A Response to the City's Misleading Answers to Council

This article is a response to answers the Mayor and Council received from the City of Vancouver’s General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability and the General Manager of Arts, Culture, and Community Services, for questions provided to them up until July 4, 2022, during the Public Hearing for the rezoning application for West 7th/8th.

Read the answers as submitted by City staff

Here are our responses to the inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and omissions provided by the City:

1. What is the amount of floor space dedicated to support services? 

City Answer:

The response provided that there would be an aggregate of approximately 10,000 sq. ft. proposed for support services and programs. They include in this figure offices, the commercial kitchen, communal dining room, laundry rooms, multipurpose rooms, and rooms for private conversation.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

The question that should have been answered is what square footage will be included for clinical services to help the individuals with their well-being when over half of those homeless in the 2020 Homelessness Count reported one or two medical concerns, 60% suffered from addiction and 45% with mental health issues. Also, why did the answer exclude the fact that the facility only provides space for safe injection with no medical services? No clinical services on-site to support addiction and mental health issues, but safe injection.

2. Please clarify: will Council approve the operating agreement – and will that include review of the tenanting agreement? 

City Answer:

The operator agreement is an agreement between BC Housing and the operator; Council does not approve it and is not a party. As the landlord, the non-profit operator would enter into individual agreements directly with residents.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

In other words, Council has no say despite the fact that they are party to the development of the site for this purpose with the contribution of land. If the land was zoned for 12-storey residential, it could be valued upward of $10M.  

3. Experience of Reiderman Temp Modular Housing adjacent to Sir Wilfrid Laurier off Cambie and 57th was that about 25% of tenants were from the area (e.g., sleeping by Langara golf course). Is it expected that tenancy will include housing people already in the neighbourhood? 

City Answer:

Yes, people from the local community would be prioritized into this housing, as is best practice.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

Is this true? Alison Dunnet said in a response to this question on June 28 in Council that they didn’t get as granular in their approach to the location of homeless within Vancouver or specifically for Kitsilano.  Also, a tenant at the MPA Larwill Site, a temporary modular building on the new Vancouver Art Gallery site in Downtown Vancouver, has been informed that they will be the new tenants of Arbutus.

Kitsilano homeless are primarily alcohol afflicted and do not wish to live in a building with active drug use and harm reduction.  This has been shown by studies to reduce the likelihood of accessing alcohol use disorder treatment and can create turmoil in the building as mentioned by a speaker who works with Kits homeless.

How would the homeless in Kitsilano become prioritized? Or will tenants at the MPA Larwill site simply be moved over? We believe Vancouver City Council and the community should know.

4. Can Council require that a community advisory committee (CAC) be included in the housing agreement like with Sir Wilfrid Laurier? 

City Answer:

Council can require that the project has a CAC as part of the Housing Agreement.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

CACs have been shown to not be enforceable or have any ability to affect change confirmed by Marguerite Ford CAC.  Other jurisdictions, such as Nanaimo, Victoria, and Penticton, have established successful metrics like limits on per site unit numbers, and proximity to other developments/schools. Vancouver Council has none of these, thus no ability to define terms of CAC.  Hence their limited success at problematic sites.

There has yet to be a presentation of CAC minutes from a comparable site where problems were presented by the community and accountability ensured all concerns were addressed resulting in a calmed neighbourhood and well-being of tenants.  We have several CAC minutes, which show nothing actionable is done at these CACs in regards to community concerns.

5. Some speakers said building will be low barrier with no supports. Will there be supports? 

City Answer:

Yes, there would be 24/7 staff support on site, who would support tenants to access medical and mental health care, health and wellness services, life skills training, laundry and meals and other services as needed.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

This question/answer is oversimplified and glosses over the more serious issues of unmet primary medical care. Access to offsite services is not good enough. It was stated in the opening session of the Public Hearing by City of Vancouver Celine Mauboules, that the proposed will not be a medical services model building.

6. One speaker said there will be only 2 staff 24-7. True or not?

City Answer:

The staff level for this site has not been determined.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

The comparison was given in the answer using the language “at some other buildings.” However, no other buildings are as large or complex with a mix of such large vulnerable populations. In Finland, the only country in the EU where homelessness is being reduced, the clinical care ratio is 1:3 and includes in-reach/on-site physicians, nurse practitioners, physiotherapists, and counsellors. Here the proposal is 1:65, and no determination of clinical supports.

7. Marguerite Ford Apartments (MFA) were cited a lot. Are there differences between that project and the one being planned? What is record of MPA as an operator? What, typically, are the requirement to keep the area around the building clean? What, typically, are measures to deal with any possible drug dealing around a building?

City Answer:

MFA has notably been a challenging supportive housing building since opening in 2013. There have been a number of lessons learned by BC Housing, the operator and the City on ensuring supportive housing buildings are designed, operated and managed well. Subsequently, these lessons have been applied to over 20 other purpose-built supportive housing sites which are well integrated into the community.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

How have the lessons been applied and been proactive enough to solve their challenges at MFA?  There is still an over 1700% increase in emergency response required in the immediate vicinity in 2022, nearly 9 years later? EY audit of BC Housing cites BC Housing’s measure of success is # of units, not outcomes.  How is this not the case here? This answer is avoiding a proper response and Council should request direct answers to this question.

8. Can we require a flashing pedestrian controlled traffic light at 7th and Arbutus? 

City Answer:

Yes, Council can require a flashing pedestrian controlled traffic light at 7th and Arbutus. Note, social housing developments typically have minimal parking provided on site. This development is no different, and future residents are not anticipated to own cars. As such, the site will generate very few vehicle trips and will have little impact on the existing transportation network.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

This response shows the denial of facts we have seen by BC Housing and the applicant.  Given the scale of the building, and the promise of services being brought it, what about service workers/ support that is claimed to be present. What about families, and visitors of the 129 residents?

Given the learnings claimed to have been from Marguerite Ford, what about the 1700% increase in emergency responders?  This is a great deal of traffic.

This area does get plenty of traffic accidents which will also impact emergency responders. From the ICBC crash report website, the following crash numbers have been documented between 2017 and 2021:

• Arbutus St + West Broadway - 172
• Arbutus St + West 8th - 21
• Arbutus St + West 7th - 9
• Arbutus Greenway + West Broadway - 5

9. Some speakers said the results of At Home/Chez Soi study, as well as literature on the Housing First model, conclude that supportive housing shouldn’t exceed certain concentrations. True? If so, what are the suggested numbers? 

City Answer:

Long worded answer about the $110 million provided to study homelessness in various cities across Canada.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

Again, the answer fails to directly answer the question at hand. BC Housing has site criteria they developed for their “Rapid Response to Homelessness” in 2017 before the BC NDP took office, and that figure was clear and in ink at 40-50 units maximum for success. The Executive Director of Coast Mental Health (CMH) has said the “sweet spot” for supportive housing is 50 units. CMH also only has 10% of their 51 units in Dunbar reserved as Low Barrier units. Dr. Julian Somers has stated no more than 5% of any building should be shelter rate. 84% of those studied preferred scattered site housing.

10. One speaker noted several other BC municipalities have signed agreements with BC Housing for social housing with clear requirements. Can staff provide information verifying the information conveyed:

City Answer:

In Vancouver, there are no Council-adopted land-use policies or restrictions on the locations of housing for very low-income individuals, or those needing supports. In fact, Council’s housing policies support delivering social and supportive housing throughout the City in any area zoned for residential uses.

(a) That Victoria Council required that tenants of a project have no history of violence.

City Answer:

Staff have verified that in 2017 Victoria Council included a number of limitations to tenant eligibility for the site at 1002 Vancouver Street, known as Mount Edwards and operated by the Cool Aid Society, through a covenant registered on title as a Housing Agreement. The narrow tenant eligibility requirements challenged BC Housing to best serve the homeless population of Victoria.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

This last line presents a bias. This site was held up recently as a success story for housing. Also, this site is significantly smaller. See:

https://www.capitaldaily.ca/news/supportive-housing-mount-edwards-victoria.

It would behoove Vancouver City Council to not require BC’s recently audited and fledgling agency for social housing to have registered covenants and adopt a set of guidelines for school zones. Currently, there are no successes in supportive housing proposals just 18m from a school anywhere in BC that also houses those with addiction (60%) and mental health issues (45%) but provides no clinical support in reach.

11. Several speakers raised the issue of no setbacks of the building. How rare is this and what could be problems generated by no setback?

City Answer:

Condition 1.3(c) in Appendix B requires additional building setbacks on both 7th and 8th Avenues to provide enhanced landscape and an improved pedestrian experience. On Arbutus Street, site constraints, including a narrow site width at the south, have resulted in a narrow setback. Condition 2.4(c) requires the applicant to build a wider sidewalk along Arbutus Street to a minimum of 10ft., which is consistent with high density areas around the City, which is anticipated by the Broadway Plan at this location next to the transit station.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

The city does not seem to appreciate or care about the narrowness of the streets and that there is a cross-street barrier at West 7th and Arbutus due to the bike lane as well as three school crosswalks and street parking for the pick-up and drop-off of over 500 children ages 2-14. How will an additional 10 feet on Arbutus, will cause Arbutus to be narrower.  This will have a significant impact on traffic.  No consideration of this has been done clearly.

12. Several speakers spoke to potential traffic issues being exacerbated by this project on this narrow 2-lane street with the nearby transit station, forthcoming bus loop, school children’s crossings, emergency vehicles and cyclists. How can these potential problems be mitigated?

City Answer:

Please see Q&A #8.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

We respectfully suggest that Q&A 8 does not answer to all of the above concerns and would expect Council to not accept that either.

13. Will the tenants all be from the Downtown Eastside, as one speaker said?

City Answer:

Priority will be for people in the local neighbourhood around the project site experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Homelessness is a city-wide issue and people experiencing homelessness are in every neighbourhood.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

This answer is not complete. See Q&A #3.

14. One speaker stated that another Vancouver social housing facility (78 unit building across from a school) required no current substance/drug use, and no known history of violence, determined through a “vulnerability assessment tool” used by the operator. Will this tool be used for this project? Can Council request or require similar screens? Please confirm whether a decision has been made that residents will be able to consume alcohol and drugs on site.

City Answer:

The Reiderman Residence did not require abstinence from current substance or drugs use, nor did it require no-history of violence of their tenants. The tenanting process would include the Vulnerability Assessment Tool (VAT), and referrals would be made through the BC Housing Coordinated Access and Assessment table, as is standard practice. VATs are tools to better understand a person’s needs to ensure they can be well supported in their housing. This project will be based on a harm reduction approach, which is supported and encouraged by Vancouver Coastal Health. There would be a private space within the building for residents to ensure safe use in the presence of staff; this room would only be for residents and no outside guests. Similar to any other housing in Vancouver, residents are able to make personal choices regarding their use of alcohol or drugs in their homes.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

For clarification, this question seemed to confuse the property with the 78-unit Mt Edwards site in Victoria with the Reiderman Residences. The primary difference between the site in Victoria and Reiderman in Vancouver is that the established practices for the site at Mt Edwards were built in consultation with the community and are not done so in Vancouver.  Please see question 10a above.

15. Can Vancouver City Council make requirements on tenanting as Victoria City Council did for a supportive housing project adjacent to a school there (as asked by one speaker)? 

City Answer:

Please see Q&A #10.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

This question is very important and should be expanded upon. The site in Victoria is successful, it is rightly sized with a balanced population of affordable housing and supportive housing and its tenancy agreement ensures those living within the building to the best knowledge of all parties, present a danger to themselves or to the children in the immediate vicinity and the diversity in the building provides an opportunity for integration with the community including the school community.  This building is considerably smaller also. https://www.capitaldaily.ca/news/supportive-housing-mount-edwards-victoria

16. How will the condition of approval 1.2 (a) to revise the tower massing to reduce shadow impact on surrounding properties by reducing the floorplate to a maximum of c. 6,800 sq. ft. positively impact both the school playgrounds as well as Delamont Park?

City Answer:

As outlined in the Referral Report, the proposed tower does not cast any shadows on Delamont Park between 10 am and 4 pm between the equinoxes. Further, condition 1.2 (a) in Appendix B of the Referral Report seeks to create a more slender tower and reduce shadowing on the independent school ground. This makes the tower form more inline with the expectations of the Broadway Plan and residential towers across the city. A comparative image depicting the improvement in shadow performance can be found on page 5 of Appendix C in the referral report.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

The sun’s rays have tangible benefits for physical well-being. Sun exposure is essential for bone, heart, lung, dental, immune, nerve, and muscular health, as well as for optimal mental health. Ironic a building intended to support the mental health of others would at the same stroke cancel out the benefit for children playing on the school ground, in the preschool and at the toddler park for a good portion of the year. See: https://www.verywellmind.com/the-mental-health-benefits-of-sunlight-5089214

As has been confirmed independently, the shadow studies provided by the city are misleading and inaccurate of the situation aside from very specific cherry-picked times by the city

18. On Thursday, the Province released the [Ernst & Young] review of BC Housing and a key finding was that BC Housing lacks selection criteria for housing operators (no competitive process), specifically the supportive housing stream and decisions have been undocumented. In light of resident questions on the subject of the housing operations, would it be possible to get the following info:

(a) What was the process for soliciting and selecting an operator for Arbutus? 

City Answer:

BC Housing executed a competitive RFP process to select an operator, MPA Society, in December 2020 and will enter into a formal contract with MPA Society subject to approval of the rezoning application.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

An FOI request was opened on this requesting the RFP and all providers' responses.  Only 1 single document came back which was MPA’s proposal.  Upon questioning, it was advised this was all the documentation available.  This would imply there was no RFP document and only 1 respondent.  MPA

(b) What are the legal implications of the EY findings for the current public hearing, in particular the finding around a lack of rigour and selection/evaluation criteria for supportive housing operators?

City Answer:

Staff can confirm that there are no legal implications generated by that study for this public hearing.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

This could be tested in court, as the aspects to the EY findings align directly with the documented experience for this rezoning.  Since this has been pointed out to City, there cannot be a denial this was not known, should there be any issues with the site.

There would be moral implications and duty of care obligations in circumventing or shelving the EY findings for the purposes of passing the rezoning. Former BC Housing Minister, David Eby, admitted supportive sites are over target and housing for women and women-led families in transition homes has been undersupplied, just 10% of BC’s target.

REGULATORY TOOLS REGARDING BUILDING MANAGEMENT, OPERATIONS AND TENANTING

Staff have been asked to advise Council of the various regulatory tools available to them to influence building management, operations and tenanting. Council has authority to do so through Housing Agreements, lease terms with BC Housing, and the Director of Planning can require conditions for the Development Permit (DP).

City Answer:

An Operator Agreement is entered into between BC Housing and the selected housing operator (MPA), and an Operations Management Plan (OMP) is provided by the housing operator (MPA).

The City is not however a party to the Operator Agreement and the OMP is provided to the City, but it is not a contract.

Housing Agreements (s.565.2(1) of the Vancouver Charter) A Housing Agreement (Part 2 of Appendix B of the report) sets out conditions for the use of the land and is registered at the Land Title Office (LTO). It secures minimum affordability levels and covenants to prohibit the stratification and/or separate sale of individual units, or rental for a term of less than one month at a time.

It is within Council’s authority to secure operational requirements in the Housing Agreement, but this is not the usual practice.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

Again, this response is completely biased. Why imply it is not usual practice.  This proposal is unprecedented. The question was about Council’s authority.  The answer is simply, “Yes, Council has authority to do this”.  It feels as though the applicant team wishes to undermine the authority of the Council in this.

Housing Agreements are entered into pursuant to a Council by-law and any change to the conditions of the Housing Agreement would require a subsequent Council by-law enactment, legal administration and LTO registration.

City Answer:

Staff do not recommend including additional types of conditions in the Housing Agreement, in order to enable the operator to be responsive and agile.

Kitsilano Coalition Answer:

Staff seem to overstep in their provision of guidance by often saying things such as “do not recommend” or “this is not usual practice.” In order to bring positive change to a system of housing that has not been demonstrative of success, we respectfully say that Council should only be shown what they have the right to do, not “whether to do it.”