►
Description
Council meetings
Council meetings are held to make decisions about bylaws, spending, providing services (such as infrastructure, facilities, and programs), and fostering Vancouver's economic, social, and environmental well-being.
Open to the public
Tuesdays at 9:30am around every two weeks. View the meeting schedule
Send your comment online
Request to speak at the meeting
- Council must agree to hear speakers for an agenda item. If
Council agrees, the item is moved to an upcoming standing
committee meeting usually on the next day.
Attended by at least six members of Council to proceed
- Chair: mayor or deputy mayor
A
Good
afternoon
and
welcome
to
the
vancouver
city
council
meeting
of
tuesday
december
14th,
which
is
reconvene
from
tuesday
november
16th,
this
is
meetings
being
convened
by
electronic
means
as
authorized
under
our
procedural
bylaw.
If
any
council
member
attending
by
electronic
means
losing
connect
loses
connection
during
the
voting
process,
staff
are
available
to
get
you
online
quickly.
Information
has
been
circulated.
A
Video
of
council
members,
speaking
presentations
and
vote
results
will
be
projected
on
the
live
stream
and
available,
and
just
remember
that,
if
you
are
attending
remotely,
you
have
to
leave
your
video
on
to
confirm
quorum.
As
always,
we
acknowledge
we're
on
the
unseated
homelands
of
the
muscular
and
squamous
and
slave
teeth
people
and
thank
them
for
their
generosity
who
all
to
all
who
live
and
work
and
play
on
their
lands,
and
thanks
so
much
to
staff
for
for
everything
that
you
do
we're,
especially
thinking
of
you
as
we
move
into
the
holiday
season.
A
So
thanks
clerks
can
we
have
the
roll
call.
Please.
C
F
A
Thanks
very
much
so
council
we
have
first
I'm
going
to
remind
the
public
that
if
you
want
to
follow
along
on
twitter
at
penn
city
clerk
for
updates
on
the
progress
of
the
meeting,
you
can
watch
it
on
a
youtube
link
or
on
the
city's
website.
A
You
can
always
send
in
comments
on
any
item
to
using
the
web
form,
and
that
is
also
available
on
twitter
in
terms
of
the
link
and
in
terms
of
our
long-standing
commitment
to
respect
for
all
genders
is
to
remind
council
to
address
staff
and
speakers
avoiding
using
gender
honorifics
and
instead
infer
people
by
their
first
and
last
name
role
or
title.
Today.
A
We
have
one
unfinished
business
item
for
council
members,
motions
notice
of
council
members
motions
and
then
our
final
item
is
new
business
inquiries
and
other
matters
plan
for
the
day
is
to
go
from
now
until
five
then
break
for
dinner.
Return
at
6
p.m.
To
finish
things
off,
hopefully,
we'll
be
done
today.
If
we're
not
finished
today,
we'll
have
to
come
back
tomorrow
afternoon
and
I
can
get
those
times
from
the
clerk
for
you.
We
have
on
one
item
of
unfinished
business
today
that
is
streamlining
the
rental
around
local
shopping
areas.
A
We
on
november,
2nd
4th
and
9th
we
held
a
public
hearing
on
the
above
matter
on
november
9th,
following
the
close
of
the
speakers
list
and
receipt
of
public
comments.
We
reclosed
that,
and
we
referred
a
debate
and
decision
of
the
council
meeting
on
november.
16Th
is
unfinished
business
on
november
16th
we
postponed
closing
comments,
debate
and
decision
to
december
14th
due
to
time
constraints,
counselors
deja,
nova,
hardwick,
dominato
and
swanson
were
absent
for
the
portion
of
this
item
after
10
p.m.
A
On
november
9th,
and
confirmed
at
the
council
meeting
on
november
16th
that
they
had
reviewed
the
proceedings
of
the
meeting,
they
missed
and
would
therefore
be
voting
on
the
application.
We
will
start
with
closing
comments
from
staff.
As
a
reminder,
the
applicant
is
the
general
manager
of
planning
urban
design
and
sustainability,
then
move
to
any
questions,
the
staff
and
then
move
once
we've
moved
in
second
of
the
report,
debate
and
decision.
So
any
closing
comments
from
staff.
I
Yes,
mayor
stewart,
thank
you
so
thank
you,
mayor
stewart
and
members
of
council,
I'm
dan
garrison,
I'm
the
assistant
director
of
planning
responsible
for
our
housing
policy
and
regulation
division,
and
I
will
be
making
a
few
closing
remarks
and
and
one
note
of
housekeeping
before
handing
off
to
edna
cho
our
senior
housing
policy
planner
to
finish
staff's
closing
remarks.
I
So
we
are
here
to
conclude
on
the
matter
of
the
streamlining
rental
around
local
shopping
areas
following
the
public
hearing
that
went
over
three
days
in
early
november.
As
mayor
stewart
indicated,
staff
would
like
to
begin
our
closing
remarks
by
thanking
the
many
members
of
the
public
who
either
submitted
written
correspondence
or
who
came
out
to
speak
to
council
whether
they
spoke
in
support
or
favor
or
in
support
or
in
opposition
of
the
proposed
zoning
amendments
and
policy
changes.
I
Their
commentary
was
thoughtful
and
it
was
informed
and
it
demonstrated
a
real
caring
for
their
community.
So
staff
were
very
impressed
by
the
by
the
speakers
who
came
out
to
speak.
I
We'd
also
like
to
thank
thank
council,
the
members
of
council
for
the
time
you've
invested
in
this
process
and
for
the
thoughtfulness
of
your
questions
both
to
speakers
and
to
staff
staff
received
over
20
questions
from
council
in
writing
and
responded
last
week
in
a
memo
dated
december
9th,
which
is
also
now
posted
on
the
council
agenda
on
the
website
as
a
small
piece
of
housekeeping.
I
also
just
wanted
to
inform
you
of
a
change
that
staff
will
be
making
to
the
effective
enactment
date
for
any
bylaws
that
are
adopted
today.
I
J
The
work
of
streamlining
rental
has
been
underway
for
over
two
years
and
during
the
significant
public
consultation
that
was
carried
out
over
that
time
and
over
the
three
nights
of
public
hearing
in
november,
we
have
heard
a
wide
range
of
firmly
held
opinions.
We
heard
from
over
100
speakers
and
received
1082
pieces
of
correspondence
the
highest
in
recent
years.
620
of
those
were
in
favor
and
444
were
opposed
to
the
proposal.
J
So
what
did
we
hear?
We
heard
from
renters
who
are
looking
for
secure,
purpose-built
rental
housing
away
from
busy
arterial
streets
who
believe
these
changes
don't
go
far
enough.
We
heard
from
residents
and
climate
activists
that
these
changes
are
a
necessary
first
step
to
create
a
more
walkable
city
to
address
the
climate
emergency
and
we've
heard
from
residents
who
think
new
market
rental
isn't
affordable
enough.
J
Even
as
builders
tell
us
that
these
rents
are
barely
enough
to
cover
the
high
cost
of
land
construction,
we
also
heard
from
property
owners
who
feel
the
changes
go
too
far
put
the
character
of
low
density
neighborhoods.
At
risk
and
could
drive
up
land
values,
the
discourse
has
been
divided,
it's
a
case
of
far
too
much
versus
not
nearly
far
enough.
However,
there
were
common
ground
on
some
issues.
People
agree
that
the
housing
costs
in
vancouver
are
high
and
rising.
J
Rental
housing
is
needed
as
three
quarters
of
net
new
households
are
renters
and
that
ownership
is
out
of
reach
for
many
and
will
likely
continue
to
be
so
so,
given
this
polarization
and
these
areas
of
common
ground
staff
have
approached
this
work
with
the
principles
of
balance
and
equity
in
mind,
the
policy
has
been
scaled
back
to
preserve
areas
with
more
character
and
heritage
homes.
The
new
zones
keep
building
forms
at
a
moderate
scale,
six
stories
and
under
on
arterials
and
four
stories
in
under
on
local
streets.
J
Yet
we're
still
ensuring
the
proposed
changes
will
incentivize
and
streamline
new
rentals
to
ensure
alignment
with
the
climate
emergency
action
plan
and
the
vancouver
plan.
We've
layered
on
green
building
requirements
and
tightened
the
locational
criteria
to
ensure
new
rental
housing
is
located
near
shopping
and
amenities
to
create
walkable,
50-minute,
neighborhoods,
so
key
issues.
We
heard
some
recurring
themes
during
the
public
hearing
that
we'd
like
to
touch
on
consultation
and
process.
We
heard
there
wasn't
enough
consultation
in
general
as
well
as
concerns
regarding
notices
for
this
public
hearing.
J
Specifically,
so
over
the
last
two
and
a
half
years,
there
has
been
over
twenty
thousand
points
of
contact
and
many
engagement
opportunities.
Three
thousand
five
hundred
participated
in
surveys,
meetings
and
information
sessions.
There
are
eight
info
sessions,
six
in
person
and
two
virtual
40
one-on-one
meetings
and
25
stakeholder
meetings.
J
As
for
city
practice,
we
do
not
notify
individual
property
owners
in
surrounding
areas
on
citywide
changes
to
zoning.
This
is
the
same
practice
followed
in
2004
when
secondary
suites
were
legalized
across
the
city
during
the
introduction
of
laneway
housing
in
2009,
and
the
changes
to
introduce
duplexes
in
rs
zones
in
2018.
J
J
We
want
to
be
clear
that
the
proposed
zoning
amendments
only
result
in
the
removal
of
a
public
hearing
requirement
in
the
c2
zoning
districts
proposed
in
this
report.
This
was
done
with
an
eye
to
equity,
as
the
majority
of
developments
in
c2
areas
are
four-story
condominiums,
which
does
not
require
public
hearing.
The
proposed
amendments
simply
seek
to
level
the
playing
field
for
rental
to
be
absolutely
clear.
New
rental
projects
in
rs
and
rt
zones
will
still
go
through
a
rezoning,
a
simplified
rezoning
process
in
which
a
public
hearing
will
still
be
required
for
each
project.
J
J
The
proposal
being
discussed
will
not
result
in
the
rezoning
of
any
properties
in
low
density
areas.
In
other
words,
no
existing
zoning
is
being
changed.
Rather,
we
are
proposing
three
new
rental
district
schedules
that
can
be
used
in
existing
low
density
areas
in
conjunction
with
a
simplified
rezoning
process.
J
Another
key
issue
we
heard
was
around
affordability
and
land
values.
We
heard
a
desire
to
deepen
the
affordability
of
new
rental
housing.
Independent
third
party
financial
testing
found
deeper
affordability.
Beyond
market
rates
could
be
achieved
in
rs
and
rt
areas
in
six
story
developments
and
can
include
a
percentage
of
below
market
units.
J
Dialing
up,
affordability
will
drive
these
projects
into
higher
cost.
Concrete
construction
and
much
taller
tower
forms.
Staff
are
exploring
these
opportunities
for
deeper
affordability
through
other
planning
initiatives
such
as
broadway
plan
and
the
vancouver
plan,
and
through
partnerships
with
senior
governments
and
communities.
J
Note
that
none
of
these
funding
partnerships
can
be
successful
without
the
policies
and
zonings.
In
place
to
enable
the
developments-
and
we
heard
this
from
the
community
housing
sector
during
the
public
hearing,
we
also
heard
questions
around
how
these
policies
will
impact
land
values.
Third
party
testing
confirmed
these
rental
policies,
will
not
create
additional
pressure
on
land
values.
It's
important
to
know
that
this
testing
isn't
theoretical.
It's
based
on
more
than
a
decade
of
experience
with
rental
incentive
policies
in
c2
and
low
density
areas.
J
There
is
also
there
seems
to
be
interest
from
some
council
members
to
separate
the
c2
and
low
density
changes
so
that
they
can
be
voted
on
separately.
We
have
checked
with
clerks
and
legal
services
on
the
procedure
by
law
and
confirmed
this
is
possible.
Should
council
wish
to
vote
separately
on
these
proposals.
An
amendment
would
first
need
to
be
made
to
recommendation
a
iii
to
add
the
definition
of
residential
rental
tenure
from
appendix
a
directly
into
the
proposed
new
zoning
districts.
J
This
will
allow
the
two
proposals
to
be
voted
on
separately
in
accordance
with
the
procedure
by
law.
If
council
would
like
to
proceed
with
such
an
amendment,
staff
can
advise
on
the
language
necessary
and
if
the
amendment
passes,
clerks
can
advise
on
how
to
group
the
recommendations
together
during
the
voting.
J
In
conclusion,
this
application
from
the
general
manager
of
planning,
urban
design
and
sustainability
is
to
amend
the
c2
zones
to
streamline
six-story
rental
buildings
without
a
rezoning
and
to
add
new
standard
rental
district
schedules
for
use
in
future
rezoning
applications
in
low-density
areas.
This
work
builds
upon
and
improves
on
our
existing
rental
policies
that
have
applied
to
these
c2
and
low
density
areas.
For
over
a
decade,
this
proposal
will
open
established,
neighborhoods
to
share
their
communities
and
welcome
new
households.
J
Staff
have
heard
the
importance
of
maintaining
existing
neighborhood
character
and
have
incorporated
this
feedback,
keeping
the
scale
and
pace
of
change
incremental
and
gradual.
In
addition,
the
proposals
in
this
report
will
encourage
rental
housing
close
to
daily
needs
and
transit
to
promote
more
walkable
communities.
This
will
be
an
important
first
action
council
can
take
in
alignment
with
accounts
with
the
climate
emergency
action
plan
to
meet
carbon
targets
called
for
under
big
move.
One.
A
So
much
to
a
number
of
questions,
counselor
hard
with
the
staff
of
the
five
minutes.
K
Thanks
very
much
I'd
just
like
to
confirm,
I
know
edna,
you
just
said
this,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
it's
clearly
understood
if
council
wants
to
only
approve
the
six
story:
rentals
in
c2
zones
and
not
the
rr
zones
you're
confirming
that
we
could
approve
a1,
a2
and
vote
against
a3
and
the
amended
c2
zones
would
allow
for
rental
tenure
on
their
own.
With
these
two
recommendations
approved
a1
and
a2,
correct.
J
That's
correct:
we
would
have
to
first
make
an
amendment
to
a
iii
to
add
the
residential
rental
tenure
districts
into
the
schedule
separately.
In
order
that
we
can
vote
on
them
separately
and
then
yes,
then
you
can,
then
you
can
separate
them
that
way.
K
Great,
thank
you
very
much.
My
next
question
is
how
much
of
an
increase
in
zone
capacity
does
this
represent
overall
at
current
rates
of
construction?
How
many
years
would
it
take
to
build
out
all
of
the
extra
density
units
that
are
proposed
in
this
plan?
I
We
did
not
take
a
a
zoned
capacity
approach
to
looking
at
the
the
potent
development
potential
created
through
the
policy
changes.
We
we
looked
at
what
the
development
capacity
might
be
over
over
a
10-year
period
in
order
to
estimate
how
much
potential
development
would
happen
and-
and
we
looked
at
found
that
an
estimate
of
about
2000
to
2700
units
could
be
accommodated
in
the
c2
zoning
district
and
up
to
2000
units
in
the
rs
and
rt
districts.
I
Well,
certainly
in
terms
of
the
households
we're
saying,
but
we're
estimating
yeah
forty
seven
hundred
so
five
thousand
ballpark
new
households.
How
how
many
folks
live
in
those
households
is
a
is
another
question
and
we
will
be
coming
back
to
council,
of
course,
in
the
in
the
spring,
related
to
the
vancouver
plan
and
right
and
housing
needs
assessments
around
looking
at
at
population
per
household.
K
Well,
we
will
have
any
adjustment
after
the
census
that
we're
just
finishing
up,
but
the
current
mean
average
household
size
in
vancouver
proper
is
2.2
individuals
per
household,
correct.
I
Yeah
that
that
is
that
is
correct.
However,
we
know
that
the
majority
of
the
house,
the
housing
that
we're
building
now
under
the
new
policies,
and
particularly
in
the
rental
policies,
are
apartments
which
do
have
a
lower
proportion,
and
I
don't
have
the
number
off
hand,
but
have
a
lower
proportion
than
the
overall
average,
which
includes
detached
houses
and
townhouses
and
other
other
types
that
have
higher
proportions.
So
that's.
E
A
Thanks
counselor
swanson
we're
on
to
counselor
dejanova.
L
I'm
with
you
there
thanks,
I
I
did
have
some
questions
and
it's
specifically
on
the
c2
and
understanding
that
these
are
changes
specifically
to
the
district's
schedule.
L
However,
they
will
affect
zoning,
so
it's
not
exact
zoning
changes,
so
I'm
hoping
staff
might
be
able
to
answer
in
in
looking
at
examples
and
hearing
from
from
some
of
the
speakers.
The
concern
there
that
this
may
drive
some
of
the
mom
and
pop
shops
further
out
of
the
city
of
vancouver,
including
some
of
the
local
grocery
stores
and
corner
stores.
The
council
had
supported.
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
could
speak
to
and
or
confirm
if
at
all
this
will
change
bc,
assessment's
view
of
best
and
highest
use.
L
A
C
Sure
hi
counselor
blair,
herb
here
through
the
mayor
councillor,
the
work
that
we've
done
on
this
topic
suggests
that
us,
the
market
value
of
c2
sites
should
not
increase
in
any
material
way.
Due
to
the
proposed
changes
to
the
zoning
district.
The
highest
and
best
use
of
these
properties
will
continue
to
be
the
existing
build
either
the
existing
building,
that
is
on
the
site
or
the
development
rates
that
already
exist
for
condominium
development
up
to
2.5
fsr.
C
L
Thank
you,
I'm
I'm
just
wondering
if
maybe
our
staff
then
could
confirm,
based
on
the
information
from
cory
alice,
if
bce
assessment
has
confirmed
whether
or
not
there
will
be
a
change
this.
Whether
the
changes
in
this
district
schedule
could
trigger
changes
in
the
way
that
we
tax,
c2
properties,.
I
L
Thank
you.
I'm
further
going
to
ask
the
question
this
council
had
had
I'm.
I
won't
remember
if
the
vote's
unanimous,
but
we
did
pass
a
motion
to
protect
local
corner
stores
and
grocery
stores.
Many
of
those
corner
and
grocery
stores
are
located
in
c2
zone,
I'm
not
sure
exactly
where
they
are
here
on
in
these
district
schedules.
L
I'm
just
hoping
that
you
could
tell
me
how
that
policy
direction
that
council
has
given
fits
into
this
and
how
we're
protecting
them
through
through
this,
especially
if
we're
not
sure,
if
they're
going
to
be
paying
higher
taxes.
I
appreciate
coriolis
opinion,
but
considering
bc
assessment
assesses
the
value
which
the
tax
rate
is
based
on.
I'm
I'm
concerned
not
having
that
information
as
to
whether
or
not
that
will
change.
So
is
there
any
way
to
understand
that
policy
piece.
B
Good
afternoon
paula
huber,
I
think
you're
asking
about
the
local
grocery
store,
the
work
that
andrew
pascua
is
doing
and
the
majority
of
those
are
offer
materials
they're,
not
c2
zoning,
so
that
work
is
deeper
into
the
neighborhoods.
Typically.
L
D
Yeah
thanks
for
answering
a
lot
of
our
questions
here.
First
question
is:
if
this
goes
through,
would
the
city
consider
buying
land
in
the
rs
and
rt
zones
for.
I
Thank
you
for
the
question
we
we
heard.
We
heard
you
so
decisions
to
around
site
acquisition
are
decisions
that
are
made
by
the
in
relation
to
the
vancouver,
affordable
housing,
endowment
fund
and
the
and
the
the
strategic
direction
that
that
fund
will
take,
which
will
be
provided
by
council
and
also
through
the
capital
planning
process,
and
so
it
it
is
that
the
zoning
will
that
and
policies
that
are
proposed
today
and
if
council
adopts
them,
will
create
opportunities
for
non-market
housing
in
these
locations.
F
These
projects
are
going
to
be
subject
to
the
standard
parking
requirements
specified
by
the
parking
bilo
and
all
of
the
reductions
that
are
also
available
to
them.
So
through
the
parking
bilo,
there's
been
a
significant
reduction
in
parking
requirements
for
rental
projects
and
there's
also
the
trans
transportation
management
demand
reductions
that
could
lead
up
to
60
reduction
on
parking
minimums
for
rental
projects
that
are
in
close
proximity
to
transit.
F
This
policy
has
catered
the
locational
criteria
to
proximity
to
transit,
to
be
able
to
maximize
on
these
reductions.
We
anticipate
that
the
mixed-use
development
will
indeed
trigger
underground
parking,
but
we
are
trying
to
enable
as
much
surface
parking
as
possible
on
the
off
and
on
arterial
options.
F
In
order
to
do
so,
the
design
guidelines
have
been
provided
with
a
set
of
guidance
to
maximize
on
the
transit
demand,
management
and
city
staff
is
also
working
on
bringing
forward
to
council
in
the
new
year
measures
for
eliminating
parking
minimums,
which
these
projects
will
also
be
entertained
under
and
will
help
reduce
that
demand
for
even
further.
D
Okay
thanks
third
question:
if
four-story
strata
is
the
highest
and
best
use,
why
would
we
estimate
to
estimate
that
we
can
actually
get
more
rental
if
this
goes
through?
Wouldn't
everybody
just
keep
doing
strata.
J
So
I
can
start
this
answer
and
maybe
blair
herb
our
from
corliss
can
supplement.
So
we
have.
We
have
provided
additional
density
to
enable
market
rental
to
be
an
option
that
some
owners
or
developers
may
choose
over
time.
J
We,
you
know,
we
don't
expect
that
that
we
do
expect
that
condos
will
continue
to
be
the
preferred
development
option
in
c2,
but
with
the
level
with
the
additional
density
and
the
incentives
we
provide.
We
do
we
do.
The
testing
shows
that
in
some
cases
it
will
be
viable
for
some
owners
and
developers
to
to
provide
rental.
D
Okay
thanks.
Fourth
question
is
for
coriolis
when
you
were
doing
the
number
crunching
on
this.
C
Councilor
swanson:
yes,
we
assumed
very
favorable
financing
rates
for
all
of
the
rental
scenarios
that
that
we
analyzed.
C
C
Yeah
that
that's
something
that
is
sort
of
is
typically
assumed
within
any
financial
analysis
like
this.
What's
going
on,
there
is
the
notion
that,
if
a
developer
needs
to
purchase
two
or
three
houses
side
by
each
simultaneously
in
order
to
create
a
development
site,
the
owners
of
those
houses
are
unlikely
to
sell
all
simultaneously
without
receiving
slightly
more
than
what
their
house
is
worth.
L
A
Go
ahead,
councillor
agenova.
A
A
Public
hearing
part
has
closed.
We
are
now
in
debate
and
decision,
so
you
could
ask
questions
to
staff
at
this
point,
but
there
won't
be
a
section
where
staff
will
be
reading
out
replies,
counselor
fry.
N
Thanks
mayor
so
first
question:
what
does
what
would
a
public
hearing
and
rezoning
look
like
on
the
rr
zones?
Now?
Does
this
sort
of
in
part
the
same
amount
of
time
as
we
would
typically
see
on
a
rezoning
application.
J
So
this
would
be
similar
to
the
what
you
see
in
the
can
be
can
be
quarter
rm8
rezonings.
So
it
would
be
this.
The
process
is
simplified
because
it's
not
a
negotiated,
unique
cd1.
Each
time
you're
creating
you
you're
rezoning
to
a
zone
which
has
very
clear
rules.
So
the
architects,
everybody
knows
upfront
exactly
what
they're
they're
meant
to
do
in
terms
of
the
time
savings
we
estimate.
Potentially,
this
could
save,
maybe
half
the
time
of
the
rezoning
up
to
six
months.
N
J
I
I
don't
think
I
can.
I
guess
what
the
province
may
may
do
on
the
vancouver
charter.
I
don't
know
if
grant
might
want
to
comment
on
that.
J
N
I
know
that
there's
some
articulation
in
some
of
the
sub
c
sections
and
similarly
some
of
the
rr's,
but
there's
some
that
have
no
no
limits
on
lot
assembly
or
maximum
frontages,
and
I'm
wondering,
if
does
this
necessarily
do,
do
lot
assemblies
impact
the
cost
of
land
and
therefore
the
cost
of
the
final
product,
and
would
it
be
thoughtful
to
implement
maximum
frontages
also
to
preserve
in
the
sense
of
c2s
that
kind
of
granular
fit
of
small
business.
M
Hello,
paul
chang,
a
senior
development
planner,
currently
in
all
of
the
c2
zones
and
the
clone
zones.
There
is
no
frontage
maximum
in
terms
of
developable
lots.
However,
in
some
of
the
zones
there
are
maximums
with
respect
to
overall
frontages
for
cru
sizes,
so
some
of
them
dictate
that
the
cru
shouldn't
be
more
than
50
feet
in
width,
for
instance,
and.
J
M
Is
a
way
of
guaranteeing
that
the
businesses
themselves
won't
be,
for
instance,
big
box
stores
or
something
like
that?
More
of
a
localized
mom-and-pop
typology
with
respect
to
overall
maximum
frontages.
As
I
said,
c2s
don't
currently
have
that,
but
the
what
we're
seeing
most
of
the
time
right
now
is
not
that
many
large-scale
consolidated
lots
for
c2
development,
usually
they're,
probably
about
100,
to
150
feet
in
size
for
the
development
period,
applications
that
we
see
right
now.
M
It
seems
to
be
just
from
from
an
experience
point
of
view
of
what
staff
have
seen
of
it
seems
that
the
more
lots
that
need
to
be
assembled
the
more
difficult
it
is
to
assemble.
M
So
so
a
lot
of
the
times
if
it
just
takes
one
holdout
one
property
owner
to
hold
out
and
not
sell
to
actually
make
it
too
hard
to
actually
assemble
the
entirety
of
a
block.
For
instance,
overall,
I'd
say
that
having
maximum
limits
would
actually
help
to
make
developments.
M
B
Thanks
very
much
so
just
continuing
on
with
a
few
questions,
I'm
curious.
If,
if
I
can
understand
from
staff
how
the
consultation
on
this
policy
effort
differs
from
other
major
planning
efforts-
and
I
know
we've
got
the
vancouver
plan
underway,
but
others
as
well.
That
have
happened
over
time,
because
there
has
been
public
criticism
that
the
consultation
hasn't
felt
as
extensive
as
it
typically
would
be,
including
notifying
those
in
the
affected
areas
of
the
proposed
policy.
B
I
just
if
I
can
just
clarify,
because
we
have
limited
time,
I'm
just
asking
what
are
the
different?
What
are
the
differences,
the
discerning
differences
between
the
consultation
effort
and
this
one
and
other
major
planning
efforts,
and
maybe
there
aren't
any
and
public
perception
is
not
correct,
in
which
case
you
could
say
that.
But
I
just
want
to
get
clear
on
the
differences.
J
Yeah,
so
in
terms
of
the
notification
process,
we
followed
standard
procedure
in
terms
of
notification,
so
there
wasn't.
There
wasn't
differences
between
this
and
other
changes.
We've
made
city-wide
on
zoning,
okay,.
B
Great,
thank
you
very
much,
I'm
curious
now
about
hearing
and
it
could
be
our
through
the
coriolis
work.
B
There's
been
much
discussion
and
we're
going
back
a
month
around
feasibility
of
anything
other
than
the
four-story
buildings
in
the
rr
zones,
in
terms
of
essentially
the
land
economics
and
the
feasibility
to
build,
let's
say
the
three
and
a
half
story:
row
homes
or
the
eight
multiplex.
So
I'm
just
wondering
if
staff
can
quickly
recap.
B
J
So
blair
herb
our
consultant
can
answer
that
question.
C
Sure,
thanks
ed
thanks,
counselor
what
our,
what
our
work
showed.
We,
as
you
alluded
to,
we
analyzed
a
wide
variety
of
different
types
of
rental
projects
and
the
four
to
six
storey.
C
Apartment
projects
were
definitely
the
ones
that
seemed
to
perform
the
best
when
we
got
down
to
three
stories
or
less
and
into
townhouse
type
forms
that
the
financial
analysis
does
not
look
good
now,
but
it's
being
done
from
the
perspective
of
a
private
developer,
so
it's
possible
that
homeowners
or
non-profits
or
other
interested
parties
would
pursue
those
forms
of
housing,
but
they're
they're,
not
something
that
is
viable
from
a
private
sector
perspective.
B
Okay,
so
how
so
just
to
quickly
jumping
again
limited
time?
How
often
do
you
see
home
owners
becoming
rental
developers
without
any
strata
option
or
looking
at
something
that
would
be
far
more
distinct
in
in
character?
And
what
have
you
so
you're
saying
not
for
profits,
sure
could
do,
but
the
land
is
super
expensive
and
then
home
owners
would
be
the
likely
other
candidate
to
build
rental
housing.
B
So
how?
How
does
I'm
so-
and
I
appreciate
that
so
I'm
just
looking
to
understand-
there's
a
lot
of
number
crunching
that
went
into
this
and
we're
hearing
about
it.
But
we
don't
really
see
it
in
this
report
and
each
option
has
been
presented
as
sort
of
on
the
even
playing
field.
And
yet,
when
I
get
to
understand
more
about
the
thinking
behind
it,
I'm
consistently
hearing
that
it's
quite
unlikely
that
anything
other
than
the
residential
apartment.
Four
story
will
actually
be
built.
B
I
I
We've
heard
a
lot
of
interest
in
missing
middle
house
housing
through
our
various
processes,
including
currently
through
the
vancouver
plan
process,
and
so
we
did
want
to
put
forward
those
opportunities
and
staff
put
a
lot
of
work
into
figuring
out
the
the
the
architecture
and
the
lots
and
whatnot
in
terms
of
those
we
do
know
and
you're
correct
that
from
the
from
the
financial
analysis
perspective,
they
aren't
likely
to
be
in
most
cases,
sort
of
commercially
viable
from
a
development
perspective.
But
there
are
a
lot
of.
I
There
has
been
a
lot
of
interest
expressed
by
landowners
in
terms
of
providing
housing
opportunities
for
their
families.
You
do
see
a
lot
of
homeowners
building,
for
example,
laneway
housing.
We
have
yes.
G
I
think
I'll
pick
up,
maybe
questions
from
there.
One
is
just
to
if,
if
all
of
the
proposed
recommendations
are
adopted
today,
does
it
preclude
similar
type
homes
but
in
a
different
different
tenure
ship
in
these
areas?
So,
for
example,
we
have
a
motion
coming
in
january
we
have
the
vancouver
plan,
would
fee
simple
ownership
or
stratified
ownership
of
row
homes
or
an
eight
plex
or
six
plus
be
allowed
or
permitted
in
these
new
rental
zones.
J
So
adopting
this
work
today
won't
it
means
you
can
still
go
ahead
with
other
forms
of
tenure
that
are
being
currently
explored
through
vancouver
plan.
So
it
doesn't
mean
that
just
because
this
has
been
approved
that
in
these
same
areas
you
you
may
you
know
there
could
be
other
other
tenures
as
well.
You
know
that's
still
a
decision
and
work,
that's
underway
through
that
planning
process.
G
Okay,
thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that,
given
that
we're
dealing
with
this
in
advance,
so
thank
you.
I
want
to
ask
a
question
about
the
affordable
housing
choices
in
terms
of
zoning
policy
and
I'm
I'm
looking
at
appendix
m
and
the
indication
that
only
19
projects
were
approved
through
that
policy
framework
since
2012.
and
I'm
curious
what
the
barriers
were
to
that
is
so
we're
moving
in
a
new
direction
to
adopt
a
different
policy
framework.
G
J
Yeah,
so
I
think
one
thing
to
note
is
the
original
2012
policy
it
was.
It
was
a
bit
vague.
There
was
different
options
that
could
be
explored
and
different
tenures,
and
we
found
through
through
implementation
that
a
lot
of
those
were
just
really
difficult
through
implementation
and
what
actually
worked
best
was
the
rental.
So
you
know
we
and
in
doing
so,
what
we
found
actually
is
that
in
the
first
few
years
of
the
policy,
we
didn't
see
a
lot
of
rental
projects,
but
that's,
but
that's
actually
picked
up
in
the
last
four
years.
J
So
a
bulk
majority
of
those
projects
have
actually
been
approved
in
the
last
four
years
for
rental.
G
J
G
You
and
then,
in
the
context
of
concerns
around
displacement.
I
appreciated
the
summary
in
table
one
on
page
three
of
seven
around
the
purpose-built
rental
inventory
and
stock.
Do
we
have
a
sense
in
the
proposed
rental
zones,
the
inventory
of
rental?
That's
already
there.
That's
not
purpose
built,
but
is
in
existing
homes,
because
a
lot
of
homes
are
rented
they're.
Not
they
may
be
owned
by
someone
else,
but
they
are
serving
as
rental
and
so
are
secondary,
suites
and
then
laneways
as
well.
J
Yeah,
so
we
we
did
an
analysis
of
the
displacement
risk
in
the
areas
that
are
eligible
for
the
under
this
policy
in
the
in
the
low
density
areas.
J
I
don't
remember
the
full
number
in
front
of
me
regarding
the
secondary
speeds,
but
what
we,
what
we
did,
what
we
do
know
is
that,
in
in
terms
of
loss
of
rental,
that
the
majority
of
the
units
that
are
being
lost
or
through
the
redevelopment
of
existing
homes
to
new
ownership
housing
compared
to
to
rental,
okay,
yeah
and
within
the
rental,
under
the
ahc
under
the
12,
you
know,
since
2012
there's
been
49
units
of
rental
lost
in
those
with
a
gain
of
900
units.
J
G
Thank
you,
and,
and
with
those
redevelopments,
though,
we
didn't
see
some
replacement
of
rental
and
I'm
thinking
of
examples
in
my
own
neighborhood,
where
homes
have
been
redeveloped
but
then
added
a
secondary
suite
as
well
as
a
langley.
At
the
same
time,.
J
So
we
don't
have
that
data.
What
we
know
is
that
you
know
when
they
get
redeveloped,
they
can
get
redeveloped
to
replace
the
existing
suite.
Sometimes
they
lose
a
suite
and
sometimes
they
they
add
a
suite.
What
we
do
know,
though,
when
we
did
that
analysis
was
that
there
was
a
potential
of
430
to
650
units
that
that
were
potentially
lost
through
just
the
redevelopment
of
to
ownership
housing.
Okay,
thank
you.
G
And
then
circling
back
on
the
land
economics,
I
did
hear
and
appreciate
the
recap
around.
What's
the
likelihood
of
what
we
might
see
on
local
streets
and
being
more
four-story,
is
there
a
risk
that
even
that,
from
an
economic
standpoint,
is
not
feasible
even
the
four-story
wood
frame
on
those
local
streets
for
apartments?
I
know
there's
differing
opinions
out
there,
I'm
just
curious
what.
C
Sure
I
can
high
counselor
blair
here
so
yeah.
The
the
four-story
form
is
probably
the
weakest
from
a
financial
perspective
of
of
the
apartments
scenarios
that
we
analyzed
but
they're
still
profitable.
We
we
think
that
there
will
be
some
interest.
It
will
probably
be
very
localized
in
terms
of
where
you
see
interest
and
where
it
actually
occurs.
K
I
would
like
to
move
it.
A
A
A
A
So
counselor
weave
is
first
on
the
list.
Go
ahead,
counselor
weave
up
to
five
minutes.
F
Yeah
through
you
to
the
move
or
the
motion,
I'm
wondering
why
this
was
moved
prior
to
allowing
counselors
to
ask
questions
recognizing.
This
is
such
an
important
piece
of
work,
and
I'm
wondering
why
this
was
moved
before
we're
able
to
answer
questions
that
might
help
us
better
understand.
Where
decision
we
should
make.
B
A
L
A
Right
now,
I'm
going
to
explain
it
to
you.
If
you
give
me
a
chance,
we
counselor
hardwick
moved
the
report.
It
was
seconded
by
you.
It
moved
to
the
queue
it
then
there
was
that.
Then
we
have
a
cue
to
debate.
The
amendment
to
the
report
which
counselor
weave
is
on
the
queue
and
the
rest
of
the
folks
on
the
queue
are
on
the
list.
So
counselor
weep.
You've
had
a
question
to
the
mover
of
the
motion.
Counselor
harvard.
Would
you
like
to
answer.
K
K
I
asked
the
mayor
if
this
was
the
time
to
do
it.
I
didn't
just
dive
in,
and
I
asked
the
question
councillor
weave
and
the
reason
I
did
and
as
the
mayor
said,
it
did
not
prevent
council
for
from
asking
further
questions
through
him
to
staff.
Moreover,
we
just
received
a
12-page
memo
with
elaborating
on
questions
from
council
to
staff
on
friday.
And
again
this
is
is
not
a
new
discussion
and
I
I
don't
think
the
mayor
was
saying
that
this
would
prevent
any
further
questions
to
staff
at
this
time.
K
But
I
did
ask
the
question
up
front
if
this
was
an
appropriate
time,
and
I
was
told
that
I
was
in
a
position
to
do
that
and
that's
why
I
did
it.
F
Okay,
yeah
I'll
be
voting
against
the
referral.
I
can
only
ask
questions
on
this
referral
motion
and
not
on
the
content
of
the
actual
report,
because
we're
now
in
an
amendment
queue
as
the
mayor
stated,
we
were,
there
were
still
counselors
on
the
queue
to
ask
questions
and
some
of
the
questions
have
not
been
responded
yet,
so
I
I
will
not
be
born
for
this
referral
report.
I
think
this
is
important
work
and
there's
a
lot
of
great
stuff
in
this
report
and
I
look
forward
how
we
can
work
to
move
this
forward.
L
I
would
like
to
move
that
we
suspend
the
procedure
by
law
to
allow
for
another
round
of
questions.
A
L
A
A
A
So
that's
the
only
way
forward
here
once
the
motion
has
been
moved
in.
Second,
it
is
in
debate.
That's
where
we're
at.
So.
If
you'd
like
to
ask,
if
you
like
to
ask
questions,
you
can
do
so
through
points
of
information
and
if
you
need
more
time,
you
can
always
ask
for
another
round
of
debate
and
decision.
Okay,
counselor
nationally.
L
Just
I'll
just
use
my
time
and
try
to
be
helpful
to
make
sure
everyone
can
have
their
questions
answered.
I've
been
in
this
situation
before
to
move
a
second
round
of
debate.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
So
do
we
have
all
in
favor
of
a
second
round
of
debate,
decision
on
this
amendment
to
say,
yay.
A
A
Council,
that's
passed,
so
we
do
have
the
second
round
available
to
you.
If
you'd,
like
it,
counselor
hermick
here
over
to
you.
K
E
Thanks
mayor,
I'm
going
to
speak
strongly
against
this
amendment.
These
recommended
policies
already
got
sent
back
to
staff
for
more
consultation
a
year
and
a
half
ago
when
they
first
came
forward,
and
we
have
heard
through
that
consultation,
broad
support
from
the
public
for
moving
forward
on
on
the
proposals.
E
We
heard
the
summary
from
staff
that
there,
of
course,
is
mixed
opinions
on
it,
but
that
there
is
strong
support
for
more
rental
for
making
it
easier
to
build
that
rental,
and
I
just
think
if
there
are
counselors
who
don't
want
us
to
do
this,
then
then
they
should
just
vote
against
it
and
stop
suggesting
that
more
consultation
will
get
the
answer
that
they're.
E
Looking
for
on
this,
I
I
would
love
to
see
this
whole
report
move
forward,
but
I
I
don't
think
continuing
to
punt
it
back
and
all
out.
It
shows
any
kind
of
leadership
on
the
issues
we
were
elected
to
address.
So
I
I
hope
that
this
whole
thing
passes
strongly
and
I
don't
think
that
continuing
to
send
it
back
is:
is
the
direction
to
go.
O
Thanks
thanks
mayor,
I
will
be
speaking
in
opposition
to
this,
and
the
reason
is
that
this
is
in
fact
I
may
even
question
whether
this
is
in
order,
because
we've
already
done
this.
We
already
referred
this
report
to
the
vancouver
plan
last
summer
last
july
and
we
sent
a
you
know.
It
was
us
making
the
decision
to
proceed
with
this
as
a
quick
start
under
the
vancouver
plan.
So
staff
did
that
in
very
extensive
consultations.
O
We
had
a
report
a
summary
of
that
this
morning,
but
there
were
318
000
address
postcards.
There
were
12
neighborhood
workshops.
There
were
10
pop-up,
tent
events,
seven
stakeholder
meetings,
10
youth,
focused
I've,
answered
pretty
soon,
I'm
going
to
break
into
the
12
nights
of
christmas
meetings
with
mst
and
responses
which
which
led
to
the
conclusion
after
3
300
responses,
with
the
focus
on
complete
neighborhoods
and
a
very
detailed
questionnaire
asking
people
where
they
want
to
if
they
wanted
more
rental
housing
where
they
wanted
it.
O
What
kind
of
heights
all
of
that
data
has
already
been
connect?
Collected
77
percent
agreed
that
we
should
include
a
range
of
housing
options
in
all
neighborhoods
75
support
rental
options
on
residential
streets,
83
support,
new
housing
around
community
assets,
68
support,
increased
height
and
density
for
low
and
moderate
income
housing.
Mr
mayor,
given
that
this
is
already
referred
from
us
into
the
vancouver
plan
last
summer,
I
would
ask
you
to
rule
whether
this
is
actually
in
order.
A
Thank
you,
councillor
carr.
I
will
take
this
away
and
check
with
the
clerks
and
city
manager
and
come
back
to
you
a
little
bit.
H
H
O
Have
my
old
document
here,
I'm
not
sure
if
it's
in
the
same
order,
then
it's
sorry.
O
A
O
A
A
A
All
right
council
I've
had
an
opportunity
to
speak
with
the
city
manager
and
clerk.
I'm
going
to
rule
that
this
is
an
order.
The
reasons
why
is
because
vancouver
plan
is
a
very
long
process.
There
is
an
opportunity
you
know
to
bring
this
back
at
some
point
later
in
the
plan.
A
So
technically
it's
not
out
of
order,
there's
nothing
that
within
the
procedural
bylaw
or
the
charter
that
it
contradicts,
and
so
I'll
turn
the
floor
back
over
to
you,
council
car
with
two
and
a
half
minutes
left.
H
Yeah
thanks
mara,
I'm
going
to
speak
in
opposition
to
the
amendment.
I
I
won't
try
not
to
repeat
the
comments
from
my
other
fellow
counselors,
but
I
would
say
that
I
just
think
that
council
should
have
the
courage
of
their
convictions
whatever
they
may
be.
H
With
respect
to
this
report
and
vote
accordingly
as
to
whether
or
not
they
feel
that
they
want
to
support
it
or
they
do
not
want
to
support
it
based
on
their
perceived
merits
of
the
report
and
what
they
have
heard
from
the
public
and
how
they
weigh
that
information.
I
look
at
this
and
I
think
our
council
term
is
four
years.
This
process
has
taken
two
over
half
of
that.
H
The
previous
referral
back
to
the
plan
was
a
year
and
we
are-
and
I
actually
think
fairly
now
being
criticized
for
not
making
movement
on
housing
policy.
Not
everybody
agrees
on
policy,
but
at
some
point
we
have
to
make
a
decision
and
stand
for
something,
and
so
a
wholesale
referral
of
the
entire
report,
back,
I
think,
is
abdicating.
A
A
Thank
you
very
much
I'll,
just
dance
myself
on
thecube.
Oh
sorry,
I'll.
Let
clerks
handle
that
I'd
just
like
to
say
that
that
I'm
against
the
referral,
this
proposal
as
it's
before
us,
is
for
four
thousand
rental
units
across
a
city
that
already
has
well
over
three
hundred
thousand
homes
of
various
types,
so
4
000
units
over
10
years
is
400
units
a
year.
This
is
not
the
kind
of
silver
bullet.
That's
going
to.
A
A
A
This
is
not
some
kind
of
gargantuan
dish
decision,
but
it
does
show
that
we're
at
least
listening
to
people
and
saying
that
we
need
to
get
housing
built
here,
not
imaginary
units,
but
real
ones,
and
I
strongly
think
that
this
is
one
step
in
that
process,
so
I'll
definitely
be
voting
against
a
referral
and
hope
that
counselors
will
vote
to
get
this
underway.
So
we
can,
you
know,
get
folks
in
into
new
homes,
which
is
so
important.
A
So
thank
you,
councillor
de
genova,
I'm
happy
to
take
the
chair
back
if
you're
happy
to
relinquish
it.
A
Thank
you
so
much
councillor
dominato.
You
know
five
minutes.
G
Thank
you
mayor
and
in
brief
I'll,
I'm
speaking
in
opposition
to
this
referral.
While
I
have
some
concerns
around
this
report
largely
about
will
it
achieve
the
outcomes
that
it
sets
out
to
do,
and
particularly
will
it
deliver
some
of
the
rental
housing
that
families
would
like
to
see
in
the
city?
I
do
not
support
referring
this
wholesale
back
to
the
vancouver
plan.
I
I
didn't
actually
support
referring
it
back.
G
A
year
ago,
I
was
prepared
to
support
at
that
time
some
of
the
recommendations
they
have
changed
since,
but
at
that
time
I
was
prepared
to
support
it.
I
thought
there
had
been
a
much
consultation
done,
but
I
am
not
prepared
to
support
a
full
referral
at
this
time,
so
I'm
speaking
in
opposition,
thank
you.
L
Thank
you.
I
do
have
a
point
of
information.
L
Can
you
to
staff,
and-
and
that
is
I'm
wondering
how
this,
how
this
is
considerate
of
other
types
of
housing,
aside
from
rental
and,
for
instance,
in
in
looking
at
what
is
included
in
this
referral
motion,
I'm
looking
at
how
it
considers,
for
instance,
not
only
the
non-profit,
owned
housing,
but
also
affordable
home
ownership,
and
how
are
we
considering
that?
L
But
also,
how
are
we
considering
land
assemblies
so,
for
instance,
if
duplexes
are
driving
up
prices
right
now
of
land
if
they
are,
and
we've
heard
speculation
that
that's
happening,
that
a
new
half
duplex
with
half
the
land
stratified
costs
more
than
the
whole?
I'm
wondering
if
you
can
tell
me
how
is
this
like,
for
instance,
near
joyce,
skytrain
station,
when
council
last
term
considered
many
different
forms
of
development
to
make
room
for
and
to
make
way
for
that
not
to
just
have
have
perhaps
what
was
built
there
dictate
what
moves
forward
before?
L
How
is
this
considerate
of
the
prices
that
will
be
paid
for
new
rental
to
be
built
in
land
assemblies
outside
of
what's
being
proposed
in
this
district
schedule?
Because
I
understand
that
there's
rezonings
that
may
move
beyond
this
in
the
district
schedule
that
could
have
an
impact
on
affordable
housing.
A
I
Sure,
thank
you
dan
garrison
from
planning,
so
the
I
think
the
first
thing
I'd
say
is
the
the
the
intent
of
what
we're
talking
about
today.
The
streamlining
rental
initiative
is
a
focus
on
rental
tenure.
That
doesn't
mean
it's
exclusive
in
terms
of
all
the
work
that
we're
doing
this
initiative
is
focused
on
rental.
However,
we
are
right
right
now.
I
We
have
a
study
underway
on
models
of
affordable
homeownership
that
we'll
be
bringing
back
to
council
in
the
new
year
in
response
to
motions
that
council
has
has
passed
in
that
regard
through
the
vancouver
plan
process.
There's
an
intensive
look
at
missing
middle
housing
options
underway
now,
looking
at
opportunities
for
different
models
of
of
moderate
scale,
densification
and
and
for
for
new
housing
types
that
will
include
ownership
options
that
will
include
looking
at
different
kinds
of
tenure.
I
So
so
I
think
that
all
of
those
aspects
are
are
underway,
they're,
just
not
necessarily
part
of
this
initiative,
which
is
really
a
an
initial
focus
on
rental
housing.
L
So,
just
a
quick
follow-up
to
that
if
we
incentivize
building
one
type
of
housing
over
another,
are
we
concerned
that
that
will
be
left
behind
by
the
time
that
moves
forward?
And
you
come
back
to
us
with
those
reports
that
there
may
not
be
land
left
in
the
district.
For
that.
I
I
think
what
we've
found
through
most
of
the
work
we've
been
doing
on
this
is
that
is
that
the
rental
that
we're
proposing
right
now
is
is
looking
to
have
limited
if
any
impact
on
the
underlying
land
value.
I
That's
that
is,
is
in
place
today,
and
so
that
probably
the
bigger
concern,
particularly
in
the
rs
and
rt
areas
going
forward,
is
the
existing
land
value
and
the
escalation
of
single-family
house
values
as
they've
been
and
and
as
we've
seen
on
the
in
the
east
side,
since
2011
we've
seen
108
increases
in
the
price
of
detached
houses,
aside
from
any
any
incentives
for
additional
density.
So
I
think
those
are
the
issues
that
we're
facing.
L
N
I
won't
support
this
referral
and
for
reasons
that
others
have
already
articulated.
I
think
we've
had
ample
time.
We've
heard
from
a
lot
of
the
public
it's
time
to
make
some
decisions
on
this
item,
but
I
also
find
it
very
uncomfortable
that
that
process
has
been
used
to
deny
some
of
my
colleagues
the
opportunity
to
ask
legitimate
questions
that
they
may
have
had
over
the
course
of
talking
to
the
public
hearing
from
the
public.
N
The
many
weeks
we've
had
to
digest
this
material
and
to
unilaterally
and
arbitrarily
deny
the
rest
of
council
the
opportunity
to
ask
important
questions.
I
think,
is
a
real
travesty
and
I
really
hope
that
this
is
not
setting
the
tenor
for
the
rest
of
our
term
on
council,
because
I
think
that's
really
a
a
disservice
to
democracy
and
and
to
the
respect
that
I
hope
we
have
for
each
other
here
in
the
east
chambers.
A
Thank
you,
chelsea
fry.
That's
it
for
debate
on
this
counselor
hardwick's
amendment
to
refer
this
report,
so
I'll
call
a
vote
on
that
proposed
amendment.
A
Okay,
council
that
fails
with
counselors
kirby
young
bligh,
dominato
boyle,
weaves
swanson
fry
carr
and
myself
in
opposition
thanks
council
going
back
to
the
main
queue
councillor
hardwick.
You
have
the
floor
for
four
and
a
half
minutes.
K
Nope,
that's
it
for
now.
Thank
you.
F
Yeah
some
of
the
questions
earlier,
the
ownership
model
of
one
of
these
rental
projects.
Could
it
be
a
co-op?
Can
it
be
a
family
that
they
would
rent
it
to
other
family
members?
Could
it
be
multiple
people
that
are
looking
at
creating
kind
of
a
co-housing
model
and
renting
a
few
of
the
units
out?
So
are
other
types
of
housing
tenure
allowed
under
this
rental
policy.
A
Point
of
information,
the
staff
councilman
point
information.
Thank
you
great.
Okay,
thanks
so
much.
J
So,
under
this
policy
under
the
bylaw
changes
we're
making
we're
defining
residential
rental
tenure,
as
you
know,
rental
housing,
as
well
as
non-profit
social
and
co-op
housing.
So
that's
that's
the
definition
of
rental
tenure
in
terms
of
can
people
can
people
rent
out
to
to
you
know?
J
F
What
would
not
be
possible,
however,
is
to
have
separate
owners
occupying
the
individual
units.
It
would
require
a
single
ownership
for
the
whole
entire
project
and
as
a
typical
term
in
our
housing
agreements,
we
usually
restrict
the
operation
of
a
rental
project.
That's
secured
to
arm's
length
tenancies
to
ensure
they're
made
available
on
the
general
marketplace
for
those
smaller
single
lot
type
projects.
We
could
potentially
look
at
flexibility
on
that
front,
but
generally
for
larger
and
apartment
style
buildings.
F
We
would
look
to
retain
those
standard
provisions
and
housing
agreements,
so
that
would
not
allow
a
family
member
to
be
able
to
rent
out
one
or
multiple
units
in
one
of
these
projects.
No,
not
not
as
a
standard
term.
It's
flexibility.
We
would
look
at
potentially
for
a
smaller
single
lot,
multiplex
type
project
and
would
allow
for
that
single
owner
to
occupy
one
of
the
units
on
site,
but
that
would
be
a
departure
from
what
we've
typically
allowed
through
our
rental
incentive.
Programs
is
the
organization
able
to
own
it
that
would
have
different
shareholders.
F
J
That's
not
the
model
that's
anticipated
here.
This
is
a
you
know,
typically,
a
landlord
model
that
rents
out
units
and
there's
a
residential
tenancy
agreement.
That's
that's
required,
but
the
models
that
you're
talking
about
in
terms
of
innovative,
affordable,
home
ownership
options.
F
Okay,
it'd
just
be
great
to
see
those
options
continually
brought
forward
in
policy.
My
next
one's
to
blair
and
that's
talking
about
the
viability
of
these
projects
and
mostly
the
rr
projects.
Can
you
talk
about
if
they're
more
viable
on
the
west
side
of
vancouver
the
east
side
of
vancouver
and
if
a
nominal
cac
of
kind
of
the
industrial
rate
of
three
dollars
and
one
cent
was
applied?
Would
we
still
be
able
to
get
these
projects
built
and
would
they
still
be
at
the
same
rate.
C
Hi
councillor
weave
it's
blair
here
thanks
for
the
question
so
part
one
of
your
question
west
side
versus
east
side.
Our
work
is
showing
that
the
financial
viability
of
the
rental
apartment
projects
is
better
or
higher
on
the
west
side
properties,
particularly
on
what
I
would
call
larger
single
family.
Lots
on
the
west
side
properties
that
the
constraint
on
the
east
side
is
the
small
small
lots,
have
a
high
price
per
square
foot
of
lot
area
which
is
challenging
in
regard
to
charging
a
cac.
C
You
know
our
work
shows
that
you
know
in
in
the
vast
majority
of
cases,
there's
no
quote
land
left,
which
is
where
you
would
normally
expect
a
cac
to
come
from,
but
I
think,
as
long
as
the
cac
was
was
very
low
and
modest,
I
wouldn't
expect
it
to
have
a
a
significant
impact
on
the
interest
in
doing
these
sorts
of
projects.
As
long
as
applicants
perceived
that
council
would
support
the
rezoning
application
when
it
came
forward.
F
A
Okay,
please
go
ahead.
A
We,
the
report,
has
been
moved
and
we
are
debating
an
unamended
report,
recommendations.
A
Right
so
you've
moved
an
amendment.
A
B
Thanks
mayor
I'll,
be
very
brief.
I
know
everyone
is
getting
pretty
tired
here,
but
I
just
have
put
forward
language
that
is
up
on
the
screen
that
allows
for
separate
votes
both
on
the
c2
and
also
the
rr
portion
of
the
report.
A
B
No
only
that
in
time,
if
this
was
to
pass,
then
we'd
be
looking
to
clerks
and
staff
just
to
be
clear
on
how
we
would
vote
on
all
of
the
recommendations.
In
accordance
with
this
amendment,.
H
Yeah
thanks
mayor,
I
will
support
the
separation
vote,
not
because
I
personally
intend
to
vote
differently
on
it.
I
am
inclined
at
this
point
and
I'm
still
hearing
the
debate,
but
I'm
inclined
to
support
the
report
in
full
in
the
recommendations,
but
I
do
believe
in
providing
the
opportunity
for
council
members
to
be
able
to
vote
accordingly,
and
so
I
reminded
because
it's
the
most
recent
example
I
think
during
the
budget.
H
We
had
amendments,
for
example,
where
there
was
a
bulleted
format
used
that
did
not
allow
for
separation
of
vote
and
enable
council
to
express
their
will
on
what
policy
components
they
may
or
may
not
support,
and
I
don't
think
that
that
is
a
good
practice,
and
so
I'm
going
to
support
this
to
enable
essentially
suffering
if
you
will,
which
has
been
a
practice
and
that
allows
counsel
to
exercise.
I
think
I
referred
to
earlier
the
courage
of
their
convictions,
whatever
those
may
be,
with
respect
to
the
distinct
components
of
the
report
that
have
been
identified.
L
Thanks,
I
just
have
a
point
of
information
for
staff
on
sure
on
the
rr
districts
that
are
the
the
rr
zones
that
are
listed
here.
I'm
wondering
it's
the
same
question
I
had
before.
I
don't
need
the
data
from
corey
alice,
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
have
at
all
had
any
communication
with
bc
assessment
as
to
whether
or
not
this
would
change
best
and
highest
use,
thus
changing
the
amount
of
taxes
or
increasing
the
amount
of
property
taxes
that
current
owners
in
these
zones
face.
I
Yes,
in
response
to
the
question:
we
we've
not
been
in
contact
with
with
bcs
assessment
authority
about
any
changes
and
partly
that's
you
know,
that's
standard,
but
that's
also,
partly
because
of
the
analysis
we've
had.
That's
demonstrated
that
we
don't
anticipate
there
to
be
significant
changes
in
land
value
as
a
result
of
these
policies
or
amendments.
L
Okay
and
if
if
there
were
to
be-
and
this
was
adversely
affecting
residents
and
we-
and
we
saw
that
and
current
or
I
should
say-
and
current
owners
in
these
specific
r
zones-
I'm
not
going
to
read
them
all
out
the
ones
highlighted
in
yellow.
I'm
just
wondering
if,
if
staff
would
then
make
further
recommendations.
I
Right,
I
I'm
not,
I'm
not
sure
I
can
sort
of
speculate
on
that,
because
I
think
what
we
have
in
front
of
us
today
are
our
zones
that
that
provide
for
relatively
modest
increases
in
density
for
only
rental
10-year
housing.
So
because
with
what's
in
front
of
us
today,
we
aren't,
we
aren't
seeing,
through
our
analysis,
a
significant
risk
of
land
value
increase.
It's
it's
hard
for
me
to
speculate
as
to
as
to
what
we
might
try
to
put
in
place.
If
we
were
to,
you
know,
propose
something
different.
L
Okay,
thanks
mike
what
I'll
say
in
debate
to
this
is:
I
will
support
this
amendment.
However,
I
do
have
some
concern
hearing
some
of
the
speakers,
especially
one
of
the
speakers
who
had
talked
about
you-
know
the
heart
and
soul
and
blood,
sweat
and
tears
they
pour
into
their
home
and
and
how
they've,
really
you
know
this
to
them
is
important.
They
feel
that
they,
you
know,
want
to
help
where
they
can,
and
you
know
if
what
I'd
heard.
This
is
what
I've
heard.
L
I'm
not
you
know
reciting
testimony,
but
I
I
understood
that
there
was
a
lot
of
fear
of
displacement
and
there
was
a
lot
of
pride,
and
that
was
just
one
speaker
who
spoke
of
that.
I'm
not
saying
that.
I
don't
support
this.
I
support
this,
but
I
do
think
that
it
goes
back
to
that
bigger
question
of
the
buck
stops
with
us
as
council
members.
So
maybe
we
need
to
have
more
public
hearings.
L
Maybe
we
need
to
be
more
efficient,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
considering
this
and
not
just
kind
of
in
any
way,
giving
the
perception
that
we're
skirting
our
responsibility
or
shielding
ourselves
from
making
decisions.
So
at
a
point
made
by
one
of
my
colleagues
before,
I
think
it's
important,
we
do
make
decisions,
but
then,
let's
make
those
decisions,
let's
not
just
change
the
goal
posts
to
have
those
decisions
make
themselves
for
us.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
constitutional,
but
that
is
it
for
speakers.
Listen,
so
we're
gonna
have
a
vote
just
to
make
sure
everybody
knows.
This
is
a
vote
to
to
make
an
amendment
so
the
the
these
votes,
the
letters
can
be
separated
and
voted
on
separately.
A
G
Thanks
mary,
I
have
a
couple
of
questions.
We
did
move
correct
that
we
could
allow
questions.
G
Information,
thank
you.
Could
staff
just
clarify
a
two
points
for
me.
I
recall
that
with
arterial
and
local
streets
with
this
proposal,
that
assembly
of
properties
would
be
limited
to
three
or
there
was
a.
I
think
it
was.
I
can't
remember
the
number
of
feet
I'm
getting
that
right.
P
G
Thank
you
for
clarifying
that
and
then
two
more
questions
related
to
that
is
given,
and
I
recognize
it
was
said
that
it's
not
the
viability,
isn't
there
for
the
town,
homes
or
eight
plexes
or
six
pluses,
but
if
there
was
a
property
owner
that
wanted
just
to
do
it
with
their
single
property.
G
P
G
P
It's
one
side
of
the
street,
so
it's
the
arterial,
then
the
lane
and
then
the
block
it
doesn't
go
across
the
local
street.
I
think.
G
A
Okay,
great
thanks
so
much
councillor,
swanson.
O
A
To
yes,
that
that
could
happen
for
sure,
so
all
in
favor
yeah,
so
councillor
carr
moves
seconded
by
councillor
asianova.
Yes,
all
in
favor
of
a
second
round
of
debate
to
say,
yay.
A
I
hear
none,
so
we
do
have
a
second
round:
counselor
swanson
you're
you're
up,
but
do
have
a
second
round.
If
you
want
them.
D
Can
I
move
my
amendment.
A
Yes,
go
ahead,
you've
sent
it
to
clerks.
D
I
have
yeah,
so
this
is
just
to
exclude
knight
street
from
the
zones
that
this
would
apply
to,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
that
this
is
the
most
polluted
street
in
the
country
and
we
don't
want
renters
to
be
basically
insulation
for
people
living
away
from
the
arterials.
O
A
O
L
I'm
a
little
bit
surprised
by
this
amendment,
because
this
exclusively
would
leave
this
to
a
home
ownership
district,
and
I
I
thought
that
we
had
policy
that
specifically
spoke
against
that
in
vancouver.
While
I
I
have
voted
before
with
council,
considering
our
climate
goals
and
our
you
know
healthy
city
policies
and
strategies.
L
That
being
said,
we
also
have
a
we're
in
a
housing
crisis.
This
is
an
issue
here.
I
think
it's
important
to
look
at
and
and
the
way
that
I've
been
considering
this
and
framing
this
from
what
I
heard
from
speakers
from
the
careful
and
thoughtful
work
of
staff.
As
I
appreciate
all
of
this,
I
just
want
to
understand
that
it's
fitting
in
a
context
of
allowing
even
more
affordable
housing
that
may
be
more
appropriate
in
a
different.
L
You
know,
staff
recommendation.
That's
brought
to
us
that
we're
not
inflating
land
in
making
decisions,
but
at
the
same
time
I
think
that
if
we're
talking
about
housing
mix
and
and
creating
opportunities
throughout
our
city,
just
to
pick
one
street-
I
mean
I
could
pick
others.
I
mean
there
are
other
streets
that
are
also
truck
routes.
L
There's
clark
street,
I
mean
there
might
not
specifically
be
here,
but
the
way
that
I'm
considering
this
is
is
how
are
we
more
inclusive
of
housing
in
our
city,
and
I
understand
that
right
now,
maybe
there's
work
that
needs
to
be
done,
but
I
think
I'd
be
going
backwards
to
support
one
specific
street
and
say
that
we
wouldn't
be
moving
forward
with
rental
on
it.
So
for
that
reason
I
won't
be
supporting
it.
Thank
you.
B
I'd
say
it's
8.7
and
that
it's
frivolous,
I'm
just
looking
at
the
map
for
c2.
There
is
no
c2
really
on
night,
and
this
amendment
is
speaking
specifically
to
the
c2
district
schedules.
A
I
don't
think
it's
an
out
of
order
question.
I
think
it's
more
of
a
content
question,
so
I'm
going
to
leave
it
to
the
debate
of
of
council
to
to
decide
this
one,
but
I
I
think
that
might
be
something
you
want
to
bring
up
during
your
debate
points
so
I'll.
Leave
that
there
and
we'll
go
to
counselor
boyle
to
continue.
E
Thanks
well,
I
appreciate
the
intention
I
heard
of
this
to
protect
renters
from
living
on
highly
polluted
areas.
I
I
won't
be
supporting
this
amendment.
It
is
very
clear
to
me
that
the
way
to
protect
renters
from
living
on
polluted
arterials
is
to
legalize
rental,
housing
off
of
polluted
arterials
and
not
to
continue
to
further
limit
rental
housing
in
the
few
places
where
we
currently
allow
it
so
rather
than
adding
night
which,
which
we
just
heard,
doesn't
actually
have
much
c2
on
it.
E
I
think
the
better
way
to
achieve
this
goal
is
to
legalize
rental
housing
off
of
all
of
these
busy
streets,
night
and
elsewhere,
so
that
renters
have
the
basic
health
and
human
right
of
living
in
quiet,
less
polluted
areas
like
those
who
can
afford
to
purchase
a
home
thanks.
A
Thank
you,
council
reply
up
to
five.
B
Thanks
mayor
okay,
well,
since
this
is
debate-
and
I
would
say
that
it's
arguable
that
there
is
no
c2
on
knight
street,
I'm
not
going
to
support
this
amendment
and
I
think
the
sort
of
inflammatory
comments
around
the
way
it
was
framed
when
there
isn't
actually
any
c2
on
this
lends
more
to
politics
than
it
does
good
policy.
And
so
for
that
reason
I'm
not
going
to
support
it.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
councillor
swanson.
You
can
still
reply
here
after
five
minutes.
D
I
was
just
gonna
say
that
you
know:
there's
been
a
lot
of
research,
about
impacts
of
pollution
from
diesel
and
from
trucks
from
tires
from
brakes
from
fuel
and
how
it
causes.
You
know
dementia
maybe
causes
autism,
causes
lung
problems,
and
I
just
think
we
need
to
be
conscious
of
this
and
try
and
prevent
it
as
much
as
we
can.
O
Yes,
thanks
and
apologies
for
not
looking
at
that
map
first
before
I
seconded,
but
I
do
believe
this
is
an
important
issue
to
debate.
So
I
feel
that
that
that
it
warrants
some
discussion
around
arterials
versus
non-arterials
in
general,
and
so
I
actually
am
not
going
to
support
the
amendment,
but
I'm
not
going
to
support
it
for
a
couple
of
reasons.
One
is
that
now
that
I
know
there's
not
much
c2
on
it
on
that
stream.
O
It
sort
of
makes
sense
not
to,
but
this,
but
the
more
important
reason
to
me
is,
I
absolutely
believe,
we're
moving
more
quickly
to
the
kind
of
vehicle
or
traffic
in
this
city
that
will
not
create
the
kind
of
pollution
and
the
diesel
emissions
that
that
have
been
a
cause
for
really
grave
concern.
Around
health
impacts
on
families
in
particular,
and
especially
young
children,
are
people
with
with
lung
lung
diseases.
O
Maybe
some
of
you
don't
know,
but
in
metro
vancouver,
we
did
receive
a
report
from
the
port
of
metro
vancouver
in
which
they
are
moving
to
actually
require
much
more
stringent
measures
in
terms
of
any
of
the
container
trucks
that
bring
containers
into
the
port
and
including
moving
to
to
non-diesel,
obviously,
as
those
engines
become
available,
but
the
requirements
are
becoming
very
much
more
stringent
all
the
time.
O
So
I
think
that
plus
a
really
good
heat
pumps
and
air
cleaning
in
the
buildings
that
we
are
requiring
through
a
building
code
will
take
us
in
the
right
direction
until
we
do
get
a
zero
carbon
fleet
of
trucks
and
cars
on
the
roads.
H
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
think
that
the
issue
of
human
health
and
sorry,
I
think,
we're
all
tired
human
health
and
particulates
is,
is
a
really
important
consideration.
But
I
would
also
just
add
a
point
that
hasn't
been
raised
already.
In
addition
to
the
points
raised,
for
example,
around
plans
for
reduction
in
vehicular
emissions
is
that
this
council
had
also
passed
and
provided
direction
to
look
up
pollution
mitigation
measures
with
respect
to
building
code
and
requirements,
and
specifically
the
discussion
was
around
knight
street.
H
The
example
was
cited,
but
the
importance
as
we
both
strengthen
our
building
code
from
a
climate
and
a
green
perspective,
that
we
also
look
at
it
from
a
human
health
perspective,
and
I
know
that
in
some
of
the
resulting
applications
we
had,
I
believe
it
was
just
one.
Last
week,
I'd
asked
a
question
about
offices,
for
example,
how
they're
being
mitigated
and
we're
starting
to
see
a
lot
more
measures
taken
in
terms
of
how
how
windows
are
reinforced
air
circulation
systems
for
quality
of
air?
H
All
of
those
things
that
are
now
much
more
top
of
mind
because
we
have
and
are
continuing
to
live
through
a
pandemic,
and
so
I
think
that
there
is
some
direction
in
place
to
try
to
mitigate,
in
addition
to
the
points
that
were
raised
about
vehicular
reduction.
So
I
won't
support
it
because
I
think
that
council
has
identified
that
priority
already.
Thank
you.
A
Thanks
so
much
that's
it
for
debate
on
this
item.
So
we'll
call
a
vote
on
this.
A
There
we
go
that
fails
with
all
council
in
opposition,
except
for
counselors
watson,.
A
D
A
Okay,
counselor.
B
Thanks
very
much,
I
just
have
one
additional
point
of
information
to
staff,
and
that
is
regarding
the
setback
so
in
the
r
zones,
if
there
were
were
to
be
in
the
recommendation
in
the
report,
the
townhouses
stacked,
four
stories
or
multiplex,
eight
or
three
stories,
and
then
we've
got
the
residential
apartment.
Four
stories,
I'm
just
curious:
what
are
the
policy
allowable
setbacks
for
the
different
building
types,
and
maybe,
if
I
can
simplify,
because
I
have
limited
time
the
recommended
setback
or
the
allowable
setback
for
the
residential
apartment?
A
P
Hello
councillor
bly
marie
linehan
development
planner.
Are
you
asking
what
the
front
yard
setback
is
for
the
townhouses
off
arterial,
the.
P
B
P
P
P
Yes,
it
will
be
set
further,
back
and
and
I'll
just
explain
the
intent
behind
that
was
to
pull
the
new
building
forward,
to
allow
more
space
in
the
rear
yard
for
amenity
space
and
gathering,
and
also
to
reduce
the
impact
of
the
building
depth
on
the
adjacent
rear
yards.
So
we
see
people
okay,
so
a
quick.
B
P
So
pulling
the
building
forward
will
reduce
the
the
massing
and
shadowing
impacts
on
the
backyard,
which
is
what
people
primarily
use
for
all
their.
You
know.
Socializing
and
whatnot.
The
new
buildings
will
have
ground
floor
entries
for
each
unit
and
patios
along
the
front.
So
even
within
that
12-foot
setback,
that's
a
setback.
We
typically
see
in
townhouse
zones
like
the
camby
corridor,
so
it's
still
sufficient
space
to
have
an
entry,
patio
and
a
landscape
front
yard
per
unit
and
that
will
serve
to
activate
the
street.
Will.
B
That
impact
more
requirement
for
tree
removals,
some
of
the
old
growths
that
we
see
in
some
of
the
areas
that
are
identified
in
the
dark
and
light
blue
areas
on
the
map.
P
So
there
is
the
potential
for
tree
removal
whenever
you
move
from
a
smaller
to
a
larger
form,
where
we're
very
aware
that
there
could
be
additional
tree
removal,
I
will
say
even
with
redevelopment
to
single
family
homes,
laneway
houses
and
such
garages.
We
do
see
tree
removal
internal
to
this
right.
P
Yes,
that
is
correct,
so
our
focus
with
the
new
zones
is
on
the
perimeter
of
the
site,
either
a
single
lot
or
an
assembled
site.
So
we
do
have
some
regulations
and
guidelines
to
facilitate
tree
retention
at
the
perimeter,
including
pulling
parkades
back
from
the
side
edges.
So,
yes,
we
do
see
the
challenges
and.
B
There'll
be
parkades
for
some
of
these,
the
develop
the
four-story
and
the
rr,
so
they'd
be
using
the
back
alleys
to
come
and
go.
P
They
would
use
back
alleys
to
come
and
go
parkades.
You
know
it's
a
potential
that
they
may
be
proposed,
but,
as
outlined
earlier
by
staff,
there
is
a
significant
parking
reduction
so
surface.
A
Put
myself
on
the
queue
thank
you,
counselor
you'd,
be
in
your
second
round
counselor
week.
O
Yes,
thanks
give
me
the
opportunity
to
ask
some
questions.
I'm
I
I
think
I've
noted
edna
cho,
mentioning
that
I
I
might
have
got
or
heard
it
wrong.
Three
quarters
of
new
households
to
vancouver
are
renters.
Was
that
what
you
said,
or
did
I
just
miss
hearing,
so
I
can't
you
to
mike.
O
47
000..
Thank
you
page.
Three
of
the
report
states
that
public
engagement
in
the
van
plan
officer
vancouver
plan
resulted
in
these
proposed
changes.
So
I've
already
noted
some
of
that
data.
But
if
there's
any
others
that
you
can
add
about
what
it
was
that
you
received
in
public
feedback
that
informed
this
set
of
recommendations.
J
Yes,
so
we
scaled
back
the
the
locational
criteria
based
on
the
principles
of
vancouver
plan
around
complete
and
connected
neighborhoods.
So
we
wanted
to
ensure
that
when
we
were
putting
a
rental
in
in
the
areas
that
that
they
were
within
a
15-minute
walk
to
daily
needs
shops
and
transit.
So
that's
one
change.
We
did.
J
We
know
that
through
the
vancouver
plan
and
all
our
other
engagements,
that
deeper
levels
of
affordability
are
really
important
and
people
want
to
see
more
types
of
affordable
housing
in
neighborhoods
across
the
city,
including
below
market
rental
and
social
housing.
So
we've
added
that
made
those
changes
here
as
well.
J
J
One
more
one
more
thing,
and
just
just
to
say
that
you
know
with
the
vancouver
plan.
What
we're
really
seeing
is
a
lot
of
support
for
low-rise,
miss
middle
forms,
so
six
stories
and
under,
and
so
you
know
we
wanted
to
ensure
that
the
forms
we
are
proposing
here
are
in
in
alignment
with.
You
know
those
forms
that
people
are
looking
for.
O
A
Thank
you,
counselor
kirby,
yeah,
sorry,
counselor
kirby.
Before
we
go,
we
are
at
12
minutes
to
five
with
a
break
schedule
at
five.
So
might
be
helpful
if
we
wanted
to
finish
this
debate
decision
to
have
an
extension.
If
somebody
wanted
to
approve
that
to
work
until
we
finished
it
and
then
take
a
dinner
break.
H
D
A
That
has
passed
with
councillor
bly
and
opposition
castle
kirby
young.
Please
go
ahead
for
five
minutes.
H
Yeah,
thank
you.
I've
got
a
couple
follow-up
points
of
information
to
staff.
The
first
one
is
with
respect
to
the
the
point
through
the
that
for
the
non-c2
zones,
the
residential.
This
is
an
enabling
policy,
but
rezoning
is
still
required
and
then
the
comment
by
staff.
This
could
save
half
of
the
rezoning
time.
Can
you
indicate
what
you
think
the
average
zoning
time
is
and
therefore
what
would
be
saved.
H
Five
to
six
months
in
at
half
at
the
50
is
that
what
I'm
hearing
yeah?
Okay,
thanks
and
then
following
up
I'm
looking
at
the
slide
deck
from
the
original
staff
presentation,
the
powerpoint
that
was
done
on
november
2nd
and
I'm
specifically
looking
at
the
slides,
22
23.
I
think
it
is
which
is
the
affordability
piece
and
so
for
the
ability
to
go
from
four
to
six
stories,
which
my
understanding
is
not
on
the
local
streets,
but
on
the
arterial
or
the
shopping.
H
If
below
market
units
are
included,
can
you
clarify
the
the
chart?
Isn't
very
clear
and
I've
got
a
couple
questions
on.
I
want
you
to
clarify
for
the
record
the
math
on
some
of
the
charts.
I
think
it's
slides,
21.,
sorry,
23
and
24
are
no
23
and
22
and
it
shows
what
the
average
market
rents
are
and
then
it
shows
what
would
be
a
10
and
a
20
discount,
but
that
math
doesn't
seem
to
work
off
of
the
cmhc
rent.
So
can
you
just
walk
us
through
that
again?
Please?
Yes,.
J
Absolutely
so
the
the
chart
you're,
referring
to
what
we
did
was
we
looked
at
the
cmhc
rents
for
all
of
the
cmhc
universe.
So
that's
that's
the
average
rent
across
all
of
the
units
and
this
what
it's
representing
the
the
paint
bar
on
the
chart
is
representing
a
10
discount
off
of
the
average
cmhc
rents
and
then
the
the
blue,
the
blue,
teal
color,
represents
a
20
discount
off
of
average
cmhc
rents.
J
I
think
one
of
the
things
that's
confusing
is
that
in
our
previous
policies,
especially
when
we're
talking
about
the
dcl
waiver,
we're
looking
at
it
we're
talking
about
rents
on
new
market,
so
those
are
the
rental
units
that
are
that
are
built
in
the
last
10
years.
So
so
those
are
usually
higher
numbers
all
right.
H
J
This
is
looking
at
average
rents
across
the
entire
cmhc,
purpose-built
rental
housing.
You
know
universe
of
rents
in
vancouver
in
vancouver
in
vancouver,
yes,
and
so
it's
new
old,
existing,
that's
right
everything,
yes,
new
old,
existing
everything
yeah
most
of
it
old,
yes,
and
so
that
that's
the
that's
what
the
discounts
are
are
off.
If
we
compare
it
to
new
market
rents,
the
discounts
are
greater.
H
H
So
that's
the
market.
Another
way
if
I
took
the
green,
I'm
sorry
I
believe
this
point,
but
I
think
it's
really
helpful
to
be
clear
in
terms
of
what
the
potential
benefits
are
so
put
another
way.
If
I
took
the
green
and
the
pink
bars
and
added
10
or
20,
that
would
be
what
somebody
would
pay
going
in
that
didn't
have
that
discount
versus
a
social
unit
in
the
same
building.
H
J
J
H
No
problem,
that's
why
I
wanted
to
clarify
it,
because
sometimes
we
get
questions.
The
other
question
I
have,
and
it
might
lead
into,
I
think
an
amendment
that's
coming
up,
but
I'll
start
the
question,
which
is
in
the
financial
analysis
that
was
done
in
the
commentary
that
you
didn't.
There
wasn't
a
vision
there
would
be
sort
of
a
significant
land
lift
due
to
it
was
not
increasing
highest
and
best
use
over
strata.
H
If
there
had
been
a
cac
proposed
on
the
rental,
would
that
have
changed
the
financial
analysis
and
the
recommendations
that
were
brought
forward.
C
C
A
Okay,
did
you
want
to
speak
to
it
now
or
ask
for
a
second
or
how
is
it.
F
I'll
speak
to
him
now:
okay,
yeah,
so
I
put
an
amendment
forward
to
look
at
a
nominal,
fixed
rate,
cac
for
the
rr
component
of
this
project
and
that's
the
three
dollar
and
one
cent
per
square
foot,
which
is
the
same.
We
do
for
an
industrial,
school
or
other
facilities
from
the
conversations
this
would
not
affect
the
number
of
projects.
It
also
won't
affect
the
affordability,
it
might
slightly
increase
the
amount
of
non-market
and
co-op,
so
it
could
actually
increase
the
affordability.
F
F
Don't
have
community
plans,
fraser
hood,
killarney,
dunbar
and
so
dcl's
cannot
be
utilized
to
fix
up
a
playground
or
to
fix
up
a
local
amenity,
because
you
need
to
have
a
component
of
a
csc
or
others,
and
then
the
dcl
can
fund
the
new
could
fund
the
washroom
or
could
fund
an
extension,
but
we
can't
actually
deliver
livable
communities
if
we're
not
building
cacs.
This
is
a
very
nominal
rate.
F
A
Secondary
counselor
fry
okay,
on
an
amendment
queue,
I
got
councillor
deja
nova,
first,
a
counselor.
Just
let
me
reset
timers
here:
go
ahead:
counselor
nation
nova.
L
Thanks,
I,
I
have
a
question
a
point
of
information
for
the
mover
of
this
amendment.
Counselor
weep.
You
had
said
in
your
comments
correct
me.
If
I'm
wrong
that
this
will
not
affect
affordability
of
the
rental
units,
there's
only
one
taxpayer
and
technically
this
all
gets
downloaded
onto
them.
So
can
you
tell
me
how
you
are
certain?
L
F
L
F
F
L
Agree,
I
just
wanted
to
know
the
question,
so
you
believe,
but
you
have
you,
do
you
have
developers
that
have
well?
We
can't
speak
outside
of
public
hearing
to
anyone,
so
I
didn't
hear
a
developer
on
the
speakers
list
who
said
who
put
their
hand
up
and
said.
I
want
to
pay
three
dollars
cac
and
now,
the
goodness
of
my
heart,
I'm
not
going
to
download
this.
So
I'm
just
asking.
F
L
L
I
now
have
a
point
of
information
to
staff
mayor.
If
I
may,
and
the
point
of
information
to
staff
is,
is
this
a
consideration
you
made,
but
were
you
concerned
that
this
may
a
adversely
affect
rents
or
affect
proformas
to
the
point
where
it
would
make
a
project
not
viable?
L
I
Yeah,
thank
you
for
the
question
kassar.
I
think
we
I'd
characterize
it
as
we.
We
didn't
think
of
proposing
a
cac,
because
our
normal
approach
to
opposing
proposing
cacs
is
looking
for
areas
where
we
see
increases
in
land
values
as
a
result
of
rezoning,
because
the
financial
analysis
didn't
show
that
we
did
not
recommend
cacs.
For
this,
I
would
say
that
we
have
heard
through
the
process.
I
One
of
the
things
we
heard
and
through
the
public
hearing
were,
was
concerns
about
increases
in
population
and
and
without
the
commensurate
ability
to
pay
for
other
other
public
benefits.
So
you
know,
I
understand
where
the
motion
is
coming
from
from
that.
I.
L
Understand-
and
I
appreciate
that-
that's
not
my
question.
My
question
is:
will
this
make
pro
formas
under
what's
being
proposed
in
the
recommendations?
Will
this
make
performance?
Will
performance
still
be
viable
with
a
three
dollar
a
foot
cac
on
top
of
what's
already
being
proposed,
and
will
this
come
at
the
expense
of
non-market
housing?
Will
this
come
at
the
expense
of
non-profit
housing.
I
Well,
I
I
would
just
say
all
we
could
do
is
go
with
the
advice
of
our
of
our
economic
consultant
at
coriolis
and
that
that's
been
that
essentially,
as
provided
the
cac
amount
is
fixed,
is
known
up
front
and
remains
relatively
small.
I
Well,
that's
correct,
and
there
is
always
one
of
three
people
to
pay.
One
is
the
existing
land
owner,
the
other
is
the
developer
and
the
third.
The
third
is
the
the
eventual
renter
right,
and
I
do
think
that
our
usual
approach
to
that
is
that
the
market
would
determine
the
rent
and
therefore
it
would
either
be
coming
out
of
the
land
value
or
the
developer
profit
do.
L
We
see
something
like
this:
in
cities
like
north
vancouver
or
the
city
of
burnaby
that
are
moving
at
like
rocket
speed
with
housing.
Do
we
see
a
fixed
rate
cac
on
top
of
rental?
I
I'm
not
I'm
not
aware
of.
I
haven't
looked
at
all
their
financing
growth
policies
on
rental.
N
Yeah,
I
will
be
supporting
this
and
thanks
mr
dan
garrison
for
supplying
that
sort
of
articulation
of
how
the
this
won't
impact
the
viability.
N
I
think
council
we've
done
a
very
good
job
of
putting
this
together
and
and
it
does
actually
contemplate
not
impacting
non-below
market
rate
rentals,
which
I
think
is
sort
of
the
critical
distinction
here,
so
it
won't
get
in
the
way
of
co-ops
or
social
housing
or
non-market
housing,
and
it's
it's
a
tool
because
what
we
recognize
and-
and
I
think
it's
interesting
council
d
genova-
had
brought
up
the
issue
of
burnaby.
N
Of
course,
we
know
that
burnaby
has
amassed
a
significant
war
chest
of
cacs
that
they've
allowed
to
reinvest
into
their
communities,
to
support
rental
housing,
that's
below
market
and
to
support
robust
community
centers
pools
parks.
That
kind
of
thing
we
just
went
through
a
knockdown
dragon
mount
budget
process,
and
I
think
we
all
recognize
that
in
particular,
parts
of
our
city,
in
the
west
side,
for
instance,
have
rather
threadbare
facilities
in
their
community,
centers
and
and
this
actually,
the
intent
of
cacs,
of
course,
is
to
support
community
amenities.
N
And
I
think
this
is
entirely
reasonable
as
a
tool
to
support
those
community
amenities.
Where
we're
going
to
be
adding
significant
density,
and
I
think
that
those
new
residents
and
the
existing
residents
will
all
benefit
from
those
contributions
that
will
amortize
out
over
the
life
of
the
rental
building.
And
it
will
work
out
in
the
end,
and
I
think
it
will
support
much
needed
amenities
in
the
city,
because
we
know
that
we
just
don't
have
the
resources
to
support
the
renewal
of
all
these
facilities
that
we
need
to
do
in
a
timely
manner.
N
The
money's
got
to
come
from
somewhere,
and
I
think
this
is
a
really
excellent
solution
to
what's
an
obvious
potential
problem
with
these
rr
rezonings,
and
I
think
it
actually
adds
the
the
kind
of
juice
that
makes
these
rr
rezonings
work.
And
it
does
target
the
the
market
component,
which
of
course
is
what
the
market
will
decide.
So
I
I'm
totally
supportive
and
comfortable
with
this
amendment.
I
thank
councillor
weep
for
putting
in
the
work
to
make
this
work
and
thanks
to
dan
garrison
for
articulating
that
it
does
work
pencil
out
so
support.
E
Thanks
mayor,
I
have
a
couple
questions
for
staff,
because
I
had
a
I
didn't
hear
what
counselor
fry
seems
to
have
heard
that
this
would
pencil
out.
So
I'm
hoping
through
you,
I
can
ask
a
couple
points
of
order
of,
or
points
of,
information
of
questions
to
staff
on
this
and
the
first
one
is
that
I
am
interested
to
hear
if
staff
think
that
this
added
cac
would
result
in
fewer
rental
homes
being
built
in
the
within
under
this
policy.
I
Yeah
dan
garrison
again,
maybe
I'll
I'll
chime
in
I
think
again,
from
what
blair
herb
at
coriolis
consulting
has
told
us
about
this-
is
that
as
long
as
the
amount
is
remains
modest
and
low,
that
it
would
not
significantly
impact
a
decision
of
a
of
an
of
a
developer
as
to
whether
they
would
acquire
a
site
and
move
forward
with
the
project,
and
so
that's,
I
think,
that's
the
right
way
to
think
about
it,
though,
in
that
you
know,
we
look
at
whether
it
would
be
an
issue
whether
it
would
affect
affordability,
but
again,
rents
would
be
set
by
the
market.
I
The
question
is:
would
it
affect
viability?
In
other
words,
would
it
affect
an
applicant's
decision
as
to
whether
or
not
to
move
forward
with
the
project,
and
so
just
to
again
to
clarify
that?
What
we're
hearing
from
blair
is
that,
as
long
as
that
remo
amount
is
fixed,
clear
and
relatively
low,
you
know
we.
He
didn't
think
that
it
would
significantly
affect
most
decisions
in
that
way.
E
Okay,
so
it
may
affect
the
the
end
rate
of
the
rent,
but
it
won't
be
a
deciding
factor
in
terms
of
a
project
being
initiated
or
not.
That.
I
I'm
not
sure
I
would
agree
agree
that
it
would
affect
the
end
rent,
because
if
it
applies
only
to
market
rental
projects,
then
you
know
the
generally
speaking
market
rental
owners
will
will
rent
the
property
at
what
the
market
will
bear
it'll
be
determined
by
the
market
and
not
not
by
the
cost
up
front,
and
so
that's
why?
It's
a
that's.
Why
I
say
it's
a
viability
issue
rather
than
an
affordability
issue,
and
so
it
would
be
more
about
that
upfront
decision
as
to
whether
or
not
to
proceed.
E
Okay-
I
I
I
I
appreciate
that
clarification.
E
I
I'm
intrigued
by
exploring
this
approach,
I
guess
but
nervous
about
it
being
added
at
you
know
whatever
hour
we're
in
of
this
very
long
process
we've
been
through,
that
there
have
been
many
studies,
plenty
of
consultation,
like
I
I'm
nervous
about
what
I
heard
to
be
sort
of
a
number
made
up
based
on
the
lowest
amount
of
cac.
We
charge
in
an
industrial
zone
to
be
pegged
onto
these
projects
without
a
really
clear
sense
of
what
the
impact
is
again.
I
just
think
so.
E
Much
work
has
gone
into
this
that
I
am
nervous
about
throwing
potentially
well
throwing
amendments
that
we
don't
know
the
impact
of
in
at
the
very
last
minute.
I
would
be
interested
in
and
supportive
of
this
being
explored
in
terms
of
an
expansion
of
this
proposal
down
the
road
or
other
proposals
within
the
vancouver
plan.
I
know
staff
are
looking
at
all
of
these
questions.
I
just
remain
very
nervous
about
a
pretty
ad
hoc
amendment
at
the
end
of
a
very
extensive
process,
so
I
will
leave
it
there.
G
Thanks
mayor,
I
have
a
point
of
information
through
you
to
staff
and
and
it's
picking
up
a
little
bit
on
councillor
boyle's
questions
in
council
degenova's,
and
it's
I'm
referring
to
appendix
m
page
one
of
seven
and
the
reference
that
in
some
rs
and
rt
areas,
the
six
story.
Market
rental
option
on
our
trails
generates
the
potential
for
land
value
increases.
G
It
goes
on
to
say
that
this
could
be
mitigated
by
requiring
a
portion
of
all
six
story,
buildings
to
be
permanently
secured
at
below
market
rates,
thus
absorbing
any
increases
in
land
value
and-
and
I
won't
read
the
rest
of
the
paragraph
you
have
in
front
of
you,
but
I
am
curious
for
staff
and
and
others
to
comment
on
the
implications
of
of
adding
this
at
this
time
and
what
that
might
mean
for
the
ability
to
have
a
below
market
rates,
as
well
as
the
fact
that
it
actually
specifies.
G
J
So
I
can
comment
on
the
first
part.
I
believe
the
amendment
that
counselor
weep
has
put
forward,
exempts
this
cac
charge
to
the
below
market
rental
unit,
so
that
would
be
exempt
from
having
to
pay
the
cac.
G
And
then
what
about
the
looking
at
it
from
a
targeted
perspective
so
because
in
the
report
here
specifically
said,
there's
certain
areas
where
you'll
see
that
land
lift
by
others
you
may
not,
and
so
why
not
look
at
it
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
where
you're
seeing
that
as
opposed
to
this?
Basically,
what
I
read
is
this
would
apply
to
all
new
market
rental
projects,
with
the
exception
of,
as
you
pointed
out,
right.
J
So,
just
for
claire
for
clarification,
the
cac
policy
currently
doesn't
exempt
six
story,
rental
projects
in
our
in
rsrt
areas
from
cac
review.
So
these
pro
these
projects
going
through
rezoning,
will
have
to
go
through
a
review
anyway.
Just
to
ensure
that
you
know
there
isn't
any
lift
and
everything
is
the
way
it
should
be,
and
so
that
is
something,
as
we've
indicated
in
the
in
the
council
report
that
we'll
be
looking
at
in
the
in
a
future
update
of
the
cac
policy.
G
G
H
Yeah
thanks
so
much
a
couple
of
clarifying
questions
just
to
be
crystal
clear
on
this,
and
that
is
that,
I
know
it
says:
apply
a
nominal
fixed
rate
to
new
market
rental
projects
in
rsnrt
covered
by
secured
rental
policy.
So
I
just
want
to
be
really
clear
that
the
two
on
these
arterial
on
the
shopping
streets,
the
two
opportunities
to
go
up
to
six
story-
that
requires
inclusion
of
below
market
rental.
H
J
The
the
way
that
the
amendment
is
written
that
this
charge
of
three
dollars
and
one
cent
per
square
foot
would
be,
would
not
be
applied
to
those
six
story
below
market
rental
units
on
arterials
to
the.
H
The
building
as
a
whole,
okay,
so
that's
that's
clear.
I
want
to
okay
and
then
my
second
point
is
because
there's
two
components:
this
is
two
that's
in
here.
Oh,
I
see
it's
now
further.
The
version
I
had
was
just
to
that.
So
I
was
anxiously
and
eagerly
awaiting
the
report
back
on
the
ccs
and
the
dcl's
and
is
was
staff
not
already
doing
that
work
as
part
of
that
review.
H
J
H
J
H
I
Maybe
I
I
will
I'll
jump
in
the
main
thing
that
we're
looking
at
in
specific
detail.
Right
now
is
that
is
through
the
dcl
rate
review
and
the
dcl
waiver
process,
that's
available
for
rental
housing
and
how
the
dcl
waivers
apply
where
they
apply,
and
all
that
this
would
be
looking
at
community
amen,
amenity
contributions
and
flat
rates
related
to
rental
is,
is
I
I,
I
think,
new
scope
that.
H
Okay,
that's
that's
super
helpful,
that's
very
clear
and
put
another.
H
I
It's
a
good
question
right
now
we
from
the
input
we
have
from
coriolis,
we
don't
see
significant
amounts
of
land
lift,
and
so
you
know
that
would
indicate
that
it
wouldn't
be
leaving
money
on
the
table.
I
However,
I
think
you
know
where,
where
I
see
the
rate
of
three
dollars
and
one
cent
square
foot
aligning
with
is
the
current
cac
rate
for
institutional
uses,
which
is
another
use
that
typically
doesn't
generate
land
lift,
and
so
that's
where
I
think
the
logic
is
and
that
and
so,
but
that
is
something
that
I
think
we
could
look
at
through
the
sort
of
the
second
half
of
this.
This
amendment.
H
Last
point
just
for
for
clarity
too
that
and
with
the
context,
we
have
a
huge
gap
in
our
ability
to
deliver
amenities
and
we're
seeing
transition
to
rental,
because
that's
the
housing
that
we
need.
It
doesn't
deliver
right
now
in
terms
of
those
cacs
it's
lower,
but
we're
not
talking
about
a
lot
of
cash
here,
based
on
the
size
of
these
buildings
and
three
dollars
per
square
foot,
it's
better
than
nothing,
but
we're
not
talking
about
a
lot
of
cash
coming
in
to
fund
amenities.
Are
we
ultimately
really
based
on
this
math.
I
A
A
You
so
much
I'll,
let
the
clerks
manipulate
the
cue.
So
this
is
a
tough
one.
For
me,
I
really
understand
where
counselor
weave
is
coming
from
and
counselor
prize
comments.
I
think
they
were
good
ones
about,
because
these
are
not
ocp
areas.
How
do
we
fund
amenities
within
these
parts
when
we
have
extra
density
or
these
neighborhoods?
A
However,
I
am
a
couple
of
things.
Worry
me.
First
of
all,
I
was
just
thinking
about,
say
somebody
that
has
a
single
detached
lot
and
they're
trying
to
decide
what
to
do
with
that
lot.
It
is
going
to
be
complicated
to,
but
you
know
more
complicated
to
build
a
four-story
rental
building
in
the
new
r
zone
and
it's
a
lot
easier
and
a
lot
more
understandable
to
build.
You
know
a
duplex
that
doesn't
have
a
cac
cost
attached.
A
So
in
a
way
this
puts
a
tax
on
new
rental
and
not
attacks
on
the
single
detached
home
or
duplex
option
that
owners
already
have,
and
even
though
it's
a
low
level
and
would
help
perhaps
support
some
amenities
it.
It
is
a
disincentive
and-
and
for
me,
I'm
really
intrigued
by
this
idea.
A
You
know
it's
in
the
making
home
proposal
too
that
I
have,
but
I
would
really
want
to
take
a
look
at
this.
I
am
nervous
when
there's
an
exact
number
of
three
dollars
and
one
cent-
and
this
is
the
first
time
we
really
heard
about
it-
it
may
be
too
low,
it
may
be
too
high,
but
but
so
what
I'd
say?
Is
it's
a
a
qualified
or
definitely
a
support
for
for
staff
to
add
this
in
their
their
current?
A
You
know
exploration
of
this
funding
mechanism,
but
no
to
putting
in
some
right
right
away
a
counselor
we
did
introduce.
This
is
saying,
get
staff
to
look
at,
but,
as
I
read
the
amendment
it's
put
in
place-
and
so
I
can't
vote
to
put
this
in
place
right
now,
but
I
would
definitely
support
a
look
at
this
and
I
think
it
could
be
an
important
contribution
eventually.
So,
thanks
to
councillor
fry
but
I'll
be
councillor,
we
but
I'll
be
voting
against
this.
A
Noah
counselor
harvard
five.
I
Thank
you
yes.
Well,
just
just
to
be
totally
honest.
We
we
haven't
done
analysis
on
on
it,
so
we
don't.
We
don't
really
know
how
far
it
would
go
towards
there's
two
parts
of
the
of
the
answer
to
your
question.
I
think
counselor
herbert
one
of
them
is
an
assessment
of
the
amenity
needs,
and
then
the
other
is
is
how
much
revenue
this
would
generate
towards
that,
and-
and
at
this
point
in
this
process
we
have,
we
haven't
done
either
of
those
two
parts
right.
I
Right,
I
mean
it's
a
it's
a
good
question.
Again,
we
have,
we
haven't
done
math,
but
certainly
when
we
look
at
the
the
amounts
that
you
know
that
our
typical
dcl
revenue
is
our
primary
driver
of
of
covering
the
cost
of
growth.
So
it
wouldn't
it
would.
It
would
certainly
not
be
anywhere
near
the
the
impact
of
of
our
typical
dcl
where,
but
it
you
know,
10
percent.
K
O
Yes,
thanks,
I'm
just
going
to
speak
briefly
in
support
of
this
amendment
and
thank
council
weep
for
putting
it
forward
and
thank
staff
for
providing
him
with
some
input
prior
to
to
the
tabling
of
that
amendment.
You
know
in
all
the
time
I've
been
on
council.
O
I
think
we
have
I've
heard
over
and
over
again
how
our
communities,
our
neighborhoods,
need
more
public
amenities.
We
are
there's
a
shortage
of
them.
There's
high
demand
for
them.
They
contribute
to
quality
of
life
and
livability
in
this
city
and
they
become
ever
more
precious
with
situations
like
the
covet
pandemic.
O
So
how
we
pay
for
them
has
always
been
a.
You
know,
somewhat
of
a
tax
based
solution
and
somewhat
of
growth
pays
for
development
and
growth.
I
always
thought
that
growth
would
pay
for
way
more
development
than
it
has
done.
I
think
it
should
do
more.
I
think
this
is
a
small
amount,
it's
the
same
rate
as
the
institutional
rate,
the
lowest
rate
that
there
is
for
for
cac,
and
so
I
think
I'm
given
that
staff
have
tentatively
said
well,
we
could
explore
this.
O
I
think
we
should
so
thank
you
councilwood
for
putting
it
forward.
A
F
D
So
I've
been
scrolling
out
some
numbers
here,
4700
units
we
think
we
might
get
if
they're
800
square
feet
each
that's
about
3
million
seven
hundred
thousand
times
three
percent,
so
we're
looking
at
about
10
million
all
together
if
the
whole,
if
all
all
of
the
units
get
built
out
like
the
staff
has
predicted
over
the
next.
So
it's
like
10
million
over
10
years
is
that
kind
of
what
you're
looking
at.
D
A
Okay,
counselor.
A
I
don't
think
I'm
sorry
I
just
haven't
got
in
front
of
me.
They
are
not
written
as
two
they're
written
as
a
single
they're
written
as
a
single
clause.
So
no
there's
nothing
to
separate
here.
H
A
Yeah,
we
don't
have
that
here,
that's
so
I
can
I'll
double
check
with
clerks
and
I'll
come
right
back
sure.
A
Okay,
council
you've
had
a
a
chat,
the
clerk's
night.
This
is
a
new
one
because
usually
when
we
sever
either
amendments
or
main
motions
that
they
are
already
separated
out
in
one
way
or
another,
this
one
is
not.
However,
the
two
clauses
do
seem
to
be
distinct,
meaning
that
if
you
look
at
the
word
that
staff
report
back
in
q2
2022
that
part
of
the
amendment
is
not
contingent
on
the
first
part
passing
so
indeed,
we
can
view
them
as
distinct
and
split
it
into
two
votes.
A
So
that's
that's
one
for
the
record
books,
and
so
what
we'll
do
on
the
vote
here
is.
I
will
call
the
vote
on
the
first
clause.
First,
which
is
the
directing
staff
to
apply
a
fixed
rate,
community
amenity
contribution
to
rezoning
applications.
A
Then
the
second
vote
would
be
on
that
staff
report
back
in
q2,
2022
and
we'll
highlight
both
of
those
as
we
go
through
the
voting.
So
I
hope
that
answers
plan.
L
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure,
because
we
are
technically,
although
we
closed
off
the
speakers
list,
we
are
technically
still
sitting
under
public
hearing
procedure
that
further
that
the
further
that
the
second
clause
is
that
only
specifically
on
this
district's
schedule,
or
is
this
the
cac
fixed
rate
all
over
because
rarely
do
we
make
policy,
referrals
and
reports
to
staff
that
are
outside
of
the
purview,
a
public
hearing
in
a
public.
A
A
Asking
a
good
point
of
procedure
so
really
the
our
the
restricted
part
on
the
public
hearing
ends
when
we
close
the
receipt
of
public
comment
and
from
there
on
in
we
can
it
really
is
more
like
a
council
debate
on
whether
or
not
we
make
a
decision
so
because
it
is
a
very
wide
ranging
it
isn't
about
a
distinct
building
or
a
heritage
designation.
It
is
on
a
policy
decision,
so
policy
instructions
are
in
order.
So,
for
example,
the
decision
to
you
know
the
the
question
of
whether
to
refer
back.
A
The
whole
thing
was
in
order
this.
This
is
also
in
order
so
but.
A
A
Okay,
so
we're
to
call
the
first
vote
clerk,
so
I'll
just
get
you
to
highlight.
The
first
vote
is
on
the
first
half
of
this
of
this
proposed
amendment.
A
C
A
F
No,
I
just
want
to
thank
staff
for
the
amount
of
work.
I
mean
it's
a
long
one
right
after
a
budget.
I
know
it's
been
split
forward,
but
there's
some
amazing
structural
work
in
here.
F
I
know
you
can
tell
the
amount
of
time
to
create
policies
that
are
going
to
allow
rental
in
every
neighborhood
across
the
community,
and
I
think
that's
pretty
important
for
us
to
move
forward
as
well
as
some
unique
guidelines
and
opportunities
for
us
to
change
the
way
the
city's
built,
but
in
a
way
that's
reflective
what
the
city
is
asking
for
and
it's
exciting
to
see
some
of
the
city
planned
quick
moves
moving
forward.
So
thank
you
very
much
to
staff
all
the
speakers
that
came
and
everyone
that
sent
us
correspondence.
F
E
Thanks
so
much,
I
had
many
notes,
but
I'm
gonna
keep
it
brief,
because
I
know
we
have
been
debating
this
for
days
and
days
and
folks
are
probably
hungry
for
dinner.
I
want
to
speak
just
briefly
to
a
few
reasons
why
I
think
that
this
policy,
the
whole
of
it,
is
incredibly
important,
and
the
first
is
that
it's
a
it's
an
important
part
of
our
climate
plan.
E
When
our
climate
emergency
plan
first
came
forward,
it
was
pretty
groundbreaking
in
its
recognition
that
land
use
and
housing
are
important
policy
levers
for
addressing
climate
change,
and
I
regularly
hear
from
locally
elected
leaders
across
the
country
who
are
interested
in
what
we
are
actually
tangibly
doing
on
that
front.
This
is
our
first
real
big
move
related
to
big
move,
one
around
complete
communities,
and
I
hope
that
we
support
the
whole
of
it,
not
just
a
half
measure.
E
We
know
that
meeting
our
climate
targets
requires
us
to
follow
through
on
every
piece
of
the
climate
plan,
and
so
the
whole
of
this
report
is
part
of
that.
It's
also
an
important
part
of
complete
communities,
and
we
have
heard
from
small
businesses
the
the
their
support
for
more
renters
in
their
neighborhood.
E
We
have
heard
from
people
time
and
time
again
who
want
to
live
in
walkable
communities
and
building
rental
housing
on
and
off.
Arterial
is
an
important
piece
of
that
and
to
the
com,
comments
and
considerations
about
splitting
this
out.
E
I
just
want
to
reiterate
how
important
it
is
that
we
don't
only
allow
renters
or
don't
focus
the
majority
of
renters
and
secure
rental
housing
on
arterials,
only
there's
a
there's,
a
huge
equity
and
fairness
question
here
in
terms
of
policy
that
has
been
in
place
for
decades
here
and
in
cities
around
the
around
the
globe
around
the
continent,
certainly
that
have
used
rental
housing
as
a
buffer
against
noise
and
pollution
for
the
rest
of
residential
neighborhoods.
It's
absolutely
unfair
to
renters
and
it's
a
policy.
E
I
can't
support
continuing,
and
so
I
hope
that
we
not
only
approve
the
portion
of
this
plan
that
allows
new
rental,
secure
rental
housing
on
arterials,
but
also
off
of
arterials,
because
those
are
residential,
neighborhoods
and
residents
and
renters
are
and
deserve
to
be
residents
within
them
in
in
secure
stable
housing,
not
just
in
basement
suites
and
lastly,
I
just
want
to
say
that
we
were
elected
to
lead.
E
E
This
is
an
early
quick
start
action
out
of
the
city-wide
plan,
and
I
have
a
lot
of
concern
that
if
this
doesn't
pass,
the
rest
of
the
citywide
plan
will
be
in
question
and,
quite
frankly,
I
think
people
will
have
very
valid
questions
about
whether
that
citywide
plan
was
worth
doing
at
all,
considering
how
little
we
have
accomplished
out
of
it.
So
far.
So
I
think
this
whole
report
is
incredibly
important.
Staff
have
done
a
very
thoughtful
job.
E
We
have
done
an
incredible
amount
of
consultation
on
it,
and
I
hope
that
this
evening
we
passed
the
whole
report
and
I
look
forward
to
moving
forward
with
with
more
moves
in
this
direction,
to
build
to
legalize
rental
in
every
neighborhood.
Thanks.
G
Thanks
mayor,
I
circulated
an
email
and
it
was
to
pose
the
question
of
whether
we
could
move
reconsideration
of
our
vote
to
complete
this
item
before
dinner.
Just
noting,
I
have
a
bit
of
a
strained
neck
and
feeling
a
little
exhausted,
and
whether
council
would
indulge
me
in
the
reconsideration
of
that
and
to
break
for
dinner
for
an
hour
second
of.
A
Okay,
I'm
just
gonna
have
to
check
with
staff
here
I'll,
be
right
back
with
you.
Cancer
dominato
thank.
K
A
Hey
council,
I
just
been
checking
chatting
with
clerk,
so
just
to
give
you
to
let
you
know.
What's
on
the
table,
counselor
dominato,
who
abstained
from
the
vote
to
extend
past
5
pm
to
debate
this
matter
is
eligible
to
reconsider
that
vote
or
offer,
or
to
ask
us
to
reconsider
that
vote,
because
an
abstain
is
counted
in
the
positive.
A
So
if
we,
if
that
is,
I
think
it
has
been
seconded
so
by
councillor
dejanova.
So
as
we
move,
this
is
a
debate.
This
is
a
debatable.
A
Motion
if
we
decide
to
rescind
this,
what
we
then
do
is
go
back
to
the
original
motion,
which
is
that
we
move
past
5
p.m.
To
consider
this
until
completed,
we
would
have
to
vote
on
that
again.
However,
that
could
be
amended
to
reflect
a
different
time.
So,
with
that
in
mind,
I
will
ask.
I
don't
see
anybody
on
the
queue
to
debate
this,
so
I'm
gonna
ask
for
a
vote.
I'll
go
verbal
first.
A
If
people
are
okay
with
rescinding
our
previous
decision,
then
to
go
back
and
vote
again
on
whether
or
not
we
should
extend
past
five.
So
I'll
just
ask
our
people
in
favor
of
rescinding
our
previous
decision
say
yay
any
opposed.
A
A
L
A
A
Well,
let's
see
how
we
go,
do
we
have
a
seconder
for
that.
A
Okay
thanks
the
the
motion
to
recess.
Essentially
right
now
is
not
debatable,
so
we
can
just
I'll
take
a
verbal
vote.
All
in
favor
of
recessing
now
say
yay
oppose,
say,
nay,
great,
so
we're
recessed
now
we'll
come
back
at
6
40
to
finish
this
item,
and
next
up
on
the
queue
at
cancer
dominato
is
on
thecube,
followed
by
a
number
of
other
counselors.
So
we'll
see
you
back
in
an
hour.