8 Jul 2024 Council meeting Housing

Lease Disposition to BC Housing - Portion of 1030 Old Victoria Road

Motion

That Council approve, subject to BC Housing agreeing to a good neighbour agreement and the establishment of a Community Advisory Committee, the disposition of a 3-year lease, with the option for two 2- year renewals, for a portion of City -owned land located at 1030 Old Victoria Road to the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation.

Minutes, page 7

Sources

Agenda itemCity agenda

Staff reportPage 1

Purpose

To seek Council approval to issue a 3-year lease, with the option for two 2-year renewals, to the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation for a portion of City-owned land located at 1030 Old Victoria Road to facilitate BC Housing’s construction and operation of a Navigation Centre.

Staff report, page 1

Staff recommendation

That Council approve the disposition of a 3-year lease, with the option for two 2-year renewals, for a portion of City-owned land located at 1030 Old Victoria Road to the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation.

Staff report, page 1

DocumentsStaff report about Community Health & Wellbeing, Housing, Land Use & Urban Form

Sheryl Armstrong No

Thank you. I'll be opposing for the following reasons. One is, and I've been opposing them recently, is we're not getting places for people that are in recovery, that are on our streets, that are making the choice to get healthy and clean, and they're living on our streets because they don't qualify for these. We need to have a phase two housing model so that people that are in recovery have a place to live. Second point is we're doing nothing for the homeless people that are there strictly because of financial reasons. They're not getting any supports. Our supports are all going to those with addictions and mental health. That's an issue for me. I think that we're missing out what I would call phased housing. When people are doing really well in the first phase, they should be moved to a second phase where they don't need as many supports and resources, which would save a lot of money. That's one of my issues. My third issue for this area is Claytree is there, which has got some of the most vulnerable society members there on a regular basis. There's concerns been raised by that group about the area. And I also think there's far too many people in the area, and too many people, and the numbers are too high. I disagree with what Councillor Gelderbrook said is having been actively involved in the low barrier housing back in 2010 when we put them in in the north end and in the south end when the numbers were at 32. It was far more successful than having 50 and 75 people in one area that have very high needs. So for these reasons, I'll be opposing this. Thank you.

Erin Hemmens Yes

I'm a South Ender. I can see 702 Nickel from my house. I think it's a real misstep that they're not implementing a community advisory committee right out of the gate. I think they're going to be burned on that. And I think that's a message that we can carry to BC Housing, that engagement and proper community input and touch points are going to be crucial in the success of this project. To Ms. Cardinelli's points, I agree with all of them. There is increased density in the South End. There's no, like the numbers say that and there's a number of reasons for that that I can't really get into but they're valid. It's not ideal. I'm sorry Ms. Cardinelli, this is my turn to talk. Thank you. I have heard from BC Housing.

Hilary Eastmure Yes

unfortunately it's making it really difficult to understand what we're agreeing to tonight and the I think that reflects my entire experience with this heart and hearth discussion. It's like an acronym and the meaning keeps changing and my understanding is like the navigation center was announced a long time ago so that's why we have maintained using the name navigation center because there's been money set aside by the province for that but my understanding was it really was just another hearth site which is the small pod housing that's temporary for people who've been triaged through the shelter system who have a place to call home until they're ready to transition into somewhere better with the wraparound supports that they need and if that is truly the intent of what this site is going to be I'm happy to support that but I am actually suddenly lacking the confidence to know that that is what

Ian Thorpe Yes

I'll chime in briefly. I expressed some of my concerns earlier and I continue to have those concerns. That said, I believe that I will support the recommendation and the motion that's on the floor. I think it's something that we have to do. I agree with much of what has been said at the table, including much of what Councillor Manley said, but I do disagree with two points that he made. One was the decision by a former council to turn down the BC Housing proposal in Chase River, and I was on that council. and we had fulsome debate over that and the council was prepared to support that project until, excuse me, BC Housing basically changed the rules at the last minute as far as who the clients would be. And that caused council to back away from the project. It caused the province to look unfavorably upon us, I'm sure. It also caused distrust, I think I can say, at the council table of dealing with BC Housing. point out that there was different staff people involved at that time. So the other thing that I would suggest was erroneous and maybe I misheard Councillor Manley was your suggestion that our infamous tent city came about because of the city not going ahead with that Chase River project which I totally reject that argument. So all of that is beside the point. I will support the recommendation that's on the floor despite my misgivings and look forward to the vote.

Questions and answers

Councillor Erin Hemmens
Yes

asked

This question is for staff and it's related to the population that we expect to see at the NAV Centre. I understood from our conversations with BC Housing that the navigational centre would be run like the hearth settings, which means that folks who are using that service are being triaged through the shelter system and not vetted but they have some touch with the shelter service they have some touch with outreach service they're not coming directly off the street so I'd like that confirmed like secondly like it confirms that it's not a one night and leave I understood that this was a home

Dale Lindsay

answeredChief Administrative Officer

For 60 people, thank you. Through your worship, so certainly on that second part, first you're absolutely correct: the intent is that unlike shelters where people come and go overnight, this is supposed to be both the hearth and then house center where these rooms are permanently assigned to people. And then unlike a shelter where you leave in the morning you're not sure whether you have that bed when you get back at night, these are assigned to people. The units themselves we're getting a bit outside with the city's involvement but the units themselves would be managed to the BC Housings program and as with all of their housing units they'll be people will be assessed and appropriately

followed up

proper housing facilities to support their needs thank you so just for real clarity there this is not a come and leave the next morning and potentially a new 60 folks can come into the neighborhood and get shelter there this is the same 60 people every night thank you thank you

Councillor Janice Perrino
Yes

asked

Your Worship and thank you to Councillor Hemans for her questions. They were some of my own. Councillor Armstrong brought this up. My understanding was that everyone who will be going to this facility, should it be built, is not only vetted but they want to be there. So they're not being pushed to be there, they're not being pulled off the street to be there. These are people who want to be there and so they're really taking that move to improve their life and improve their health is that is that correct to your

Dale Lindsay

answeredChief Administrative Officer

Understanding to our CEO. Sorry, I should have addressed it. No, yeah, I think that's a that's a good summary at the end of the day: it's it's an optional facility like any housing development and they'd have people willing to attend the

followed up

property correct okay because when we talk about the hardest to home sometimes we're talking I think some of us certainly certainly in my mind that means people who don't want to have a home and maybe don't want to to get well but that is not necessarily the case these are people who want to be there

followed up

I think that that's a very good summary of what the proposed project is and and our understanding with with this BC housing was that there would be wraparound for the residents who are there so that everyone will have systems in place to receive help get help and will we will we be able to intervene with police

Dale Lindsay

answeredChief Administrative Officer

Services should that be a need certainly the BC housing is committed that both the navigation centers and all of these facilities are staffed 24 7 and that's navigation center especially has wraparound services that are corresponding with the needs of the of the residents here thank you thank you

Councillor Sheryl Armstrong
No

asked

clarification because Ms. Steele said that it was the original navigation center concept so which one is is it a heart-to-heart or is it a navigation

Dale Lindsay

answeredChief Administrative Officer

center the your worship the original announcement navigation center as you know came out a number of years ago the more recent announcement around the of hearth housing, the funding was just earlier this year. So it didn't exist at the time of the Navigation Centre. I think when we had these discussions with BC Housing, they indicated that the models, the funding streams were different, but the models of how the housing operate in terms of the hearth and the Navigation Centre were very similar.

followed up

But similar, but they didn't clarify, because why are they calling it a Navigation Centre then if it's supposed to be a heart-to-hearth?

Dale Lindsay

answeredChief Administrative Officer

I believe, again, that's probably a better question for BC Housing,

followed up

all the funding streams that they're coming from yeah i'm sorry but i struggle with this and won't

Councillor Paul Manly
Yes

asked

Thank you, Your Worship. Just a quick question to staff. The BC Housing has committed to doing community consultation on these projects.

Dale Lindsay

answeredChief Administrative Officer

Sorry, I should have—Councillor Thorpe asked that question. I should have answered it. So they do a model called Community Advisory Committees now for many of the projects, which are led by BC Housing so that what it is is generally it's often surrounding neighbours and service agencies and individuals who have an interest in the property management who get together on a regular basis, discuss issues and come up with solutions. So they've had successful community advisory committees on many projects. BC Housing has indicated that moving forward their intent is not to themselves, not to lead community advisory committees. we're still hopeful that the actual operators who take over this or any other facility would even if it's under a different name have some similar process so that ongoing issues and concerns can be vetted through the community and will the operators have a good neighbor agreement in place this the good neighbor agreement with the city would not generally be signed by the operator the terms of the program would be with BC Housing.

followed up

Okay. Yeah, it's my understanding that they're going to be doing some kind of public consultation before the actual construction of the facility. And my understanding as well, like, clearly that they've gone from calling in a navigation centre, but to a heart and hearth this would be a hearth site. And the wraparound services would be with social workers people with mental health and addiction training and you know five staff overnight clearly for the health and safety of workers and for people that are staying in these facilities and that they're going to have pretty much everything that they need within the facility including including laundry, showers, food, and storage for their belongings. And I would expect that they will have, as part of that, some kind of agreements around who can visit these places, because they aren't considered residents, is my understanding. so it's not going to be a spot for drug dealers to be dropping in on. But there will be limit on who's able to show up as guests at these sites.

Dale Lindsay

answeredChief Administrative Officer

To Your Worship on that point, I can say that they've committed that the buildings themselves are staffed but also the entrances are staffed and associated at the front entrance in order to do what you're suggesting it's going to monitor the coming and going of the people attending the building.

Councillor Tyler Brown
Yes

asked

Thanks, Your Worship. A question through you to Mr. Lindsay. Just with the respect to, you know, I do always find it funny that it's called engagement by BC Housing, but it sort of happens after the fact. But just on the point there that it was raised by some other councillors around the CAC, is it possible to make the lease contingent upon, the lease approval contingent upon that.

Dale Lindsay

answeredChief Administrative Officer

I think if that was an important condition to Council of having a lease agreement, yes, I think Council could do that. On the engagement, you're right, there was an earlier question around engagement, and PC Housing has committed to having outside of the CACs before the project gets started additional engagement this summer heading into the fall. But yes, I think it could be.

followed up

Thanks, Mr. Lindsay. Your Worship, if it would be appropriate, I would simply like to add in a minor amendment to this clause that Council approve, and this would be the amendment, subject to BC Housing, agreeing to a good neighbour agreement and the establishment of a CAC, the disposition, and so on.

followed up

Second.

Councillor Hilary Eastmure
Yes

asked

councillor eastmere thank you I've got a question through to staff to mr. Lindsay if I might just because I feel like there was some incorrect information shared earlier in response to a question about what the nature of the site will be and I think as councillor Hammonds mentioned we have had a lot of discussion about BC housing with it and I felt like we had an understanding what was said earlier didn't square with that can you confirm what you know from your

Dale Lindsay

answeredChief Administrative Officer

end thank you yeah and it's as we were saying earlier it's it's not it's not a shelter in the terms that people turn over every night it's a it's a system where as I mentioned people are triaged they're sent by referral to the facility the idea is that the facility has wraparound services that's reflective of the need that they need to be successfully stabilized. In terms of the question of the hardest to house, I want to be clear, this is not secure and voluntary care, if that's what the question is, and the Mayor's been, and Council's been advocating for the need for that across the province. That's not what this is. It's completely voluntary that people are there and they're under their own will. They will have agreements and rules that they have to comply with, but I would not describe these as the hardest to house. We do know that there's various facilities where people go into and they're not successful and they end up back on the streets. But the intent is to have services and supports that are reflective of the needs of the people that are sent there and assigned there and are showing up there voluntarily. Thank you.

followed up

Yeah, I really appreciate that clarification so that we have a better understanding and so that the community has a better understanding. And I think the one thing that we heard in a lot of the emails sent was like, where's the consultation? And there's unfortunately on our end, there's legal obligations where we literally are not allowed to talk about these things until BC Housing announces it. and they choose the timing of the announcement and what goes in it, and we definitely don't have any say over that. It's kind of just, it is what it is, and it's really unfortunate the way that I think this particularly came about, because as was alluded to by other councillors, we're working on sites in other areas, and how it comes across the community is as a concentration of services in your neighbourhood. and there's no argument that that's how it feels. It's perceived like that because that's the way that the message has been put out and that's I think really frustrating for me as a councillor personally to see because I know the amount of work we're putting into trying to disperse these services to other areas but then it kind of comes down to all the funding boat is here or the trains here and if you miss it then you're hooped and we know the degree of need in Nanaimo so like how can you say no to to those supports and services for people who desperately need it but the way that it gets communicated to the community by the time you find out about it you feel like it's too late and that's like from council's side that's a legal obligation where we literally cannot talk about it. So that said, I'm going to support this and I will support every other supportive housing project that comes forward, given if it has the right amount of services and supports to truly make it a success. And all I can do is have faith that it's going to work out if we stay on it as a council and if we're adamant about what we need and we add items to the lease agreements like needing a community advocacy and advisory group. I think that is going to be crucial on this. So glad to support and sorry that the way that has come across and we're all committed to making it work. Thank you.