City council will decide in January whether to continue with the work of planning Porter Creek D in the middle McIntyre Creek area.

Over a two-hour period early Wednesday evening, council and city staff heard a clear message from those packing council chambers that the middle McIntyre Creek area should not be developed for housing.

All of the approximately 20 people who spoke opposed the creation of housing. Several forceful speakers generated enthusiastic applause.

Many wanted to see the greenspace retained, while others wanted the area used as endowment lands for Yukon College.

"Porter Creek D is not necessary,” Karen Baltgailis, the Yukon Conservation Society's executive director, said in an interview this morning.

Society officials have continually pointed to the wildlife corridor, land and recreation value of the Porter Creek D area in arguing against residential development there.

On Wednesday evening, Baltgailis said, she decided to bring forward other reasons not to move ahead, mainly that there's no need for housing there.

Baltgailis drew on Yukon population statistics showing that between 1999 and 2011, the territory's population grew from 31,250 to 35,000. She noted that's an average of about one per cent each year.

The city's Official Community Plan (OCP), she said, contemplates a population growth of about 2.5 per cent or higher.

Even if it's factored in that more people are moving to the capital city than in other parts of the territory, Baltgailis said it's not in the range of 2.5 per cent or more each year.

There are some years of more significant growth, but overall, it's not nearly at the rate city officials are estimating.

Baltgailis then noted that even if a high growth rate is to be assumed, without Porter Creek D, it's estimated the city will see about 7,000 housing units open up over the next 20 years through developments like the Whistle Bend subdivision, infill plans and zoning changes which could see more garden suites and the like built in town.

Estimates for Porter Creek D have contemplated anywhere from 150 to 600 units being built.

"That's still insignificant,” Baltgailis said of what the potential neighbourhood could provide.

City officials have made it clear that planning the neighbourhood and actually going ahead with development are two different decisions.

Baltgailis, however, questioned the point of planning ahead if development is unlikely to happen.

Council, she argued, will feel that much more obligated to pursue the development after spending so much time, money and energy on producing a plan.

As she pointed out, some planning work done in 2005 is now considered out of date

There was a clear message from all those on hand last night that no more money should be spent on planning for housing development.

Many, though, supported the idea of park planning, with much of the McIntyre Creek area identified in the OCP as park area.

Baltgailis also praised city council and the tone set at Wednesday's meeting.

Council won't make a decision on whether to continue with the planning work until next month, and will consider other factors outside of last night's meeting.

Baltgailis said the new council – elected Oct. 18 – was receptive to the speakers, listening to what was said and asking thoughtful questions when they arose.

Coun. John Streicker (as chair of the city's planning committee) did a great job of chairing the session, Baltgailis said.

As well, she was pleased that Coun. Kirk Cameron chose to sit in the audience in the interest of better listening to what was said and creating less of an "us versus them” scenario.

"It was just a whole different feeling,” she said of what she characterized as a respectful dialogue.

City representatives had suggested perusing maps where potential housing could go, after the discussion. But nearly everyone in the room argued against it, saying they didn't even want to consider housing there.

City officials acquiesced to the prevailing view and didn't bring out the maps.

Streicker also told them council had heard loud and clear the citizens didn't want planning to be done for a housing development there.

In an interview this morning, Streicker wouldn't take credit for his chairing manner, but also noted the "respectful” nature of the meeting.

He noted the city told people upfront where they are in the process, trying to make it clear it will be up to council to make a decision on whether to continue planning.

Streicker said he is remaining open on the issue, and will wait until January's vote to decide.

Last night, others spoke on the importance of having the area remain as is for recreational use and wildlife.

There are some spots in the city that should be left green, including the middle McIntyre Creek area, city staff and councillors were told.

As he stated last week, former Yukon College chancellor Rolf Hougen argued the area should be left alone for now so it can be used as college endowment lands in the future as the college expands, potentially to become a university.

While it was argued that would produce roads and development, Hougen suggested the post-secondary school's development would not likely happen so close to the creek.

Many organizations also indicated that should the college use the land in the future, they would expect the same level of consultation from the school that the city would have.

This morning, acting planning manager Mike Ellis said a recommendation will come forward at council's first meeting in the new year on Jan. 7.

It will be based on the input the city received from the 20 people who spoke at the meeting and other information about whether the city should continue, scale back or stop the planning process.

A vote will happen at the following meeting on Jan. 14.

Ellis estimated the city has spent approximately $140,000 on planning the area this time around.

That includes $58,000 worth of city staff time, $2,000 on meetings and advertising as well as $80,000 on consultants.

The $80,000 on consultants includes $59,000 on a wildlife study, $11,000 on an independent facilitator and $10,000 of an approximately $400,000 contract for the planning awarded last December to HB Lanarc (since bought out by Golder Associates).

Ellis, though, noted the city has yet to receive invoices for November, including having Golder Associates coming to town to meet with city council and officials.

He also noted there is a clause in the contract that permits the city to cancel the work with Golder to be paid for the work it has done.

As the developer, the Yukon government has an agreement with the city to provide $500,000 to plan the area.

Under the land development protocol, as was done in Whistle Bend, the city would do the planning work with the territory doing the development itself.

Ellis noted it became clear the new council wanted to revisit the issue, so the meeting was hosted to bring people up to speed and hear what they had to say about it.

He pointed out that with Whistle Bend currently being planned and developed, it has become clear that Porter Creek D isn't likely to be developed right away, even if planning is done.

A summary of the submissions made to council at last night's meeting will likely be posted to the city's web page within the next week.