changed. This is a council meeting, and we've addressed this issue and voted on it. So we're now on to item number 10, CD-1 rezoning, 320. So that's 318-346 East 2nd Avenue. So before we begin this agenda item, does anyone have a conflict of interest that they need to declare? Seeing no, oh, Councillor Orr, you're just getting in the queue, right? Perfect. Okay, this item does have a presentation. We do have team members here to present the item, eight slides. And once again, if we want to waive it, Councillor Klassen.
Okay, seconded by Councillor Montague. Councillor, is there any discussion? Okay. All those in favor of waiving the presentation say aye. All those opposed say nay. Okay. Well, one, two, three, four. So why don't we just hear the presentation? Okay. Great. If we can hear the presentation, please. Yep, sorry. And I apologize. I understand your concerns, but this isn't actually a public hearing. You know, the format's changed. This is a council meeting, and we've addressed this issue and voted on it. So we're now on to item number 10, CD-1 rezoning 320. So that's 318-346 East 2nd Avenue. So before we begin this agenda item, does anyone have a conflict of interest that they need to declare?
Seeing no, oh, Councillor Orr, you're just getting in the queue, right? Perfect. Okay, this item does have a presentation. We do have team members here to present the item, eight slides. And once again, if we want to waive it. Councillor Klassen?
Okay. Seconded by Councillor Montague. Councillor, is there any discussion? Okay. All those in favour of waiving the presentation say aye. All those opposed say nay. Okay. Well, one, two, three, four. So why don't we just hear the presentation? Okay. Great. If we can hear the presentation, please.
ALL RIGHT.
HELLO. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS RICARDO PEGGY. I'M THE PLANNER ASSIGNED TO THIS REZONING APPLICATION AT 318 TO 346 EAST SECOND AVENUE.
The subject site is located mid-block on the south side of East 2nd Avenue between Scotia Street and Brunswick Street in the Mount Pleasant neighborhood. The site is partially excavated in preparation for a previously approved development permit to construct a five-story mixed-use residential building. The neighboring properties along East 2nd Avenue are five-story mixed-use residential buildings. The surrounding neighborhood consists of a mix of light industrial, cultural, and residential uses and is undergoing significant change with the new Broadway subway scheduled to open in 2027. The Great Northern Way Emily Carr Station will be located about 250 meters to the east.
The proposed land use and height are consistent with the mixed-use High-Rise 1 generalized land use designation in the Vancouver ODP, which envisions mixed-use residential buildings up to 26 stories in height.
The site is located in Mount Pleasant Center Area H in the Broadway plan. The MCEH sub-area enables 20-story mixed-use residential buildings with an FSR up to 7.0 and a minimum of two levels of non-residential uses. A minimum of 20% of the residential floor area must be secured as below-market rental units.
The applicant originally applied for a strata residential tenure with 20% of the floor area as social housing. The applicant revised the application to propose a rental residential tenure on August 1st of last year. The proposal is to rezone the site to a comprehensive development district to enable the development of a mixed-use residential building with ground floor commercial uses and office uses on the second floor. The maximum height is 19 stories or 64.9 meters, and the maximum density is 7.0 FSR. The development will contain 162 rental housing units and 20% of the floor area, residential floor area will be secured for below market units.
54 pieces of correspondence have been received during the public consultation. Public feedback supported new housing in the neighborhoods, the location for the additional density and the proposed mix of uses.
Some concerns were also expressed. The first was about height, massing, and neighborhood fit of the proposed development. Staff in response confirmed that the proposed height, scale, and uses are all consistent with the policies that apply to the subarea in the Broadway plan. Residents in a neighboring building also submitted concerns about potential security issues, given that the original design concept showed the podium to be nine feet higher than the neighboring rooftop with no setback. The applicant submitted a modified proposal which adjusted the proposed built form in part to alleviate security concerns. In this design concept, the podium was lowered and a vegetative buffer was added to prevent cross-rooftop access. Lastly, some were concerned about impacts to traffic in the area. And in response, the staff cite that the site's location provides a variety of transportation options. The site's located on an arterial road and near the future SkyTrain station. The area is also well served in terms of active transportation infrastructure with many daily needs available in walking distance.
The public benefits from this application consist of DCLs and a public art contribution with a total value of $2.3 million. Other benefits of the development include 162 secured market rental, or sorry, secured rental housing units and 20% of the floor area to be rented at below market rates. And in summary, excuse me, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN APPENDIX B AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BROADWAY PLAN AND VANCOUVER ODP. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TEAM ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
THIS IS JORDAN SUE FROM CAPE GROUP. I'D LIKE TO THANK staff members council and also chair of council today for the time and also the time spent working on this project diligently and efficiently um most of my notes have been covered by um ricardo so oh wave what i have to say to save time thank you thank you very much uh council you do have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members and the applicant uh counselor or
Yeah, thank you. Thanks for the presentation. My initial questions were just around essentially the change from industrial to residential and when that happened. And I was under the impression that with the ODP, I could have sworn that if land use changed from industrial to residential, that it would trigger a public hearing. But am I mistaken in that?
Maybe that's a question for Templar or...
Thank you for that question. I can take a stab at it. So it is, the site is not designated as industrial under the Metro Vancouver land use designations nor the Vancouver ODP. So it is designated for residential under both the ODP and the Broadway plan, so it isn't a change that would require a public hearing.
Okay, so because it's not in the metro designated, it's just because it is changing from industrial, right, IC3 to CD1.
The industrial zoning, it is zoned industrial, but it's not designated industrial. Can you explain the difference in between that? For sure.
Maybe I'll call Templar up here.
Thanks. A brief walk down memory lane on history here. So this area was formerly industrial lands, and it's part of an area that was let go for industrial purposes. So it still has a legacy zoning of industrial zoning, but it's not identified in the Metro RGS for industrial uses. So our Vancouver plan identifies it for residential purposes. The Broadway plan allows for residential through rezoning. So this is the process to rezone from the existing IC3 to a residential use pursuant to the Broadway plan.
Thanks. I'm interested in knowing how much commercial or industrial or non-residential floor space is being retained with this development compared to its historical use.
I mean, how much employment space is there?
Yeah, thank you for the question. So the previous use from historical imagery was a single story. I believe it was an auto body shop. And in the new development plans, I don't have the exact FSR off the top of my head here, but it is two floors. So a second floor of office and ground floor retail space.
Right. And so it's already been rezoned, but this is just a change to the housing type. Is that right?
It hasn't technically been... Or is it just another application that didn't make its way through to rezoning? Is that right?
So it was approved for a development permit without a rezoning. The rezoning wasn't required in this instance. But based on the Broadway plan policies, more height is achievable, essentially.
All right. So, okay. Thanks. That's all my questions.
Thank you very much. Okay. Would someone like to move a motion? Councillor Dominato, seconded by Councillor Zhou. Council, is there any discussion? Seeing no one in the queue, I'm going to call the vote. If we can please go to the voting panel.
Great. And that passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Okay. Next item is item number 11, CD-1-892, text amendment 1290 Hornby Street and 889 Drake Street. Before we begin, any conflicts of interest to disclose?
This item does have a presentation. We have team members here to present this item. If...
Yes, would someone like to move a motion to go past noon? Thank you very much, Councillor Domenato. Is that seconded?
Complete this item.
Just this item.
Yeah, I'm just wondering, because the logic of doing that, since we also have item 12, so it doesn't feel like we're finishing a section, so... I'm just wondering if we want to finish the section versus, it doesn't, I'm just not sort of seeing the validity in doing that because we have similar planning staff on two items coming up, I believe.
Well, we're going into item 11 now, correct? Yes, we have items 11, 12, 15, and then we do have... And they all involve planning staff, so I'm just not necessarily seeing the rationale for doing one out of three versus just breaking and giving the staff a break, or are we split and we have to have the same folks here, then they wait, and they come back for another two. So I'm just saying that that doesn't necessarily make sense to me. I'd rather just break at noon and finish later.
Yeah, but it's a council can vote on it.
Okay, so the motion on the floor is to complete item number 11. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Claston actually saw his hand first. Any discussion beyond Councillor Kirby-Young's discussion? Okay, we're going to put it to a vote to finish item number 11. All those in favour say aye. All those opposed say nay. Great. That passes. So we will complete item number 11 and then break for lunch. Okay.
No, no, no, no, no. I do want to acknowledge. So first of all, thank you very much for coming in here. I know this is not the protocol. And we're going to give you a little bit of leeway here because it is a very dear topic to a lot of our hearts here. And it extends beyond this council. We did acknowledge today at the beginning of council. So I don't know if you're here, but we did acknowledge it. We actually opened up this council meeting with the acknowledgement and had quite a few comments around it when we first opened this chamber. more than happy to have a conversation with you right after this item we do have to follow this protocol though okay great okay thank you so um with that um
Thank you. Okay. So going back to the business, we do have team members here to present the presentation. Now we can wave it as well.
Well, no, we have to waive Councillor Domenato, seconded by Councillor Meiszner. Is there any conversation? All in favour of waiving the presentation, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Okay, so we will waive the presentation. And, Councillor, you do have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members and the applicant. So, Councillor Domenato.
Thanks, Mayor. I principally held this so I could ask a question about the move to eliminate the cultural amenity space and to move to additional housing units. And I'm looking at page six and seven for reference of the report. But what I was curious about was that. the cash CAC that is offered is $8.7 million. It's equivalent to the 2022 valuation of the in-kind amenity. I was curious if staff could speak to the practice of basing it on a valuation from four years ago versus today, because at the time, the condition of rezoning for the site was the inclusion of this cultural amenity space. I appreciate that the conversion to housing units, but I'm curious about particularly that piece is why not evaluation in today's dollars and what the practice is typically. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor, for that question. Oscar Erickson, rezoning planner for the project. I'm going to call on my colleagues in real estate and see if they can help us with the answer to this question. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Hi, Mayor and Council. Philippa Gumley from Real Estate here. It's correct that the £8.7 million in 2022 would have been based on the cost to deliver the amenity. Now, when the tax amendment came through, Real Estate did do a kind of reformer analysis check to see if any more cash EAC would be required in this circumstance. And it was found that found that there wouldn't be any more required and that the 8.7 million would be sufficient. So in terms of practice... Yeah, traditionally it's cost for amenities, but often when it comes to cash, we will test the performer and make sure that it's supportable.
Okay, and so in an instance like in this case, this would be common practice. We haven't seen a ton of these over time, but I'm just curious if this is common practice and if we see this in other jurisdictions as well.
Yeah, I think, well, I think it's... you're right in that there's not loads of these that come through but I think you know checking that the performer can support it as of today is common practice. You know, that point of application, what can the performer deliver is standard process. I can't speak to other jurisdictions, unfortunately. Okay, thank you.
Just one final question to the planning staff is just in, and I'm sorry, I don't recall the details of when we did do the rezoning. Was there a particular group that was associated with this cultural amenity space and not-for-profit?
Thank you for the question, Councillor. I don't know if the applicant is able to know. We'll stick to it. As far as I know, I don't recall there being a specific group associated with the original approval. It was going through like a process of determining the operator, and that was partially executed. But this is the conclusion that came out of that process.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor Maloney.
What was the proposal for the cultural amenity space? What kind of space was it? Was it a theatre or what was the nature of it?
Thank you, Councillor. I believe that this was a proposed like artist spaces and like in visual arts is what the original intent was.
All right. And so the money earmarked in space instead of the cultural amenity space, that's just going to go into general revenue.
Yes, staff acknowledged that the original approval was intended to go towards cultural spaces, and staff had kind of included wording in the report to that effect. But ultimately, the funds are directed to the capital funds process, and that is a decision at a later stage and not a decision for today.
And are any staff available to just give a broad overview of what kind of programs are in train to provide the kind of artist spaces that would have been provided by this amenity?
I'm personally not aware of the exact projects in the pipeline right now. Maybe we have other staff that can take a stab at that question. Maybe we can relay that question to staff in the ACCS, in the Arts and Culture Department, if they are online.
Hi, good morning, Council and Mayor. Helen, my Assistant Director of Arts and Culture. Pardon me, if you can just repeat your question one more time. You're wondering about...
I'd like an overview of what current programs we have in place to... replicate from the city's point of view the kind of artist space that would have been provided in this development.
Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah, at a high level, we continue to implement making space for arts and culture, which has a goal to retain or expand arts and cultural spaces. So we continue to look for opportunities in development where we can leverage that. a cultural amenity. In cases like this one, where now they're offering cash, then we would like to direct that to capital projects. In this case, we have said that we'll like to allocate the funding to capital projects for arts and culture in the metro core area. And we do have a number of priorities in the metro core area.
Okay, thanks for that.
Is this sort of a general move that we're seeing less incorporation by developers to put in place amenities that they would have to manage and maintain and instead provide a cash contribution to the city?
Thanks for the question. So in many cases, our policies allow for either in-kind or cash. And in some instances, we're seeing applicants looking to convert that space, either for viability reasons, they're looking to improve the viability of their project and how and when it's delivered. Some are opting to explore converting from in-kind to cash. We do actually have some that are looking to convert from cash to in-kind as well. So it depends on the nature of the project and the applicant. And again, it's somewhat up to them to...
proceed in advance of their project and if they look to make a change we consider it evaluated under the policies okay thanks thanks very much thank you very much uh seeing no one else in the queue would someone like to move a motion Councillor Klassen seconded by Councillor Zhou thank you council is there any discussion seeing no one in the queue i'm going to call the vote please go to the voting panel
Great. That passes with Councillor Orr in opposition. And that completes the item. And so we will break. We'll meet in camera and then we'll reconvene here to finish the business council at 3 p.m. Thank you.
Just confirming that you heard me.
Okay. Welcome back, everyone. I'm going to continue on with the agenda. We are on report number 12 now, CD-1 rezoning, 531 through 595 West 27th Avenue. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Seeing no one's hands up, we'll get into... The presentation. So there is a presentation. We have team members here to present the item. Unless, for whatever reason, council wants to waive the presentation.
All right.
Good afternoon, Mayor, Council, and members of the public. My name is Hannah Jarrett, rezoning planner for this application being considered under the transit-oriented areas rezoning policy.
The site, shown in red, is located on the north side of West 27th Avenue between Ash and Canby Streets in the South Canby neighborhood. The surrounding context consists of single detached houses, townhouses, and apartment buildings along Canby Street. The site is located within 400 meters of the King Edward Skytrain Station and is also close to BC Women's and Children's Hospital. Currently, there are seven single detached houses on site with 19 units of secondary rental housing. There are tenants eligible for protections under the tenant relocation and protection policy.
The site's generalized land use designation under the Vancouver ODP is residential mid-rise, which allows residential uses up to 12 stories. The proposed land use and height are consistent with this designation.
The site is within Tier 2 of the transit-oriented areas rezoning policy, which allows for consideration of rezonings up to 12 stories and 4 FSR. The policy requires rental housing with 20% of the residential floor area secured for below-market rental units.
The application proposes two six-story residential buildings with a height of 26 meters and density of 3 FSR. 222 secured market rental units are proposed. Parking and loading access would be provided from the lane. The application proposes 100% market rental units as opposed to the 20% below market units per the TOA policy. Staff conducted a pro forma analysis to evaluate the land lift generated by this rezoning. The analysis demonstrated that the land lift was insufficient to support 20% below market units. The site is currently zoned RM8A, which permits greater density than sites zoned R11, which reduces the land lift typically associated with a rezoning for a lower zoned site. Per the community amenity contributions policy, staff went through a negotiated CAC process and the applicant offered a cash CAC.
A virtual Q&A period was held in October 2025, and 75 pieces of correspondence were received. Support was expressed for adding new rental housing supply to help address Vancouver's housing crisis, the location of the project close to transit, schools, parks, hospitals, and jobs, and the low-rise building form. Concerns related to the proposed buildings being too tall for the neighborhood, the impact on the small-scale character of the area, and insufficient parking and impact of traffic on existing infrastructure. In response to these concerns, the proposed height and density are less than what the TOA policy allows. Up to 12 stories and 4 FSR are permitted, while 6 stories and 3 FSR are proposed. Conditions have been included to improve the building's fit within the neighborhood, including stepping back the top floor of the West Building and reducing the apparent building width through design measures. The site is also located close to the Canada Line, buses on King Edward Avenue, and cycling routes to encourage modes of transportation other than private vehicles.
The public benefits accruing from this application are approximately $6.2 million in total, including a CAC, development cost levies, and a public art contribution, as well as 222 rental units.
In conclusion, the application generally meets the transit-oriented areas rezoning policy. Staff recommend approval subject to conditions in Appendix B of the report. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer questions. Thank you.
Please go ahead.
Sorry, we have nothing further to add to Hannah's comments, but we're available to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Council members, you have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members and the applicant. Are there any questions?
Councillor Orr.
Yeah, I guess I held this item, but could you explain to me, just walk me through the difference in that, in Land Lift, in terms of it's not enough Land Lift to generate 20% BMR, but it is enough to generate CAC contribution. Can you just walk me through how you get to that?
Yeah, so as I mentioned, the site is currently zoned RM8A, which is a townhouse district that allows 1.2 FSR. So basically the increase in density going up to three is not as much as if the site were, say, zoned R11, which I believe off the top of my head allows 0.75 FSR. So essentially... If the site was zoned R11 or a lower district, there would be a greater amount of land lift and more ability to provide BMR. But because this site is already zoned for 1.2 FSR, it decreases that increase in land value.
The current zoning allows 1.2. 1.2. Okay.
3.0.
So through the pro forma analysis, it was enough to generate an $800,000 cash CAC, but the equivalent in BMR units would not have been 20% as the policy requires.
And then there was talk, sorry, of the TOA policy allowing 12 stories around this, so that it could actually be even quite higher. That's correct. What would that be? What would the FSR be? Like potentially it could be...
The TOA policy in this location allows 12 stories and four FSR.
Three FSR is proposed.
Okay, that's all my questions, thanks. Thank you, Councillor. Seeing no one else in the queue, would someone like to move a motion? Great, Councillor Meiszner, seconded by Councillor Montague. Council, is there any discussion?
I don't see anyone in the queue, so I'm going to bring this to a vote.
If we could go to the voting panel, please.
Great. Register your vote. Vote, Councillor Claston, if you can turn on your camera.
Get a vote in support, vote assist in support, please.
Sure.
Okay. And so that passes unanimously. Thank you very much. So that completes item number 12.
We'll just wait for it to go up on the board.
Is it too late? Okay. So move for consideration.
Do we need a seconder? Great. Sorry, Councillor Zhou. Thank you. Any discussion?
Okay, so we have to get someone else to move reconsideration. Councillor Zhou, thank you. Seconded by Councillor Maloney. Is there any discussion? Great. All in favor of reconsideration, say aye. All opposed, say nay. Great. We will reconsider. So we bring this back to the vote now. Is that correct? Thank you. And Councillor Claston, do you want to vote assist in favor again?
Yes, please, Mayor. Thanks. Great. Thank you.
voting on Councillor Orr, Meisner, and Bly.
Great. And that passes unanimously. Great. So that is item 12. The next item is actually item number 15. Okay, CD-1 rezoning 888 West 8th. That's a lucky number. Avenue, before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Seeing no one's hands up, this item does have a presentation. We do have team members here to present the item, unless someone would like to waive it. If not, all right, let's have the presentation. Okay, Councillor... Excuse me, Meisner. Seconded by Councillor Zhou. Any discussion? All in favour of waiving the presentation, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. So we will waive the presentation. Would the applicant like to make a presentation?
Is the applicant online?
uh good afternoon mayor council we are not going to make a presentation but we're happy to answer any questions uh that anybody has today thank you very much uh council uh you do have up to five minutes to ask questions of team members and the applicant um and counselor or you did hold this uh presentation oh
Yeah, my question is about procedure in terms of this essentially not triggering a public hearing. It does say that it's consistent with the general land use designation, but it's 100% commercial. So can you explain sort of the difference there? I thought if it was 50% plus one residential... that would sort of skip the public hearing. So why, if there's no residential component here...
Yeah, so this, as you identified, is 100% commercial, and it is compliant with the Vancouver ODP. So as a result, this project's not prohibited from a public hearing, so we brought it on April 14th for referral. Staff recommended that it go to a regular council meeting because of its compliance with Broadway Plan policy and with the Vancouver Plan ODP. But council does have the discretion to have sent it to a public hearing, but at that referral, it was sent to a regular council meeting. That's why we're here.
Okay, and then so just because this is all new territory and we're just trying to figure it out as I go along here. So say then if there had been a large sort of batch of correspondence or like public interest about this, then that would have triggered a public hearing. Okay.
So we would have still brought it to a referral, and council could have decided, if you'd seen that there was a lot of correspondence, then you could have decided to send it to a public hearing route instead, but that would have happened at the referral, at the point of referral.
Yeah. So it would be at your discretion.
Thanks. Thank you very much, Councillor. Seeing no one else in the queue, would someone like to move a motion? Councillor Kirby-Young, I think Councillor Domanato, you seconded it. Council, is there any discussion? Seeing no one in the queue, I'm going to now call the vote. A reminder to, if you're online voting, please turn your camera on.
Mayor, can I have a vote of assist in favour? Yes, you can.
Thank you. Thank you.
And Councillor Blah and Councillor Zhou.
Great, thank you. And that passes with Councillor Orr abstaining. Thank you very much. Okay. So now we're going to go into bylaws. We do have 19 bylaws on the agenda for enactment. Before we begin this agenda,
item. If anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest, please declare it. Does anybody have a conflict to declare? Okay. Council members who were absent for the meetings related to public hearing enactment bylaws must confirm that they've reviewed the proceedings of the meetings, including the video clip, to be eligible to vote. Bylaw 2 was from the public hearing on September the 18th, 2025. Councillor Bligh and myself were absent for this item at public hearing. Councillor Bligh, have you reviewed the proceedings and will you be voting on the enactment? I have and I will. Great. And I have not and I will not. Bylaw 3 was from the public hearing on January the... 21st, 2025, I was absent for this item at public hearing and Councillors Maloney and Orr were not on council at the time of this public hearing. Councillor Maloney, have you reviewed the proceedings and will you be voting on the enactment? Thank you, Councillor Orr. And I have not, and I will not. Bylaw 13 was from the public hearing on December the 14th, 2023. I was absent for this item at the public hearing and Councillors Maloney and Orr were not on council at the time of this public hearing. Councillor Maloney, have you reviewed the proceedings and will you be voting on the enactment? Thank you. Councillor Orr? And I have not and I will not. Bylaw 15 was from the public hearing on May the 7th, 2024. Councillor Montague and myself were absent for this item at the public hearing and Councillors Maloney and Orr were not on council. at the time of this public hearing. Councillor Claston advised to have reviewed the proceedings at the council meeting on April the 14th, 2026. Councillor Maloney, have you reviewed the proceedings and will you be voting on the enactment?
Councillor Montague? Councillor Orr? Great, and I have not, and I will not. Would someone like to move the motion to adopt bylaws one through 19? Great, Councillor Domenico, seconded by Councillor Kirby Young. council is there any discussion great all those in favor say yay all those opposed say nay great the motion carries unanimously the list of approved bylaws can be found on the city's website Okay, so now we're into administrative motions. Number one, resolution closure and sale of land adjacent to 1750 Franklin Street and 1717 through 1771 East Hastings Street. Before we begin, does anybody need to declare a conflict of interest on this item?
Council, are there any questions for team members?
Okay, would someone like to move a motion? Councillor Zhou, thank you. Seconded by... Councillor Montague. Council is there in discussion? No. All those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay.
Okay. So can we get that again? All those in favour say yay. Okay, great.
And all those opposed say nay. Great, thank you. So the motion carries with Councillor Frye in opposition. Item number two, resolution of 2026 tax levies for provincial schools. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to disclose it. Seeing no one disclosing, council, are there any questions for team members?
Would someone like to move a motion?
Anyone? Great. Councillor Kirby-Young. Councillor Dominato. Thank you very much. Is there any discussion? Okay. All those in favour, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. Great. The motion carries unanimously. Resolution item number three. Resolution 2026 tax levies for South Coast BC Transportation Authority. TransLink. Before we begin, is there anyone wishing to declare a conflict of interest? Council, are there any questions for team members? Okay, would someone like to move the motion? Great, Councillor Kerby-Young, thank you. Seconded by Councillor Montague. Council, is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great, the motion carries unanimously. Item number four, resolution 2026, tax levies for the BC Assessment Authority. Any conflicts to declare? Councillor, are there any questions for team members? Would someone like to move the motion? Councillor Montague, seconded by Councillor Kirby-Young. Any discussion? All those in favour, say yay. All those opposed, say nay. Great, the motion carries unanimously. Item number five, Resolution 2026, for Municipal Finance Authority of BC. Any conflicts to declare? Any questions to team members? Would someone like to move the motion? Councillor Montague, thank you very much. Seconded by Councillor Kirby-Young. Council, any discussion? All those in favour say yay. All those opposed say nay. Great, the motion carries. Unanimously. Okay. 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 of 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 guess I'm up. So I'd like to call notice of two motions, both for the Standing Committee meeting on May the 20th, 2026. The first one is entitled Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Housing Affordability through Alignment with the Provincial Building Code. The second one is titled Carrying on Joe Forte's Legacy, Universal Access to Basic Swimming Lessons and Expansion of Aquatic Infrastructure as Core Public Safety Policy. Councillor Maloney.
I've got two motions for the Standing Committee meeting on the 20th of May. The first is building the evidence base for sustained investment in Vancouver's arts and culture sector. And the second is preparing community centres for post-disaster use.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I'm calling a notice of motion for the May 20th Standing Committee meeting. The motion titled Review and Refinement of Multiplex Housing Policy based on the Early Implementation Experience. That is co-submitted by myself, Councillor Zhou, and Councillor Meiszner. Thanks.
Thanks, Mayor. Calling notice for the May 20th Standing Committee meeting motion entitled Supporting Italian Day on Commercial Drive in 2026. And also calling notice, although I'll try to do it under new business this afternoon, is amending the acting mayor schedule for June 22nd to 23rd, 2026. Because it is administrative, I will attempt to do that today. But I am going to call notice anyways. Thank you.
Two notices of motion for May 20th Standing Committee. Number one, understanding and prioritizing sex worker safety policies and resources. Number two, managing and mitigating development pressures on existing small business, arts and non-profit uses.
Thank you. Councillor Orr. Yeah. Notice of motion for the May 20th Standing Committee. Two motions. One titled, Work to Live, Live Near Work, Affordable Workforce Housing for Healthcare Workers. And a second one entitled, You Just Made the List, Creating a Local Landlord Registry for the City of Vancouver.
Thank you very much. I have one notice of motion for May 20th, Pride in Vancouver, strengthening and celebrating the Vancouver Pride Festival.
Awesome. Great. Any other notice of member motions before we move on to new business? Okay. New business. We have two items of new business on the agenda today. The first one is requests for leaves of absence. This motion has been circulated to council at the beginning of the meeting and is available on the screen.
Okay. Did everyone get a chance to review that to make sure it's accurate? Would someone like to move a motion? Great. Thank you, Councillor Kirby-Young. Seconded by Councillor Meiszner. Councillor, is there any discussion?
Okay. All those in favour say aye. All those opposed say nay. Great. The motion carries unanimously. Mayor, it's Councillor Klassen. Can you put me on the queue for new business?
Thank you.
Where is it here? Okay, I just added him. Okay. Sorry, do I have to see the chair on this one?
Sorry? Yes. Okay. I'm going to see the chair. I think is it to Councillor Meiszner or Kirby Young?
Okay.
Okay. So I'd like to move two motions as urgent business and one motion of new business. And I've sent the first two into the clerks. So the first one... is regarding the overdose prevention site at 900 Helmiken. I'm moving an urgent motion that requires the attention of council in connection to public health and safety. In recent days, we've heard very real concerns from residents, businesses, and frontline workers regarding the proposed overdose prevention site at 900 Helmiken Street. I do want to be very clear here. Vancouver will not support solutions that fail both the people struggling with addiction and the communities around them. We've already seen what happens when facilities are placed without proper planning, oversight, or accountability. The monthly rate of police calls for service to the site at 1100 Seymour Street almost tripled after the OPS opened. There are also ongoing concerns about the track record of Rain City Housing as an operator. When facilities are not managed to the highest standard, they do not stabilize neighborhoods. They destabilize them. Once again, a site appears to have been secured before residents, businesses, and frontline workers were meaningfully engaged. Staff at nearby St. Paul's Hospital have spoken publicly that the unacceptable situation related to drug use, not feeling safe accessing or working around these environments. Continuing to rely on piecemeal measures like this without scaling treatment and recovery options is not good enough. The point of this motion is to give the city manager and the team clear direction from council to prevent the OPS from opening its doors.
Okay.
Thanks, Mayor Simm, for the description of the urgent motion. As chair, I'm just going to need a few minutes to rule on whether this qualifies as an urgent motion or not.
So I'd like to take a five-minute recess, please.
Then I just go yeah, so I just keep going back and forth
Okay, thank you everyone for your patience. I have taken some time to meet with our city manager and deputy city manager as well as review the procedure bylaw, which stipulates that an urgent motion must be business that requires the urgent attention of council in connection with possible public safety or life safety issues. And I would concur that this topic meets that test. And in addition to that, given the announcement by Vancouver Coastal Health that they have already signed the lease for this new overdose prevention site at Halmakin and Hornby Street in downtown Vancouver for June 1st, and given their statement that they intend to open the new OPS as soon as possible, and given the fact that council just found out about this last week, despite... many promises about community consultation and consultation with the city. I, as chair, am ruling that this urgent motion is in order, and we will debate it today. So I just need a seconder to the motion, please. Seconded by Councillor Montague. Okay. Councillors, if you'd like to speak. Yes, Councillor Orr. Could you add yourself to the, or just turn your mic on, please?
I would like to move that this motion is out of order. under 8.7a and 8.7b. 8.7a saying that this is not compatible with the preferences of an object of the Vancouver Charter, including the good rule and government of the city or the health, safety, and welfare of its inhabitants. And b, conflicts with a law or bylaw. The law in this case would be Executive Order 4.88, which falls under an actual law, which is the Emergency Health E-H-S-A, sorry, and I can't remember. It would also be under the Emergency Health Services Act and Health Authorities Act. These are two laws on the books that this would interfere with. So I'd like for the chair to move on that, please.
Okay. Thank you, Councillor Orr, for your comments. So just so everyone's following along here, Councillor Orr is appealing my decision as chair. Is there a seconder to that appeal?
Is the point of order not an appeal decision?
Okay. Okay. So given that point of order has been stated but is not an appeal, we'll move to the debate.
So it is a point of order. Okay. Sorry for the confusion. I understand. Okay. So I'm just going to take a recess again for about three minutes while I concur with staff on this, and we'll be back.
Okay, thanks everyone for your patience.
I've conferred with our city managers, with our clerks and our legal team and Councillor Orr on 8.7. It does not fall outside of council's power and the authority of a good government to have this debate. on the surge of motion. And on 8.7B, it's not within our judgment as counsel, as you allege, to say that it conflicts with any law or bylaw as the motion from Mayor Sim is not prescriptive about what tool specifically would be used.
So I rule that this is in order. And we can have this debate.
So I'll need a seconder, please.
And I was seconded by Councillor Montague. Apologies. So we'll now move to debate on this item. Council, please add yourself to the queue should you wish to participate in the debate. And I'll have to get the clerks to advance. Councillor Frye. Thanks.
Yeah, I'd also like to call a point of order in a similar vein.
First, catching this in Section 8.7b. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 7, the landmark case Canada versus the PHS in 2011, which ruled it was unlawful to try and block overdose prevention services in 2011 as a fundamental charter right for freedom of security of person and life, liberty, and happiness. And then under 8.7A of Procedure Bylaw and Vancouver Charter 3.1, the obligation to give due notice and allow the public to participate in debate on this matter.
Okay. Acknowledging that point of order, Councillor Frey, unfortunately we will need to take another recess for approximately five minutes while I talk again to our city manager team. So we'll be back in five minutes approximately.
Okay, I've made my ruling on Councillor Fry's point of order. The point is not in order, and I've ruled that the emergency motion is in order. I've conferred again with our city manager, our deputy city manager, as well as the city legal team. And the first clause in the motion is to take, quote, all lawful steps to prevent or pause the opening of the OPS. This motion does not advocate or stipulate that the city take any unlawful steps, only lawful steps. So again, Councillor Fry's point is not in order and the motion is in order and we will debate it. Thank you. That's my ruling as a chair. So councillors, if you want to speak, to this emergency motion.
It's now on the floor, and please add yourself to the queue.
Hey, clerks, if you could please advance. Councillor Orr, thank you.
Okay, thanks. So it's noted by Vancouver Coastal Health... Chief Medical Officer, that 94 people in this neighborhood died of overdose last year. Question through the mover to staff, I suppose. If this site is blocked, are we predicting that this number of overdose deaths in this neighborhood will increase or decrease? And I'd rather that be asking VCH themselves, but I suppose the city manager will do.
Sandra Singh, Deputy City Manager. I'm afraid I'm not in a position to speculate on what could happen in terms of this, but certainly council has access to data on this.
Similar question to this chair. Are there any reported cases of fatal overdoses at these overdose prevention sites?
I would have to follow up with these.
The answer is no, no, not a single one. Is the reduction of prevention of overdose deaths in alignment with Ministerial Order 488?
I would need to review that Ministerial Order. I don't have it in front of me.
It's not. Would the anticipated increase in overdose deaths be in opposition to or in contravention of Ministerial Order 488? Counselor, if you could...
me a moment to review order 488 I could certainly do so.
I would like to know from the deputy city manager if they need a recess in order to review that section.
If council would like me to provide an opinion on alignment with that ministerial order I would need some time to review it. It's been some time since I've looked at it.
Okay, and Councillor Orr, you're wishing to, yeah. And what length of recess would be roughly required, Deputy City Manager?
Five minutes.
Five minutes, okay. Okay, we'll take a five-minute recess, and we'll return at 4.25. Thanks.
Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for your patience.
So I understand that the Deputy City Manager has a response to Councillor Orr's question, so I'll turn it over to Sandra Singh.
Thank you for the time to review the ministerial order from December 9, 2016. So this is a very brief ministerial order that is directed toward the regional health authorities and BCEHS. It is not directed toward municipalities, so it's not directed to us.
Thank you, Sandra, for clarifying that question. Councillor Orr.
Thanks. Thanks for that answer. One more question to the deputy city manager through the chair. Does the city's responsibility to maintain the appearance of public order supersede its responsibility to follow all applicable issued health directives by the province and its responsibility to protect the health, well-being, and lives of its residents?
Councillor, I think consideration of the balance of different public interests would be something that council could direct staff to act on as part of this motion. And ultimately, at times, it will be council's deliberation.
All right.
I'm going to move a motion to defer this so that we can hear from Vancouver Coastal Health. I'm just sending it through now. I don't think we can make a decision on this with the answers that we've been given. And seeing that the ministerial order does go towards Vancouver Coastal Health, we need to hear from them in order to make a decision on this.
Okay. So just to confirm, Councillor, you're moving a motion to refer? Yeah. Okay. If we could move to the amendment. Actually, I'm not sure. Do we need to move to the amendment queue for a referral motion? I can't recall. Apologies. Clerks? We have a referral motion. I'm just wondering if we need to move to the amendment queue or not.
Yep. So we'll move to the amendment queue that was seconded by Councillor Bligh. So please add yourself to the queue if you wish to speak to Councillor Orr's referral motion, which he's just sent in. It should be in your email. Okay, Councillor Kirby-Young, please go ahead.
I have a microphone. I have a point of procedure. This is not deferring to anything, to a meeting, to a date, to anything, so I'm just wondering, Chair, through you, as a point of procedure, if this is actually a complete amendment.
That's a very good point, Councillor Kirby-Young.
I would argue it provides insufficient direction.
I'm just looking at the motion now as obviously a fast-moving situation, and I would agree it doesn't have any specifics as to when. It just says defer in order to hear from Vancouver Coastal Health, but there's no timeline.
Okay. And to save us sort of going through endless points of order, I'm just going to call the question on this one so we can move this along because we have 429.
Okay. Councillor Kirby-Young is calling the question on the motion, the deferral motion.
We need a seconder. On Councillor Orr's deferral motion.
And calling the question has to be seconded, correct, clerks? Yeah, obviously. So Councillor Montague has seconded that. We're going to call the question. We're now going to vote on it. This is on the deferral.
Chair, this is Councillor Claassen. Can I have a vote assist in opposition? Yes, noted, Councillor Claassen. Thank you.
Sorry, Chair, if I may. So this is a, you called the question. So you now need to have a two-thirds vote required to move on with proceeding on the voting on the amendment.
Vote on the call the question.
Apologies. Sorry about this. I haven't chaired in this situation before. Okay. So first, as stated, we need to vote on the calling of the question. So we need two-thirds majority in order to advance that. Do we do a recorded vote or show hands? Recorded vote? Okay. If we could please do that. Thank you.
And this is on calling the question, correct?
Yeah. Thank you. Chair, this is Councillor Klassen. Can I have a vote in assist in favor of calling the question?
Noted. Thank you.
So I'm not able to see those results in this seat, but they're on screen there.
It doesn't pass.
We needed a two-thirds.
Yeah. So, okay. So that doesn't pass as we needed two-thirds. In opposition is Councillor Bligh, Councillor Fry, Councillor Orr, and Councillor Maloney.
So we're not able to call the question.
Yeah, so I will just say that I think there is a sense of urgency about this. And just with no definitive timeline and no direction in the motion as to how and when it would be considered, it doesn't make sense to me. And I think that we should get into the substantive debate and not the procedural wrangling. So I'm opposed. Thanks.
Thanks, Councillor Kerr-Beyond. Councillor Frye.
Well, I would like to state that I do not believe this meets any threshold for urgency, given the timing. We do have another scheduled council and committee meeting between now and the time that the applicant is suggesting they would open, although I would probably have some questions of staff as to what they would require to open, including a development permit, building permit, change of use, all the various ancillary kind of conditions to open in the first place. So I do not believe this at all reflects an urgent prerogative. And I disagree with the chair's original ruling. So that said, I think the opportunity for Vancouver Coastal Health to opine on The extent to which this is needed and necessary is prudent to reflect on our obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 7, and really our obligations as good governments. I think buying us some time to do this right is the appropriate thing. And I do need to highlight that not only are we not allowing Vancouver Coastal Health, our designated health authority, to comment on this issue, air quotes, urgent motion, we are also denying the public and immediate stakeholders an opportunity to opine on this, air quotes, urgent motion. We have time to do this the right way, and this chair and the mover of this motion are choosing to do it the wrong way. And so I support this motion to defer this so we can hear from the experts, not the opinions. Thank you.
Okay, thank you, Council Black.
Thanks very much. I have a point of information through you, Chair, to the city manager. And there's been some comments, and maybe Deputy City Manager, who's been focusing on this perhaps file longer. So we received, I'm not sure if it's confidential, the date we received an update, but it was almost 12 days ago, I would say. not just last week almost two weeks ago um so in the space of the past many months my understanding is there have been liaison tables that have been set up for community consultation and they've been set up by our city manager's office in some form could you speak to that level of community engagement that actually has been going on for almost a year as i understand it
Your microphone's not on.
Can I get that time back and ask that the Deputy City Manager start from the top because the public has to hear this.
Thank you. VCH is a member of the Downtown South Neighborhood Liaison Table, which is where they've had conversations relating to the siting of the OPS mobile van, and it is a table that they have provided updates to on their... work to identify a ongoing site for an OPS in the downtown.
Okay, but with those meetings, were we part of those meetings as a city, city leadership, city, sorry, my back is to you, it's just my microphone's this way.
City, it is a city convene table that includes various stakeholders and public agencies.
Okay, so this is not surprise news to the city if we've been involved in those liaison tables, I would suspect.
So the city staff are aware and VCH kept city staff aware of the area that they were looking for a relocated site and including contemplating St. Paul's and including a number of- But all those sites are within about two blocks of each other. It is a focused area. Yeah.
Sorry, Councillor Blah, apologies for interrupting. I'm just noting that your questions are not germane to the motion to refer.
They are because they're about Vancouver Coastal Health. Thank you. They are because they're about Vancouver Coastal Health.
I would just encourage you to keep your questions focused and comments focused on the referral, and then we can move to the main motion.
What I'm trying to do is understand whether or not the referral is justified. And I think the liaison roundtables that have been hosted by Vancouver Coastal Health speaks to... The amount of work that has already happened between the city of Vancouver Coastal Health about the service in this site in this area. So a referral does make sense in the sense that if we don't have Vancouver Coastal Health to speak to council on both their requirement, their mandated requirement by the province. to provide these services somewhere in the vicinity because it's the second highest number of overdoses in the city in this particular area, which is part of the ministerial order that was referenced by Councillor. That's one piece of it. I think it justifies a referral to at least include Vancouver Coastal Health in this decision. And the second part is... I lost my train of thought. Thanks. So there's the liaison tables, and then also I'll have to come back on.
Okay.
Thanks, Councillor Bligh. If I could please be advanced, and I just want to make some comments, so I'll turn the chair to Deputy Mayor Councillor Kirby Young.
Okay.
Thank you. It's interesting, Councillor Frye, supports the referral because, you know, he wants to see more consultation. I think that's really the issue here is that there has been a lack of community consultation. So the neighborhood liaison table, which is a small group of residents, business owners, nonprofit representatives, I understand, has been aware of this and has been discussing this, I don't know, potentially for several months. We as council, as councillors, who are represented to represent citizens of Vancouver, just found out about this last week. So that is not meaningful consultation. Vancouver Coastal Health has made many statements and promised after the last... two iterations of these disastrous sites in downtown Vancouver that have caused chaos and public disorder in Yaletown and downtown south that there would be meaningful community consultation and finding out a month before when they've already signed a lease that the site they'd like to open it a month from now that's not meaningful community consultation I've been hearing from neighbors and residents on Hornby Street all morning who say that they had no idea that this was happening. No one from Vancouver Coastal Health has reached out to them. No postcard has been dropped on their mailbox. They have been invited to no community listening sessions. And in fact, again, as we learned, they've already signed the lease. So that is not meaningful community consultation. All that said... The deferral motion is not complete. I do not support it. This is urgent and we need to address the urgency of this and ensure that the community is consulted on this new site. So I'll take the chair back and go to Councillor Maloney.
Just in relation to Councillor Orr's referral motion I'm supportive of it because Vancouver Coastal Health is required by this provincial ministerial order to open overdose prevention services where the number's warranted and that's ministerial order number M488 order of the Minister of Health under the Emergency Health Services Act and Obviously, the complaints that I've heard in introducing this motion are that is lack of consultation. So it seems entirely incongruous not to give Vancouver Coastal Health the opportunity to be involved in this decision. Thanks.
Hey, Councillor Kirby-Young.
Yeah, I'm just iterating similar comments. I'm struck by the irony that we're proposing to defer to some unknown date at some future time, which could actually be after an OPS is opened so that we can hear from Coastal Health when Coastal Health has not met its obligations and very clearly stated ones to consult, to engage with key stakeholders like council and importantly, the local area stakeholders. And when... In speaking with the senior leadership at the Wall Center Hotel, immediately across the street in the heart of downtown, they didn't find out about it. Some of them did not know about it until Sunday. It's Tuesday. And yet, apparently, we want to provide a further opportunity for Coastal Health, who did not see fit, to actually fulfill their commitment. So I'm struck by the irony that we're looking to kick this down the road. And the impact of this amendment is that, with no framing, no date, no sense of urgency, is that they will be having a debate after this open, very similar to the decision that the public are advised after the decision is made and the lease is signed. And that is exactly the problem that we find ourselves in. We went through this last term. It did not end well. I did not support the OPS site on Seymour Street because of anticipation of a number of problems. And we apparently are looking to repeat exactly the same cycle with the same operator in a very similar location. And you know the old adage, if you did the same thing you did before, you're going to get the same results. And I... do not see any difference here in the heavy-handed approach that was taken last time for the one on Seymour Street and what is being taken here today. So I'm hopeful that we can continue moving through this business and get to this important item that is attempting to stand up for the residents of Vancouver and, quite frankly, get people to better. I'll save substantive comments on the motion because I know we're just debating the referral, and it's important to stay focused on that.
That's my perspective on this one. Hopefully we can move through this piece and carry on. Thanks.
Thanks counselor Kirby young counselor Joe Yeah, thanks chair.
So also have a point of information through your chair to the deputy city manager So when you talk about the the downtown South liaison table Who are the stakeholders sitting at that table?
So I don't have the complete membership list for me but our neighborhood liaison tables typically include BCH BC housing the BIAs, the CPCs that serve the area, community policing centers, and then staff from a number of city departments and residence associations, representatives. So they're tables of community organizations and public agencies that work in the area. VPD is there as well.
Okay, so were there any discussions regarding the location of the site?
So my understanding is that there was general discussion around the area that VCH was looking at. I don't know at what point they started to enter into lease discussions, for example, with the owner. We're not privy to that.
Okay, good. And also, do we know when exactly we know this location?
So we had an update from VCH colleagues just before the letter was sent.
I'm really sorry to interrupt, but I just want to remind councillors that we need to focus on the motion that's in front of us, which is the motion to refer.
Yes, so that's related. 100%. So when exactly we know the decision that this side has been selected? We're discussing the referral right now. That's right. I'm asking this question, which is related to the referral. About the community engagement part.
So I received the letter from Dr. Daly on April 23rd and sent that on to council, and we had received... an in-person update from VCH just prior to that, and we had asked for something in writing that we could send.
Okay. Yeah, thanks. So very similar to my colleague. I think the community engagement is only happening like less than 10 days ago. So from that perspective, I think Vancouver Coastal Health has enough time to do community engagement, also communicate with council, but they haven't done that. We just heard the news about 10 days ago. The lack of transparency is something I'm really concerned of. I think, you know, I talked to one of my friends who's living right there in that building, in the intersection, in that high-rise building. She's not aware of this at all. So I don't think, I think we gave enough opportunity to do, to facilitate this committee engagement that we haven't heard anything. So with that, I'm not going to support this referral motion.
Okay, thanks, Councillor Zhounes. Councillor Bligh, we'll add her back onto the queue when she's back in the chamber. Councillor Frye.
She's not present, so I can come back to you if you'd like. Oh, well, just continue, Councillor Fry. Well, no, actually, because I'm just trying to collect what I was going to say. We can go to the next Councillor. Councillor Montague, please go ahead.
Yeah, thanks. I'm going to save my comments for the main motion, but noting the time, I'd like to throw a motion on the floor to extend past 5 o'clock and finish this item.
Okay, we need a seconder to extend to finish the item, seconded by Councillor Domenato. All those in favour, say aye. Any opposed, say nay. Okay, that passes. So we'll continue past five to complete the item. Councillor Montague. That's it, thank you. Okay. Councillor Bligh, I know you stepped away. Do you want an opportunity to be back on the queue? I can put you next, if you would like.
I will hold my comments to the end.
Okay, thanks. Pardon me, Mayor Simm, please go ahead.
Thank you. I'll keep my comments brief because I want to talk to the main motion. But on the referral, I do think it's incredibly important that we have this discussion and we have this debate right now.
Look, I'm here to stand up for Vancouver and Vancouver rights and people that call Vancouver home and do business in the city of Vancouver. And the reason we're here in the first place, I believe, is, well, in my opinion, it's actually a lack of transparency coming from Vancouver Coastal Health. We've held numerous press conferences in the Granville Entertainment District. We have talked about this issue a whole bunch of times, about all the different challenges, all the things that have not worked in the past. And I'm sorry, when I was downtown today and we're at another press conferences, business owners, residents, people that work in hotels, they were all surprised by this. And so let's have the debate. Let's not play games here and try to kick it down the street. You know, people's lives are at stake here, and we want to fight for meaningful outcomes. And I'm going to talk about that more during the main motion. But let's have that conversation right now. Thank you.
Hey, thanks, Mayor. Councillor Frye.
Yeah, I appreciate the Mayor's comments. I think we're all here to stick up for Vancouverites, and that's why we do this job, and that's why we're here. If I may, through you, Chair, question of the city manager or deputy city manager, is this a turnkey location? Are we anticipating that Coastal Health might need permits or any such things?
I have a point of order chair and I wonder if you can guide council towards focusing comments on the motion to refer or not because I think we're getting into substantive debate on the motion itself which is there's an appropriate time for that but I think that it would be the best use of council's time to dispense with the referral motion one way or the other and then to get into the substantive debate and that's where those comments should be made.
Okay, it's a point of procedure.
I believe it's a point of order because we're not... You didn't say a point of order, so let's get on with the... The question I was asking, to be very clear, was around... As the chair, I'm just going to indulge...
I'm going to let you speak, but please just let me resolve this. debate that's occurring outside of the parameters.
If I may just finish, I was encouraged by my colleagues to call a point of order, so I did that. I'm looking for guidance from the chair as to whether you can say that point of order or point of procedure, but I'm really looking for the chair to guide this discussion.
Okay. Thank you, Councillor Kirby-Young. I have encouraged councillors several times throughout this debate already to please speak to the referral, and then we can have a more substantive debate if this is not, if it doesn't pass. Right. I think the third time I've mentioned this, so I would just appreciate that.
And I would remind the chair and the speakers that a point of order does need to be accompanied with a number from our procedure bylaw. The reason I was asking about what... what Coastal Health's needs might be is because this is a motion to refer to hear from Vancouver Coastal Health. So when I asked about it being a turnkey operation, what does Coastal Health need? It is germane to, I think, this hearing more from Coastal Health. So I'm wondering if the Deputy City Manager might be able to respond. Do we know what Vancouver Coastal Health is suggesting they need in order to inform whether we should hear from them?
This site, we understand that tenant improvements would be required. A change of use would be required for this site as well, so there would need to be a development.
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I'm going to submit an amendment to this amendment, which I just did.
Okay. So, Clerk, if you please take us to the amendment queue, and Councillor Fry, please continue on the amendment to the amendment.
So, I mean, I think that fundamentally what we've heard just from the response from the deputy city manager right there is that there would be a change of use. There would be building permits needed. There would be development permit needed. This is not a turnkey operation that is going to open first thing June 1st. There's work that has to happen. And I think that there is conversation that has to happen. And in order to have an informed conversation, an informed discussion, and make informed decisions, we are obliged to hear evidence. conjecture, not what has been presented before us. As well-intentioned as it may be sticking up for certain Vancouverites, I think we have a responsibility to take a big picture and an informed decision. I've added to Councillor Orr's deferral motion to defer this to the next scheduled standing committee, which is May 20th, in order to hear from Vancouver Coastal Health. Additionally, the Vancouver Police, recognizing that this may be considered a public safety issue, neighborhood stakeholders, and planning and permitting staff, in order that we can have an informed discussion and decision. Because frankly, I find that what we're talking about now is so... based in non-facts, and the fact that we've just heard that this is not a turnkey operation and will not be opening June 1st, despite the sometimes hyperbolic rhetoric around this, I think it's important for us to have an informed and grounded discussion. So I do think it's appropriate for us to refer this to the next council committee meeting to hear some of the facts and stick to the facts.
Thank you.
Pardon me, I'll turn my microphone on. Seconded by Councillor Orr. If I could pass the chair to Deputy Mayor Kirby Young to make some comments, please.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Thanks, thanks, thank you. It's interesting, Councillor Fry's rationale for this deferral amendment to the amendment. To me, it's clear that the opposition is doing everything they can to stall this process and ensure that Council cannot exercise its rights and responsibilities to ensure neighborhood safety.
I'd like to object to that accusation about the motivations of opposition councillors. Councillor Maloney?
Yes, I'm asking if you can advise if you're calling a point of order, a point of procedure, or are you just making a general comment? Because you don't have the cue, so I'm just looking for clarity, please.
A point of privilege that... That's not a point of... Point of order, sorry.
Council, please, if we can... It's not a point of privilege. Do you want to call a point of order a point of procedure?
A point of order that... Assuming to which... Councillor Meiszner shouldn't be impugning the motivations of other councillors by accusing them of... improper conduct in the chamber. And I would ask that he withdraw that.
I think that the public can listen to the debate and we'll ask councillors to refrain from that. Councillor Meiser, please carry on with the rest of your comments.
Thank you.
I'm not making any allegations of improper conduct at all. I'm just speaking to the amendment to the amendment by Councillor Fry, which I think is pretty crystal clear for the public. So there was a comment by Councillor Fry in the rationale for this amendment to the amendment that this is not a, quote, turnkey operation. That is not what we saw with the last failed OPS site on Howe Street. I will just remind council and the public that as a city councillor who has been engaged on this file, as a downtown resident of the past 20 years, who has been asking VCH and asked VCH repeatedly for information about where they were planning to relocate the OPS, given all the issues with open drug use and street disorder with the last site, council literally found out the night before the second OPS opened. We literally had eight hours notice as councillors before the site opened. So this could very much happen with this third site, and that's what I'm concerned about, and that's why I won't be supporting this amendment to the amendment.
Thank you, Councillor Meiszner. Councillor Bligh, you're next. Oh, yes, sorry, go ahead.
Councillor Bligh.
Yeah, I'm going to support the amendment. I think it addresses the concern raised by Councillor Kirby-Young that there were no parameters around the previous amendment. So I think this provides a very short window of time for there to be information shared back to us as a council before making any decision on this from Vancouver Coastal Health and the police and the neighbourhood stakeholders that have been referenced. I am aware that there was a meeting on this exact site, and whether it's this location or, as I say, in the vicinity, we have to remember this shouldn't come as a surprise that all three OPSs, including this one that's proposed, have been within about two blocks of each other because that's where the need is. And there was a meeting with downtown BIA, downtown band BIA, early February through the neighborhood liaison table. So the idea that there hasn't been sincere effort and engagement is, I just think, disingenuous. I also think that we have to recognize that while I appreciate... This is very difficult for communities to manage, and I would agree. We learned from the first one that it was far too small and that inhalation was a critical part of that service. And then the Murray Hotel, the location on Howe Street, I should say, not the Murray Hotel, but the location on Howe Street was better. But of course, you know, you have some neighborhood objection. And then even though that was a good location and it was off the street and there was the area in the back that allowed for people to get the supports that they need with that mitigated interruption that we found happened. And now here we are again. I think it's disingenuous to suggest that, you know, if Vancouver Coastal Health had done this or that, that there would be less opposition from this council. I think the opposition is that this service exists at all. And I wish that we would just talk about that and be honest about it. It's a pragmatic... I don't want to have to need an overdose prevention site either. I really don't. I can see why, you know, across from a hotel, with tourism, with FIFA coming, this is not ideal at all. Nobody thinks this is ideal. But I can tell you, having been on council before the other one opened, that it was the calls from the buildings, the calls from the residents in and around Yaletown where drug users were using drugs in their doorways, in their stairwells. It was really quite shocking. It was leading up to COVID. You were not here, Councillor Meiszner, so you don't know. I understand, but you don't own Yaletown Council of Meisner. I was on council and had to field a lot of the calls, okay? I had to field a lot of the calls as a counselor. And what happened is people got to go inside and get the services they needed. So all I'm saying is, from a pragmatic perspective, the drug users do not go away because you get rid of an OPS. From a pragmatic perspective, I don't want people out on the street and on sidewalks because there is nowhere else for them to go. Because I can tell you, getting rid of an OPS doesn't stop them using drugs. It doesn't push it all back down into the downtown east side. This is where overdoses happen, and it's because people are using and they don't have the supports. I want the treatment beds as well. I want people to be brought inside and given options to not use anymore. But until we get there, the pragmatic option is to make sure that they can come inside somewhere. And so this isn't ideological, although I think this is being driven by an ideological position of intolerance. But this is about the safest way to mitigate the issues that are created around substance use disorder and the disorder on streets that affect businesses, that affect tourism. is to leave it unchecked and without services. And so I support this referral because we have to be honest about where we're coming from on this debate. We have to be honest about the fact that this is already an issue that we're dealing with in our city. And just deleting the services does not delete the problem. So I support the referral. And if this fails, which I suspect it will, we'll come back to debating the actual merit of the motion, which I have questions to staff on.
Okay. Thanks, Councillor Bligh. I'm wondering if council might want to entertain a motion. I'd invite any member to bring it forward to complete the business for today.
Okay.
Brought forward by Councillor Domenato and seconded by Councillor Zhou. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed?
Let's complete the business for today. Second motion to extend to complete the business for today.
Sorry, what's the motion?
I'll just repeat myself. The motion is to extend to complete the business for today.
It's been seconded and it's been voted on.
I noted Councillor in opposition. Okay, so that's what we're going to do. Previously, we had voted to extend to complete this item, but now we're going to extend to complete the business.
Pardon me? I only saw a Councillor or a post.
We can do a recorded vote.
So this, just to be clear, is a motion to extend to complete today's business. Everything on the agenda.
Can I have a vote assistant favor? Noted. Thank you.
Okay.
That passes with Councillor Fry and Councillor in opposition and Councillor Maloney abstaining. We'll go to Councillor Maloney for comments.
Thank you. I think that this is a very sensible amendment to the motion to defer because what we really need is to have Vancouver Coastal Health available and give residents and give other stakeholders an opportunity to speak to this motion. I am a Yaletown parent, right, and I go along here all the time and unfortunately visit St Paul's more often than I would like. And the idea that we... shouldn't have an overdose prevention site and we should block it and prevent it from, do everything to prevent it from happening. For me, as a parent of teenagers who are walking and riding around here all the time, this is not going to prevent drug use. It's just going to bring it out into the open, which is something that people complain about. I don't like seeing it. I don't necessarily want my kids to be exposed to it and I don't want people to be at risk of death. because we block an overdose prevention facility when we could vote in favour of this amendment to the deferral motion and have it properly considered in a very short amount of time. So I'm going to be voting in favour of this motion, this amendment to the motion to defer.
Hey, thank you. Councillor Kirby Young has stepped out of the room. I'm next on the queue, but given that Councillor Kirby Young, Deputy Mayor, is not currently present, I need to turn the chair to Councillor Domenato.
Go ahead, Councillor Meiszner.
Thank you. I just want to make a few more comments that I just think need to be addressed here. Councillor Bligh said, quote, that it's disingenuous to say that there hasn't been engagement My response to that is, how do you explain that neighboring businesses and residents had no idea that this lease had already been signed? I've heard from many of them before, including small business owners. And how do you explain that one of the largest hotels in the city with hundreds of rooms had no idea that this was happening or that the lease had been signed? And it's up until a couple days ago. And that major hotel is literally located across the street. So this is my issue, is that there is a lack of community consultation. And I'll just reiterate, council found out about this, you know, a week ago or a few days ago. That is not Folsom community consultation. I would also... There was comments around, well, I don't own Yale Town. I get that. I'm passionate about my neighborhood. I've lived there for a long time. And I've talked to residents for years about... the negative impacts of the street disorder and open drug use and chaos that was created outside of these previous two sites. So when councillors are saying that these sites reduce street disorder, they know full well that they don't. They know that they create street disorder. For years, this council has been fielding concerns from residents with photos and videos of what's been happening outside these sites. Parents who are afraid to walk their kids to the Emery Bards Park because of the previous site because they feel unsafe. I have witnessed fistfights in the street outside one of these previous sites. We have predatory drug dealers waiting outside these sites, preying on the users of these sites to sell them fentanyl. And people are dying because of it. This has to stop. And I am not going to stand for another failed experiment in the middle of our downtown core and see people continue to suffer on the sidewalk in the throes of addiction when the provincial government is doing nothing for them in terms of creating treatment beds and recovery beds. Two years ago, the premier promised that Vancouver would get a substantial number of treatment and recovery beds. Two years later, we've seen nothing. And I'm tired of it, and I'm not going to stand for it. Not for our city, not for our neighborhood, not for our residents, not for our businesses, and most of all, not for the people who are suffering, who are not getting the help that they need. They are literally dying on the sidewalk outside of these sites.
It's not good enough.
Thank you, Councillor Meiszner. I'll return the chair to you.
Well, again, I think the, and I appreciate Councillor Meiszner's impassioned pleas there. I think that, you know, the quiet part that's not being maybe said out loud here is where are these folks going to go and what is an acceptable level of overdose death in downtown South? Because canceling, stopping this location, I get the sense that this is about stopping any location. I don't know that. And again, because we're not having the informed conversation. And I think what I struggle with the most is we have a responsibility as a council, as elected officials, to make informed decisions, free from personal motivation, free from influence and that kind of thing. We have to consider the evidence before us. And that's why I submitted this amendment to include the Vancouver Police Department, because they have a valid perspective that can lend to this. Is this a good location? Is it a bad location? I can tell Councillor Meiszner from my own experience when we were on council during COVID and approved that site at Helmken, it was like literally the size of one of our offices. It was ridiculously small, doomed to fail because it was too small and because there was no inhalation facilities. My understanding is that this is a much larger site. This was a former acting studio. It's got lots of space. Presumably, they have plans to include any matter of inhalation services that I would like to hear more about, that I would like to see how do they have a plan. Have they learned from the previous mistakes with locations? and are proposing to do something different here and to do it in a way that can mitigate some of the street disorder, because that is the opportunity that presents itself. There are overdose consumption sites that are less intrusive in neighborhoods, and it does come down to the design. It does come down to the operation. I would like to hear what's being proposed in order to do this, unless we're just throwing our hands up and saying, guess what? If you do drugs in downtown South, sorry, we'll... set you up with a pauper's grave or something but we're not really going to care about how we're going to deal with the reality of folks who are overdosing and dying or getting brain injury or getting any number of preventable outcomes we have a responsibility to consider the evidence and work with the experts and work with the stakeholders and come up with reasonable solutions i think that we have not demonstrated that there is an urgency to make this decision right now without the input from experts, without the input from Vancouver Police, without the input from stakeholders, neighbors, businesses, everybody, including drug users, let's take the evidence, let's take the time, let's do it right, because otherwise this is just a politically motivated decision that fails the basic standards of good governance.
Counselor Kirby Young.
Point taken. I would agree. All right, well, I've said my piece anyway. I think...
Thank you, Councillor Fry. Councillor Maloney.
I think it's really important to address the idea that overdose prevention sites encourage open drug use when it's absolutely the opposite. I mean, an overdose prevention site like the one contemplated is going to get drug users indoors. And I think that it's very distressing to have incorrect assertions spread around because it doesn't help with the stigma associated with these sites. Thanks.
Thank you. Councillor Kirby-Young.
Yeah, I just have to say I think I've been consistent on this issue with respect to needing to have balance between providing services and standing up for quite frankly a new paradigm and I have heard many folks that were involved with previous administrations who have now admitted that a lot of things were a failed experiment because the four pillars approach did not deliver on the prevention component on the treatment and the recovery piece and we are lacking in that and I think that when you take a step back and That is what this council in its majority has been trying to stand up for in terms of funding the mental health nurses, in terms of trying to get people to get to better. And perpetuating the status quo doesn't make sense to me. We're talking about responsible decisions here. In response to the comments just raised by Councillor Frye that the last one was doomed to fail, and I'm quoting. So I'm not mischaracterizing recently and yet council fry voted for it knowing us in his words that it was too small That it was doomed to fail. It didn't have all this sufficient space etc with respects to the neighborhood This is really not far off. It's the same operator It has it lacks the community consultation. It is rammed the decision is rammed through and I have a lot of deja vu around how it happened last time, except for we now have Coastal Health taking, I would say, unfortunately, not an engaged approach in my characterization. And we don't have the B.C. housing CEO coming down like we did last time who attempted... to chastise and I think that was a fair characterization councillors and then the there was also a very dubious change that was made overnight during that hearing to switch it from required a two-thirds vote because it was going to be a grant directly to Rain City and overnight the report and the threshold was changed and all of a sudden Coastal Health said they didn't want the grant and This is these are facts on the record and that they would pay a market price in order to achieve the outcome They wanted and get a majority vote on council and that's how it passed and so if forgive me if I am dubious and skeptical about the track record of the partners involved here because it is the same ones that were last time and I'm seeing a lot of the same behavior exhibited and so I don't have confidence I'm being consistent I vote against the last one because a lot of those parameters weren't in place and they are not here and the bigger conversation here is around getting people to better And this isn't doing it. It's perpetuating the status quo. We should be putting all of our energy around things I think that all of council could align between and saying we need a better circumstance. We need our SROs rebuilt. We need better quality housing. People need to live in dignified conditions. They deserve recovery. They deserve treatment. And they deserve other options. And this sort of ongoing suggestion that they can't utilize the St. Paul's, that space will be there not just when it relocates next year. It's not going to be redeveloped for some time. There are other options here to locate something in a health setting that provides more sufficient space and to look at that. And there has been a complete and utter unwillingness to do it and to sort of ram this down the throats of the community. And the fact, again, and I will repeat it, that the general manager of the hotel did not know about this and heard rumor of it on Sunday. Something is wrong. So I'm voting against this deferral. Thank you.
Thanks, Councillor Kirby-Young. Seeing no other councillors to speak to this, we're going to vote on the amendment to the amendment.
Not sure if Councillor Klassen's online, but did not hear anything from him. So that fails. With Mayor Sim in opposition, Councillor Kirby Young in opposition, Councillor Domenato in opposition, Councillor Montague in opposition, Councillor Klassen in opposition, myself in opposition, and Councillor Zhou in opposition.
Yes, thanks. I just have one quick follow-up, and it's from some of the debate. In terms of...
I don't want to ask the question. I suspect... Well, I will.
It's a point of information through you, Chair, to the Mayor. And my question is, has there been any outreach to Vancouver Coastal Health and specifically to Dr. Daly regarding an OPS in this area, given the consternation that's happened over the last three years? And I mean at any point in the last three years.
Um... I have had conversations with Dr. Daly and health authorities on this and a whole host of other issues.
I'm not worried about the other things. Just specifically on this. I'm sorry.
I'm trying to answer the question, counselor. Yeah. Okay. I've had multiple conversations. We've had meetings with LINC, with the health authorities, sitting down with Vancouver Coastal.
And what was... No, it's my time. Thank you.
I'm just trying to answer your question. You're not even letting me answer your question. Members, I would just encourage you to be respectful to each other. Thank you.
So it sounds vague, so I'll just leave it there. I think it's clear what the answer is on this specific situation.
Well, no, because you didn't let me finish my answer, and I can tell you the reason we're here right now is, you know, we haven't had any consultation in the last week, and this has been put on to us as a surprise. That's why we're debating this issue. And we've had multiple conversations over the last three years on this and other issues. To deal with...
Chair, that is my time. Unfortunately, the mayor has... So I can't respond. So I'll leave it there.
Okay. Okay. So you know what else on the queue?
We're going to vote on this amendment.
Okay, that fails. Mayor Sim in opposition, Councillor Kerby-Young in opposition, Councillor Domonato in opposition, Councillor Montague in opposition, Councillor Klassen in opposition, myself in opposition, and Councillor Zhou in opposition.
So we're now going to go back to the main motion.
Councillor Orr. Yeah, this council has prided itself on making data-informed decisions, and this is the exact opposite of that. This area has the second highest rate of ODs in the city and fourth highest in the province. This motion is in opposition of Ministerial Order 488, which directs all regional health boards and BC emergency health services to implement overdose prevention in any place required. The community lays on table has been set up for a year. The community has been consulted. And in terms of not having noticed, BCH had two weeks notice when it was first ordered to close. I believe not allowing our health authority and stakeholders to comment is an abrogation of our duties and not good government. But beyond the moral implications of this attempt to block the OPS. Even if one agrees with the mayor on the premise that Vancouver Coastal Health and the BC government should focus on mandatory care, blocking this OPS from opening will mean certain death for individuals who use substances in the city center while we wait for this shift to magically happen. Similarly, if the mayor's aim is to reduce the perception of street disorder and public drug use, how exactly is refusing to allow this facility to open going to do anything but encourage public drug use? It's just not pragmatic, as Councillor Bligh has noted. In the mayor's words, this approach is only disastrous. If you don't consider saving human lives a worthwhile goal or use of resources, resources. 51,858 overdoses and not a single one was fatal and the mayor calls it a disaster. So I ask what precisely about 100% success rate when it comes to preventing fatal overdoses at these sites is disastrous. In my mind, this is the politicization of a health crisis and reminiscent of the moral panics of the 70s and 80s and I will not be supporting.
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bligh.
Thank you very much. So yeah, I'll be speaking in opposition to this motion. I think what we've heard in this debate is a framing that is being presented as decisive action. But what it shows in this council term of less than four years is a pattern of mismanagement that is actually costing the city time, money, and putting people at risk. So we've now seen the same cycle repeat. A site that is shut down or blocked, no ready alternative in place, and the system's forced to start over. That is not a one-off decision. This is a pattern of leadership failure. The cost of this pattern we need to be honest about because every single time a site is canceled or relocated, we are not just moving a service, we are rebuilding it. And that includes lease negotiations, site preparation, clinical and outreach staff, security contracts, equipment, and community consultation. And so taken together, it's easily in the range of the multimillion dollars that's required collectively over the three moves that have happened in this council term, less than four years. So every time this council that is led by, and it was already identified as oppositions and in favor, so those in favor, ABC in favor of intervening at the last minute without any viable plan, millions of public dollars are effectively written off and then ultimately spent again. So it's not fiscal responsibility, notwithstanding the lives that are impacted by this, but it is waste driven by an inability to see decisions through and get to some solutions. So at the same time, these interventions create conflict instead of any resolution. There is no suggestion of what we should do instead. So instead of aligning partners to get a solution... We see decisions that divide communities and delay outcomes. And so, yes, it may serve a political narrative, one that I think mostly lives on X. It undermines the work on the ground. Vancouver Coastal Health would not be going through this three times in three years unless it was necessary. And so while this cycle repeats, services don't open on time. People are pushed back into unsafe conditions in a toxic drug crisis that delays have real consequences. The site is not the problem. The drugs are. And the reason people use drugs are the problem. Getting rid of the site does not get rid of the problem. And that is the part where, quite frankly, I feel like... I personally feel like I am banging my head against a wall trying to find the logic in what's happening here on a repeated cycle. I just cannot... I get the impact. We have to solve for that in terms of surrounding. And a lot of it is... we can show leadership and solve for the public realm issues. We should be able to partner with Rain City. We should be able to partner with Vancouver Coastal Health so that what happened at Seymour and Helmiken does not happen again. But the reality is, this isn't about just this motion. In my mind, and why I feel frustrated to my core, is this is a pattern of mismanagement that is actually wasting millions of dollars, of healthcare dollars, of city dollars, of police enforcement dollars, of reactive emergency response to overdose dollars. By not having these services, those costs skyrocket. We know that. We have that data. And what it's preventing is stable, life-saving services so that when treatment and recovery, which I fully support, and I think I'm one of the counselors, maybe the only to bring a motion forward to increase the availability of recovery options when it comes to city-owned facilities. that also has to happen at the same time. So we really need to show leadership that we can follow through and get services open so that we can both advocate for treatment and recovery, but also control the things that we can control. And all I have heard here, which is just deafening, Is all the things we want. Replace the SROs. Get treatment and recovery. As if it's just a flip of a switch. And no accountability from this council to show any work in making progress in getting to those solutions. Zero. Just pointing fingers at the province. I cannot support that anymore. We have to do better. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Montague.
Yeah, thanks, Chair. I won't be long. I don't know if I can match your passion, Chair. I think you said exactly what I was thinking. I'll add that councillors in the chamber have talked about how we should listen to the experts at Vancouver Coast Health and the province. Those experts have failed the residents and citizens of Vancouver, the businesses of Vancouver, and they've failed drug users. They've given them no hope. We've been doing this for six years in this area, six years of multiple OPS sites, and all of them have failed miserably. whether it's Seymour and Helmken or Howell Street or the temporary operation beside the Murray Hotel, they've all been successful in one thing, causing absolute chaos.
I'll say that if an OPS were to go into this location, the first thing that will happen is an immediate 40% increase in calls for service to police. I don't know what the calls for service increase to fire would be, but I can guarantee it would be an increase. That 40% increase over time would double and start pushing the triple mark in calls for service. District 1, which is the district that this OPS is slated for, it has the highest calls for service in the city.
It is the busiest district.
It is to a point where the VPD are doing a review of resources that are actually needed to properly, safely, and effectively police the downtown core. And Vancouver Coastal thinks it's a good idea to just plunk another one, another site here, another issue into the downtown core. Promise after promise by the provincial government to do things differently. And nothing. It's insanity to me that Vancouver Coastal Health and the province continue to do the same thing over and over. And we heard it today. Every councillor here has talked about multiple OPS sites within a stone's throw of each other. All of them getting closed down because of the issues that arise. The same issues that we will see here. This is a failed experiment. This will fail again. We need to do things differently. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is nothing but insane.
And I think there are counselors here that, again, think that it's okay to just do the same thing again.
It's not a solution.
It is just, it will just be another chaotic mistake. Thank you.
Thanks, Councillor Montague. Mayor Sim.
Great. Thank you. And thank you for the lively debate. I'm going to approach this a little differently. I do want to level set a little bit here. I genuinely believe that everyone in this chamber really cares. And they care about the people. They care about vulnerable populations. And, you know, we have different ways of approaching it. But I think there's a lot of goodness in everyone's heart here.
So I'm actually going to stand back and use some of the tools that I've learned over my lifetime. No politics. What would a normal or what would... someone looking at a challenge that's stepping back with, you know, and assuming there's no stake in the outcome whatsoever, how would they view this situation? So what do I know? One, we were surprised last week. We didn't know this was happening. And if it was maybe just us, you could sort of chalk it up to, well, maybe we missed something, but... When you talk to residents, business owners, and hotels that are literally right across the street from this OPS, and they were surprised too, that leads me to believe that we were all surprised. What else do we know? Two overdose prevention sites in the neighborhood have failed, and they created street disorder, safety concerns, open drug use, significant challenges and concerns for residents and businesses. Even staff, what else do we know? Even staff at St. Paul's Hospital publicly commented about the unacceptable situation related to drug use and unsafe workplace conditions. We also know that there are concerns around Rain City as an operator.
We also know that this has not worked in the past. It has created chaos. And that's not good enough. We can talk about residents, businesses, and that's super important, and we have to treat them just as well. Think of the vulnerable populations that are suffering. This situation is not compassionate. It's not caring. And as a couple of councillors mentioned in this chamber, repeating, trying to do the same thing that we've done in the past and expecting different results. is the definition of insanity. So what is one of our jobs as mayor and council? Well, we should do our job in general, do the stuff that we were elected to do, and also hold the province and Vancouver Coastal Health accountable when they don't do their jobs and it affects residents and businesses and stakeholders in Vancouver. And that's exactly what is happening. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if the situation was great. So we know on the health care file, the province is failing miserably. I go back to the promises that Premier Eby made to us about two years ago when we all acknowledged that we have a significant mental health crisis going on in our city, our province, in our region, and that he committed to 400 beds. of mandatory care for people that have significant mental health challenges or substance use disorder that need help. And to date, not a single one has been built in Vancouver or for Vancouver. I think that's the biggest failure here. And so we're asking the province to help by doing their job. We need a balanced approach when it comes to care. recovery, and public safety. I will 100% agree with Councillor Montague's comments. These are the experts, and they've failed us. They've failed our community. And so today we do have a choice. Are we going to repeat what has failed, or are we going to chart a new path? Are we going to hold the province and the health authority accountable for what they should be doing? And I choose not repeating failed policies and actually charting a new path. And so that's why I'm going to be supporting my motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mayor. I'll just pass the chair to Deputy Mayor Kirby Young. I want to thank Mayor Sim for his comments just now and also for bringing this urgent motion forward because I agree we cannot continue to make the same mistakes over and over again. We know full well that this model does not reduce street disorder, as stated by several councillors around this chamber. I wish it did. I used to believe it would. But in fact, it does the opposite. It encourages street disorder and open drug use and predatory drug dealers outside of these sites because these sites do not include treatment or recovery. And Vancouver Coastal Health knows full well that these sites have been and are a nightmare for neighbourhoods. I don't think any councillor in this chamber wants to live next to an open air inhalation site. I know that I don't. Not the way they're being managed in our city. Vancouver Coastal Health refuses to do meaningful consultation with communities. And they continue to work with this same non-profit operator which has a dismal track record at operating OPSs. In fact, the last two were shuttered. So we've been down this road before. Again, this is the third time this site has been relocated due to street disorder, due to chaos, and open drug use. This is a proposal from the same operator, as I mentioned, that hasn't been successful with the previous sites. The real negative impacts of these sites are why downtown Vancouver, BIA, and the Hospitality Vancouver Association came out to our press conference this morning to stand with ABC counselors opposed to this new OPS site. Because there are thousands of members are impacted by the negative impacts we see from these sites. These sites have been disastrous for Granville Street and for downtown Vancouver. But most important to me, and I don't want this to get lost in my comments, is the issue that the people that use these sites, they are not getting the access to treatment and recovery that they so desperately need. And to the mayor's comments around the promises from the provincial government and the premier, what more will it take for the province and the premier to act to give people real treatment and recovery options who are suffering? We haven't seen a single new involuntary care bed in Vancouver since that promise was made two years ago. Not a single bed. I don't know how they sleep at night. That's the real issue here. People suffering and the cycle continuing. And right now, they have no way out of that cycle. So I'm not going to be part of supporting the continuation of this tragic cycle of human suffering and despair in our city. And that's why I'm supporting this urgent motion to intervene, to do things differently, and stop us from repeating past mistakes. Thanks. I'll take the chair back. Councillor Kirby Young.
Yeah, thanks, Chair. I'm just going to level set us a little bit. One of the other councillors suggested that the city was wasting millions of dollars and sites have been shut down three times in three years. I think what was neglected to mention is one of those sites was actually shut down by a private owner. Because it was not sustainable. And so this is not just the city of Vancouver where it's had issues. That was a private owner that simply could not continue and canceled a lease. So I think just in terms of, you know, characterizing this appropriately and not putting misinformation on there, I think that's important. To me, this is about not accepting the status quo. I want better for people that are suffering with drug issues. I want better for the residents in the area. I want better for the local businesses in that area. I want better for our downtown. I want better for our city. And I think that we as a council collectively should. This council has moved forward on a number of things, and it was questioned around what are we doing? $8 million for mental health nurses, record delivery of housing and partnerships with nonprofits in terms of affordable units. The city, I think, is doing a lot that it can within its own levers, and we are... really clearly trying to be good partners. We've also taken very strong stance on phasing out quite honestly inhumane and decrepit SROs and I referenced that earlier. It's not easy and it takes courage to call out some of these things. What do I know happens around a lot of these OPSs and I have no reason to believe this was different. Repeat first responder calls. putting neighborhoods at odds. It will have an impact on tourism. I think that if we continue to do this and locate this in these very specifically chosen locations, we'll see a hollowing out of our downtown over time. We've seen it in other cities, whether it's Seattle, Victoria is pulling back on a lot of their policies and reversing course. People that are not being moved to getting to better, if I thought that that was happening and we had demonstrable outcomes, if our coastal health authorities were willing to share that they had success in getting people into recovery and moving them along, I would be the first person... just support it in a heartbeat, but that is not what is happening. The status quo will not change unless we push for it to happen. I am not here to... I'm hearing myself in echo. I'm not here to simply accept things. I saw the movie last term. I think the sequel is coming. I'm not particularly interested in seeing round two of it. BCH last term, BCH again. Rain City without consultation. Uncommunication. Rain City last term, Rain City again. The lack of engagement, as I mentioned. Things of precipitous openings. Issues with people dealing drugs outside where not prepared to take a stand. Where people are testing their drugs inside and a few feet outside they are being given ones that they are taking outside of the OPS. that are not safe. There are no safe drugs. There's just an ability to test them. Let's be honest about it. So I think, honestly, I'm here to push for change. The harder decisions are the ones that challenge and get questioned the status quo. And they do demand that we really hold all levels of government, including ourselves, to account on what role can we play in actually changing the status quo and getting it to better. And simply accepting what we accepted last time without an expectation that it's going to be different is not that.
Clerk, can you advance me, please? Okay, thanks. Yeah, thanks for the discussion. I want to begin by being very clear. I'm thinking about this motion. I'm thinking about everyone. So I'm thinking about the residents, including seniors, children, who live in this neighborhood, who walk by every single day. I'm thinking about the small business trying to stay alive under this economic situation. And I'm also thinking about the individuals struggling with the addiction. They are suffering and dying on the street because of this failed model, just like the decriminalization. I'm thinking about their families, friends, who are watching, but often feel hopeless and helpless as they suffered. It's a human crisis from every angle. And that's exactly why we have to get this one right. Because if we are serious about helping people, then we cannot settle the approach that risks trapping individuals in bad cycle over and over again. Harm reduction is important. It's one of the four pillars, but it is not the only pillar. Focusing on harm reduction only is not helping the issue. We also need prevention. We also need treatment and recovery, like other council colleagues said. I remember when I talked to Guy Felicola, he said very clear. He said, I wouldn't be alive today without harm reduction. I wouldn't have the life I have today without recovery. We need both. And we are missing a very important pillar, which is recovery and treatment. If we are all focusing on harm reduction without equal emphasis on the pathway to recovery, then we are not helping people for a way out. That is not good enough for the people who we are trying to help here. And at the same time, we cannot ignore the impacts on the surrounding community. This proposed site is located on a very dense, highly populated area, surrounded by homes, seniors, small businesses, restaurants, a very good noodle house downstairs, hotels, and also constant food traffic. We have seen what has happened in the areas before. The concerns raised are not hypothetical. They are based on the lived experience. So this motion is about responsibility to business, to residents, to people struggling with addiction themselves. It's about ensuring that we do not repeat the past mistakes. We are talking about people's lives, the real people. The business and the residents should not be sacrificing themselves because of this failed model and experiment. It's about to make sure that any proposal meets Citi's standard, respects the community, and is a part of a broader balanced approach that actually helps people move towards recovery. Because compassion is not just about meeting people where they are, not about giving people whatever they want. It's about actually helping them get to a better place. And we owe them, we owe that to the residents, to the business. And most importantly, we owe those who are struggling and deserve a real path forward. So with that, I really appreciate the Mayor's team for bringing forward this motion. I will fully support this motion.
Thanks, Councillor Zhou. Councillor Maloney.
This is the most hyperbolic motion I've seen in my time on council. It directs staff to throw every tool at the city's disposal. to block a proven tool to prevent overdose deaths from our toxic drug supply. This new location will be the only overdose prevention site open to the public in the Vancouver city centre area. Before they were closed, the city centre overdose prevention site saw more than 149,000 visits and responded to 480 overdoses. since 2021. That is 480 people who would otherwise likely be dead today. This motion doesn't chart a new path. It doesn't suggest a better alternative. It just shuts down VCH's critical life-saving work. It would be nice to keep users alive long enough to give them the option of treatment and recovery. We can't just say these people are not getting the help they need, so we're going to make life worse for them. Overdose prevention sites are a proven research-backed response that prevent toxic drug deaths here in Vancouver and around the world. These sites save lives by bringing substance use into a clean and dignified healthcare setting. People can go to an OPS and know that staff and trained volunteers will respond in moments if they have purchased toxic street drugs and lapse into unconsciousness. Without these sites, users who could be your friend, your co-worker, sibling, child or grandchild would die alone at home or behind a dumpster or in a dark doorway. OPS sites also limit the transmission of infectious diseases by providing sterile equipment. They also connect people with health services, including treatment. According to Vancouver Coastal Health, this site took into consideration the years of consultation with various community partners, including the city. VCH locates overdose prevention sites according to demonstrated need. The 900 Helmken location logged the second highest rate of overdose deaths in the Vancouver Coastal Health region, and the second highest number of calls to BC emergency health services. The engagement revealed that 900 Helmken location would benefit from its close proximity to a community health centre. This location also offers ample dedicated outdoor and indoor space, which reduces the potential for its clients to congregate nearby. This is a very important feature to address neighbourhood concerns about street disorder. Drug toxicity is the leading cause of death in the province for people aged 10 to 59 and every single one of those deaths is a preventable death. If this site is blocked without another site being found, people will overdose and die. Our role as elected officials is to keep people safe if and especially when they are having the worst day of their lives. This motion falls far short of that goal. It further stigmatises substance use disorder when we desperately need to start treating this as the public health crisis that it is. Only then, when we act based on evidence, will we start to see deaths decline. People are still going to use drugs in this area. Without an overdose prevention site, many of them will die. And blocking overdose prevention sites doesn't solve homelessness or poverty or addiction. I think this motion has it completely the wrong way around. It's urgent that we establish this overdose prevention site in order to keep people alive. Thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Fry.
Okay, well, quite the afternoon debate. I mean, this is... at its essence, an ideological decision. Council's operative direction is to use all the tools available to us at the city to take all lawful steps to prevent the opening of the proposed overdose prevention site at 900 Helmken Street.
That's the direction we're giving. Is that a practical decision? Probably not. But that's my opinion. And while my decisions are informed by my opinions, they're also grounded in facts and evidence. We have a responsibility to make informed decisions. In fact, it's our sworn duty. We took an oath that says we will carry our duties out with integrity and that we'll be accountable for the decisions that we make. And despite the chair's ruling, there's no demonstrable urgency to decide on this motion today. A motion, I will add, that myself and other elected councillors saw for the first time just a couple of hours ago at 10 to 4. The urgency here is a political decision. We are denying thoughtful decision-making. I have so many questions. What is the permitting and change of use necessary for this site? What is the operating construct that's being proposed? How is this going to differ from other failed previous sites? And of course, I'm going to say that failure is relative because I'm sure if you're the family of a loved one who was saved from an overdose, you probably didn't see it as a failure at all. You wouldn't see OPS intervention as some kind of a success. What's the... epidemiological imperative for an overdose prevention site at this location? How many active users do we have in this area? How can OPS serve to divert folks into treatment and recovery, which we've heard loud and clear everybody's interested in? How can OPS serve community and public safety? What happens to the folks who are doing drugs in this area? Where are they going to go? Is there an acceptable number of overdose deaths in this neighborhood? Because 94 people died last year, and that was despite OPS interventions. So what is the acceptable death number? There's this magical thinking that we don't have to do anything until the province delivers treatment beds, and that ignores the reality of what's happening on the streets in our city. Of course we need to do better. We know that. I don't think anybody's denying that. We're a wealthy, world-class city with visible poverty and addiction, human misery, huddled in the doorways. It's a manifest failure of the system that's designed to help people, and it's failed. And we all see it. It's obvious. But what is clear in denying an informed debate that involves experts and lived experience, we're not doing better. And when I say lived experience, I'm talking about not just people who use drugs, but people who live next door to OPS sites, people who work the beat as police officers and first responders and firefighters.
Look, I don't want to suggest motive in any way, but the reality is that this resolution, whether intentional or not, is setting a very political narrative that will no doubt inform the election in five months.
But what's really cleared, despite all the politics, is that we've denied informed decision-making and likely the outcome of this decision today, people, somebody, somebody, somebody loves will die.
And that's a real tragedy.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, everyone, for today's debate. I've listened closely to everyone. I'd like to first of all point out that this City Council have been uniquely good partners with Vancouver Coastal Health, and that's something to be proud of. No other municipal jurisdiction in BC has allocated millions of dollars of tax dollars to make an investment in health care services managed by the health authority. The annual budget approved by this council is approximately eight million dollars. And this is something I promised that I ran on that we would provide these services and we've delivered on that. Key programs funded include the expansion of the CAR 8788 program, the creation of the mobile crisis de-escalation team, the first ever Indigenous crisis response team, and increased capacity for the operations command center liaison nurse targeting mental health crisis response. Dozens of people are working to support people in distress through this partnership. But in spite of these resources and the good faith