18 Dec 2023 Council meeting Housing

Park Avenue Concept Plan Project - 933 Park Ave - Phase 2 Engagement Summary

Motion

That Council: 1. direct staff to incorporate option 5 (carrot) into the draft Park Avenue Concept Plan which includes 5 acres for park use (recreation, farm practices and wetland), and no affordable housing; and, 2. direct Staff to return to Council with an updated Park Avenue Concept Plan for consideration of endorsement.

Minutes, page 13

The City’s vote record words it differently

"It was moved and seconded that Council: 1. direct Staff to incorporate land use Option 5 (Carrot) into the draft Park Avenue Concept Plan; and, 2. direct Staff to return to Council with an updated Park Avenue Concept Plan for consideration of endorsement."

Sources

Agenda itemCity agenda

Staff reportPage 1

Purpose

To provide a summary of the 933 Park Ave - Phase 2 engagement process, and seek Council’s direction for a preferred land use option before updating the Park Avenue Concept Plan.

Staff report, page 1

Staff recommendation

That Council: 1) advise Staff which land use option should be incorporated into the draft Park Avenue Concept Plan; and, 2) direct Staff to return to Council with an updated Park Avenue Concept Plan for consideration of endorsement.

Staff report, page 1

DocumentsStaff report about Environment & Natural Resources, Parks & Recreation, Housing (Purpose of Report)

Hilary Eastmure Yes

Councilor Eastmeer. Thank you. And I'm glad councilor Hammonds asked the question about what could potentially be possible within the footprint of the existing farmhouse. And I wonder if a future project could include some kind of shared community amenity space within the footprint of that existing house. That could be something like. A teaching kitchen where you could connect the agricultural work with the preserving of food, the cooking of food, because I think that is something that we really need in the community. And fits really well with the agricultural use of that space. And I really thank the staff for all the work that went into this because I know it was a ton of work. And I am appreciative to the community for the level of engagement and how passionate people were about this project. And having attended the open houses and spoken to a lot of people. About it. I also really appreciate that the conversation. Wasn't from that classic nimby perspective of, like, I don't want housing. In my backyard. It was really from a perspective of. Like this property is so special. And needs to be preserved because of the agricultural value of it, the value of having the green space. In this neighborhood that is being densified. And I think that what we're going to be able to create and build here as a city is a really exciting and beautiful legacy project, and I think the council for having the foresight to buy and preserve this property and to this council for opening up the option of potentially no housing on the site and. As we work on building the community, I know there are going to be lots of other pieces. Of property where we can do density and infill and still preserve the legacy of this property.

Sheryl Armstrong Yes

Thank you, Councilor Armstrong. Thank you. I, too, attended open houses and spoke with people. My vision of homes was always four or five tiny little homes where workers could actually stay and work the land. It was never for a great big thing. And when I gave that pitch to many people, they thought it was okay, but I will be supporting this. Because I think the sites, from what I heard from people, are just far too big for that. Number of people. Down the line. We decide we need to build there, it's still going to be there. For now.

Ian Thorpe No

Councilor Thursday. I thank you, worship, through you. I spent a long time looking at the options on this, and I'm sorry to say, I can't support option five that's on the floor, and I recognize that. I'll be in the minority. I just don't feel it is realistically the best and highest use of that land. And to simply save it as is, because historically it was a five. Acre lot for farming. Doesn't sway me. Not all of the land within the parcel is appropriate for farming there's. A protected wetland, as we all know. I would certainly support. Something along the lines of option two, where there is a smaller footprint for some type of housing. Now it says affordable housing, but. I like Councilor Armstrong's idea of. Small housing units there. I think councilor Manley also referenced some type of housing as acceptable. And I think that's an option that I would like to see developed, not a huge housing site there, but some type of. Small housing units on that land, and it would still, at that point, allow space. For. What I'll call the large garden plots. I don't know that I would call. Them a farm at this point. Space for education, certainly. And recreation. Green space. I just think that a compromise between the things that we are considering. Is more appropriate. And to me, that is option two, which would be my preference, so that's.

Questions and answers

Councillor Erin Hemmens
Yes

asked

Thank you, councilor. Hemmens. Thank you, worship. I'd like to make a motion. And. That's that. Council recommend option number five, carrot. Please. Seconded by Councilor Brown. Speak to it. Thank you. I'll speak to it. And I have a couple of questions for staff as well, maybe. I'll start there. So I attended the open house, where I heard overwhelmingly. Community support for Carrot. When I spoke to people about the fact that the five acre farm currently has housing on it. It has a farmhouse on it that people have lived in for years and years. People think kind of. Sorry. It felt that people were really advocating for absolutely no housing. Did we ever consider an option that kept within. The footprint or the square foot square footage of the current house. And providing that, perhaps having a partnership with some sort of community organization that did back to work. Programs or housing for farmers programs. So that's my first question, and then I have a follow up. Did we consider housing? That stuck completely within the footprint of the current housing that's there. Through your worship

Lisa Brinkman

answeredManager, Community Planning

to council, so I know that consideration. Of. It's an older house on the property. So are you thinking. Of

followed up

have necessarily. No, I feel like the community is perceiving this as farmland versus housing. And what I'm really trying to say is that this is both. And so did we. Look at any option that kept. The area that. Currently has housing on it that the community accepts, that farmers have lived on for years and years. And years. Have we tried to put some housing into that footprint, whether that's going higher or renovating. The current house and offering it to a program like NECL, et cetera, et cetera. Was that ever an option on the table? It's okay if it wasn't. Yeah. I think it wasn't okay. That's fair. My second question. Is. BC housing typically likes to put in a certain number of units when they invest. The other housing options. And maybe that's something I shouldn't ask. But for me, part of my rationale for suggesting this isn't the right place for affordable housing is that I'm not sure BC housing would be interested based on the land and the numbers of units we could put on it. Do you have any comments through your

Lisa Brinkman

answeredManager, Community Planning

worship to council in the early discussions with BC Housing there wasn't interest. In this property. But you're correct that viability is a factor for BC housing, so. They will always double check that. And so, as far as how many units of the project viability is the factor. And that whole process hasn't happened with BC housing, just that

followed up

they were interested. Okay. Thank you. And just general comments. So I tended the open house. I've spoken with. A lot of folks on this, and I think the magic of the five acre farm parcels in Herwood is real. And I'm happy with going with the community's voice on this one. I tend to agree with staff. We probably could put some housing on there and I'd be inclined. To be a bit more creative in terms of the footprint that's already there, but it was just clear for me, hearing from the community. And if I may, I'm sorry, I'm. Seeing a long speakers. List. In those conversations, I did hear a lot of the city trying to put housing on farmland. The city bought this. This was something that we did, wanting to protect this land, so I just want to frame that. For folks. That. We bought the farm, we went out to community and asked for their inputs, and here we are. Tonight, and I don't think there's any space in this for the evil city. Narrative. Thank you. I think we've been granted absolution.

Councillor Paul Manly
Yes

asked

I understand the community engagement. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Manley. Thank you, worship. And thank you to staff for the report. And actually really doing an excellent job. With the community engagement piece. I thought there was really good engagement from the community. And appreciate the community's involvement. This. Area. This piece of land was actually identified as green space in the Herwood neighborhood plan in 2013. So. The neighborhood. People in Nimo have called for green space in this particular. Area in the past. And ten years later. They're requesting the same thing. So I think it's fairly overwhelming that people want to see this kept as open green space. I'm not opposed to. A small footprint. Housing on the property that's related to. Skills training. An amenity space, community kitchen, those kind of things, but. That's something we can talk about farther down the road, I think. In terms of what might be possible. I have a question. I guess I might know the answer already. I know. With East Wellington park. There was an agricultural assessment, but that hasn't happened with this property yet, is that

Speaker answered

correct? Councilor Manley through your worship we did do an agricultural assessment for the twelve hectare parcel. At East Wellington park. It was done because the land is in the agricultural land reserve and this property. Is not so. No, there hasn't been one. There has been biological and biophysical assessment. Completed through mobbery. But not a specific agricultural and soil analysis. We haven't gone under the surface to really see what the substrate is, we just know. There's a

followed up

heritage of some agriculture on portions of the site. Some of that landsman work for an awful long time, and

City staff answered

Maverick did some really good, valuable work for the community on that. So, yeah, I'm prepared to support option five as well. I also will not call it carrot. But

Councillor Paul Manly or Councillor Janice Perrino

asked

Prinu. And the councilor Manley. Thank you, you, worship. A question? Through you to miss Mercer if I could. I'm just interested in some of the historical background around. We purchased this land for affordable. Housing? And where did that money come from and how did that work? If you could just give me a bit of background through your

City staff answered

Worship to council principal. There was a split funding on this. Some of it came from parks and some of it came from other land reserves. So. We did split it up in case some of it unceded to be used if some of the property was going to be used for affordable housing. Then, because if we had used all of parks, we would have had to pay the

Councillor Janice Perrino followed up

parks reserves. Back. So there was a split in the funding. So if this goes through. If this option five goes through, do we have to give some of the money back? So we're fine. I'm struggling, too. I certainly had a vision similar to Councilor Armstrong, and that was. Where my head was always, and I think it's because. Certainly from the election time. The options presented were about some affordable housing or farm housing or instructional housing, that kind of thing. So I'm definitely struggling with this, but