Public Hearing — July 9, 2024 — Transcript
← Public Hearing July 9, 2024
Okay, so welcome everybody. I will now call the public hearing of Tuesday, July 9th, 2024 to order. This meeting is being convened in person and by electronic means, and as such, council members may participate in person or by electronic means. Members of the public can view the proceedings via the live stream and YouTube link, which will be posted on X at Vancity Clerk. We acknowledge that we are on the unceded traditional territories of the Musqueamamamam, Squamish, and TTTTsleil-Waututh people. We thank them for having cared for this land and look forward to working with them in partnership as we continue to build this great city together. In case of an emergency where we need to evacuate the building, I would like to direct your attention to the exits. There are two exits beyond the glass doors and to the left. And if these exits... obstructed please direct your attention to the four exits in this chamber please use the stairs do not use the elevator if you require accessibility assistance please remain at your location and wait for security staff to guide you to a safe location I would like to highlight that there is a defibrillator located at the end of the hallway outside of the council chamber. I also want to take a moment to recognize the immense contributions of the City of Vancouver's team members who work hard every day to help make our city an incredible place to live, work, and play. Clerks, may we have the roll call, please?
Acting Mayor Bly in the chair. Mayor Sim is on a leave of absence all days for personal reasons. Councillor Carr. Hi, Councillor Kirby-Young. I see Councillor Kirby-Young online. Councillor Dominato. Present. Hi, Councillor Boyle is on a leave of absence for personal reasons all day. Councillor Frye. Present. Councillor Montague. Present. Councillor Klassen is on a leave of absence for civic business from 6 to 8 p.m. and then personal business from 8 to 10 p.m. Councillor Meisner. Present. Councillor Zhouel. Present. You have quorum. Acting Mayor Bly.
Thank you very much. So before we begin, I have some announcements. The public may participate by speaking in person, by phone, or by submitting written comments to Mayor and Council. Speakers will have five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered. Speakers should also state whether they are in support or opposed to the recommendations and if they are a resident of Vancouver. Those speaking on behalf of four or more persons or groups, including the speaker, will have eight minutes to speak and only if those represented confirm by introducing themselves on the line or in person. Those who are represented by another speaker must not be individual speakers themselves. Speakers may only speak once and should follow along on X at Van City Clerk for updates on the progress of the meeting so they don't miss their turn to speak. Any comments on agenda items can be submitted in writing through our online Marin Council public hearing feedback web form. This link will also be posted on X. I also want to note the City of Vancouver's longstanding commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion, including utmost respect for all genders. I remind Council that when addressing speakers and staff, we will avoid using gendered honorifics and will instead refer to the person by last name. Sorry, by first and last name, role, or title. A reminder that council's role at a public hearing is to be a quasi-judicial body, which means council is to only consider the merits of the rezoning application or heritage designation. Council members may ask clarifying questions from speakers, including the applicant, or technical advice from staff, but should save debate for after the close of the speakers list. After hearing from speakers, council may approve... may do three things. One, approve the application in principle. Two, refuse the application. Or three, refer the application to staff for further consideration. And finally, if council does not conclude hearing from all speakers this evening, we will recess and reconvene the meeting on July 16th at 3 p.m. So we will move to our first item of business today, which is CD1 rezoning 4906-4958 Main Street. Before we start, I'd just like to ask, does any member wish to declare a conflict of interest on item one? Seeing none, the clerk will now read the application and summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by Vorden Development Corporation to rezone 4906 to 4958 Main Street from RT-2 Duplex Residential District to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District to permit the development of a six-story mixed-use building with commercial space on the ground floor and 72 residential rental units. A floor space ratio of 3.27 and a height of 22 meters, or 72 feet, are proposed. The General Manager of Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability recommends approval, subject to conditions set out in the summary and recommendation. The following correspondence has been received since referral to the public hearing. two pieces of correspondence in support, four pieces of correspondence in opposition, and one piece of correspondence dealing with other aspects of the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today.
Thank you very much. So this is the first call for speakers. Any speakers for this item who wish to speak? To counsel, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by a participant code 106-1445-POUND before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and made available on the live stream. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be added to the end of the registered speakers list. We have staff from Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability here to present the application. I just noticed that we do have one councillor on the queue. So, Councillor Montague, I will advance you.
Thanks. Thanks, Jerry. I do notice that we do have two speakers, but I would still like to move a motion to waive the presentation by staff.
Okay, there's a motion to waive the presentation. And all those in favor? And I'll just ask clerks to check online for me. Any opposed?
Seeing none, we'll waive the presentation. Thank you to staff for being prepared. So are there, would the applicant team like to? Nope. Chair, it's Councillor Kirby-Young. Can I have a point of privilege? Okay. Sorry, Councillor Kirby-Young. Go ahead.
I know this sounds funny, but my pass does not work and I'm not able to get into City Hall for some reason.
That is troubling. Okay. We will be sure to send security to let you in. Thank you.
Okay, that is a first. We will, so where was I? Okay, so now would the applicant team like to offer any comments to council regarding the application?
Thank you, Mayor and members of council. My name is Wing Leung. I'm the architect making the application on behalf of our client for the item that is before you this evening. I'm just here to answer any questions that council may have.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much for being here in person. And Council, are there any questions to staff or the applicant team? Noting this is the only opportunity for Council to ask questions of the applicant.
Councillor Carr. To Council. Oh, sorry. I'll just ask you to have a seat. We've heard, unless you have, yes, that was your moment to sort of provide any opening remarks.
Is that clear?
Okay, I'm going to open it up to questions. Go ahead, Councillor Kerr. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I noticed that in the report it stated that there were no trees of a size that required retention or replacement on the property, but we are aiming to increase the tree canopy of the city, so perhaps either the applicant or... staff could explain what we do under circumstance like that in terms of potentially requiring trees be planted. The tree removal accommodates for the building envelope as well, so there was no opportunity to retain the trees. The planting plan will be finalized at development permit. Right now, the proposal, for example, there will be changes. Trees were planted on 33rd Avenue, but engineering will not allow that because of a future transit station. transit stops so these are provisional plans but because of the building envelope any on-site trees were not okay so no trees on the boulevard there aren't any sized trees that need to be retained or replaced and there is no plan for any more on the property because of the envelope size of the building There are trees on the boulevard on Main Street. On Main, right. That's correct. I don't have the details of the planting. Not on 33rd. Not on 33rd. Okay. The trees on Main, they'll stay? They're staying, yes. Okay. Great, thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Carr.
Okay, seeing no other questions on the queue at this time, this is the second call for speakers. If there are any speakers for this item who wish to speak to council, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445, pound. Before the close of the speaker's list, the phone number will be posted on X. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the podium before the close of the speakers list. And speakers have five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered. So we will now hear from the public. We do have two registered speakers. And I'm going to call speaker number one, Ingrid Steenhuysen.
Speaker number one is not on the line.
Okay. Thank you very much.
As speaker number two, Robin Tevender.
I think one of the beautiful parts of the English language is you can't really pronounce things wrong, but we usually say Tavender. But any way you want to say it is fine. Thank you, Robin. So I don't like this scale of development. I've come to these sort of public hearings many times to talk about how I feel this sort of... scale of development endangers the quality of life of the people who live in the city and really represents a dramatic change in the architecture that has been used in Canada for most of its history until fairly recently and of course Things do change, but it's difficult for me to accept, and I understand architecture is in some sense aesthetic. You know, people have their own views as to what good architecture is, and there's in some sense no accounting for taste. But looking over the proposed design, we have a circa 1927 wooden strip. It's probably wood. I haven't looked at it, but I'm pretty sure it would be wood. That'll have really good timber in it. The quality of timber that simply can't be bought anymore, according to many of my friends in the construction industry, the quality of wood isn't what it once was in BC. So you have that. I really don't see a persuasive case for demolishing that building. Rather, it should be preserved and maintained as part of the architectural heritage of the city. And then you have, I think it's four detached row houses from, I believe, 1955, 1999, 2006, and... I can't remember the other year. But other than the 1955 house, which I think you could make a persuasive argument that it's perhaps lived its life and could be maybe updated with a new home, the three homes that were constructed within the last 30 years, I really, really strongly... DONA EXPRESS MY DISSATISFACTION WITH THE FACT THAT YOU WOULD TAKE PURPOSE PERFECTLY SERVICEABLE HOMES AND ALLOW THEM TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WITH THIS SORT OF BUILDING AND WHAT'S GOING TO BE LOST I BELIEVE COUNSELOR CARR MENTIONED A TREE CANOPY WHICH IS OF COURSE IMPORTANT BUT THE GARDEN SPACE IN FRONT OF THESE DETACHED HOMES DUE TO THE SETBACK WILL BE LOST And some people plant a garden, some people don't. I have many neighbors in East Vancouver who have lush, almost jungle-like areas in their front yard because of that wonderful setback that municipal zoning has wisely required. Because maybe some people just put grass on it and mow it, but some people, I have one neighbor who grows enough raspberries for herself and her family every summer. So where are the people going to grow their raspberries? Where are they going to do that if you adopt this sort of development structure?
And the... Problem is that once you do this, that green space will be effectively lost forever. Barring some sort of cataclysmic economic collapse, these setbacks are not coming back. And the whole point, as I understand it... to civic zoning and municipal law of this sort is that by the late 19th and early 20th century, it was possible to build structures that were really, really inhumane. And Vancouver, in some sense, being such a young city, was quite fortunate to have people who were very wise to constitute a system of zoning that preserved green space that by the time zoning came to Vancouver had already been lost in many cities. And of course, this is a matter of taste. I know people who live in Manhattan. They love living in Manhattan. They love it, and they wouldn't want to live anywhere else. They say Vancouver is small and provincial. It's not even a real city. Some people I know who live in Manhattan have told me that. But I don't agree. And I think that, just briefly, this degree of density will burden an already burdened health care system. It will burden the recreational infrastructure. As I said in the written comment I submitted, I took a bike ride down by Sunset Beach the other day. And this isn't even the height of summer. And there were two lineups for the washrooms about 10 people deep. So the infrastructure health-wise, recreation-wise, is not keeping up, and it can't. I walked up Kanaka Creek with my dad, who taught me our people's traditional customs as much as he could there. Today, it's an overburdened metro park where if you try and walk up the creek, you get yelled at by the metro staff that it's unsafe. So thank you for listening, and my suggestion is that you don't approve this development. Thank you for your time.
And thank you very much, Robin, for coming to speak to council. I'll just check to see whether or not we have our first registered speaker on the line. No speakers on the line? Okay, so this is the third and final call for speakers. If there are any speakers for this item who wish to speak to council, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445-POUND before the close of the speaker's list. The phone number will be posted on X and made available on the live stream. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the podium. And we're now going to take a five-minute recess for any additional speakers.
Okay, so we are at the end of that recess, and I will check with the clerks to see if there are any additional speakers on the line.
No additional speakers on the line.
Okay, thank you very much. And seeing there are no additional speakers in the chamber, the speakers list is now closed. And seeing there are little or no public comments received after 5 p.m., I'm now closing the receipt of public comments. Does the applicant have any closing comments?
Thank you, Mayor and Council. We've read the staff report to Council. We're very comfortable with the conditions that's outlined in there, and we're confident that we can meet those requirements. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Does staff have any closing comments?
I do have a correction to my comments in respect to Councillor Carr's earlier question about proposed plantings in the new development. There is actually one tree that is going to be proposed for planting at the plaza on the south. west corner. That will be on site. Otherwise, the city trees on Main Street will be retained, and plantings are also proposed on the second story. But at ground level, my correction, there will be one tree planted on site.
Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Council, any questions for staff?
Council Kerr. One tree is better than zero. More trees. And I'm happy to see the trees retained on main because I think it's important for the commercial districts as well. So good. Thank you. Thank you for that additional information.
Okay. Questions of staff. Council Kerr-Beyond.
Yeah. Thanks, Chair. One question. And I noticed this is coming forward under the interim affordable housing choices. Policy and staff note that it meets the intent. I'm wondering if staff would comment from a process perspective. Other projects like this will need to come forward to public hearing with the changes that are being mentioned. For the provincial guidelines for the TOA, I'm expecting that this one may not necessarily fit, but I'm just looking for clarification on that.
Okay, thank you very much.
Just to clarify the question, with respect to the affordable housing choice interim rezoning policy, there's only this one project and one other in stream. This site is not in a TOA area, so we don't anticipate any changes other than what has been proposed by the applicant. Councillor Kirby-Young, I'm not sure if I've answered your questions. So just to... ensure the point then if there is a future proponent doing a similar project with similar density and tenure in this area will it require a public hearing or are we moving with the area plans and that to allow the six-story outright Okay, so there is a CD by law that accompanies this application, which is reflective of C2 that you see in other areas along Main Street. So there is parameter for what can be built. In terms of policy in this area, the only applicable policy for this area at the moment is the secured rental policy. So the applicant or future applicants can come in under that policy. But in order to build a six-storey mixed-use building, they must comply with the secured rental policy, which specifies that for six-storey mixed-use, 20% of residential floor area must be for below market. I'm asking you, will we be eliminating the public hearing process at some point? I think you've answered it. Unless we make other changes, this will continue to come to Council, a project like this, correct? Correct. No public hearing if the future proposals fit within this broad CD bylaw. So why do we have this one? Maybe I'm just not getting at the... This is a rezoning from the existing RT2 zone to a CD1 zone. Okay. So we'll still have the issue of if there's legacy R2? The existing is RT2. So we are rezoning to CD1. Any future... application if it's to change the regulations within the CD one would require a new public hearing. But if it's a development that fits within the regulations of the CD one, if Council approves it, there would be no future public hearing.
Okay, I'm not sure that I understood that that way that that was framed, but perhaps I can get some follow up on that offline. That's not At this point, that's fine, Chair. Thank you. Okay, thank you.
Okay, thank you very much for those questions. And, Clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the close of public comments?
No.
Thank you. So, Council will now make its decision on this application. Do we have a mover for the recommendation? Thank you, Councillor Schell. Seconded by Councillor Montague. And is there any debate?
Seeing none, we can move to a vote.
And that passes with unanimous support. Okay, thank you very much. That completes item one on our agenda for this evening. We will now be moving to item two. which is CD1 rezoning 5455 Balsam Street. And does any member wish to declare a conflict of interest on item two?
Seeing none, the clerk will now read the application and summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by RH Architects Incorporated to rezone 5455 Balsam Street. from RM-3 residential district to CD-1 comprehensive development district to permit the development of an additional 14-story residential rental containing 145 secure market rental units on a site currently developed with a residential rental building containing 88 rental units, which will be retained. A total floor space ratio of 3.49 and a height of 40.8 meters or 134 feet with an additional height for rooftop amenity are proposed. The General Manager of Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability recommends approval, subject to conditions set out in the summary and recommendation. The following correspondence has been received since referral to the public hearing. Five pieces of correspondence in support, 35 pieces of correspondence in opposition, and two pieces of correspondence dealing with other aspects of the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today.
Thank you very much. And this is the first call for speakers. Any speakers for this item who wish to speak to council, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445-POUND. Before the close of the speakers list, the phone number will be posted on X and made available on the live stream. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be added to the end of the registered speaking list. We have staff from Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability here to present the application. And over to you.
Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Council. My name is Robert White, rezoning planner for this application, which proposes to rezone 5455 Balsam Street under the secured rental policy.
The site outlined in red is located in Carisdale on the northwest corner of Balsam Street and West 39th Avenue. The existing building, shown as the red box within the site, will remain unchanged. Zoned RM3, this corner site is comprised of seven parcels with an area of approximately 58,000 square feet and a site frontage along Balsam Street of about 460 feet. RM3 zoning, where we see apartment buildings in this image, continues east and south to the lanes behind the commercial C2 zoning adjacent to West Boulevard and West 41st Avenue. A few CD1 districts are also located nearby, with R11 inclusive residential zoning beyond.
The site is very close to the local shopping area along West Boulevard and 41st Avenue, as well as several parks, schools, and community facilities. The Carisdale Community Center, including pool and library, is located south on 43rd Avenue, and the Carisdale Cyclone Taylor Arena is located east beyond East Boulevard. The site is very well served by frequent transit on West Boulevard and 41st Avenue, including the R4 Rapid Bus and the Arbutus and Ridgeway Greenways are nearby.
This rezoning application is being considered under the Secured Rental Policy, or SRP. The policy allows consideration of rezoning applications for two types of sites zoned RM3, redevelopment of sites where existing rental units do not currently exist, and infill development where appropriate on sites where existing tenants are not displaced, such as this application. In terms of form, the policy notes proposals should adhere to existing height limits and generally to guidelines.
The application, submitted November 2021, proposes to rezone the site from RM3 to CD1 to permit the development of an additional 14-story residential building, shown in this rendering, with 145 market rental residential units and a partial 15th floor for rooftop amenity space. The proposal retains the existing 14-story residential building, partially shown at the left of the rendering in white, and secures those existing 88 residential units as rental, along with the proposed 145 new units. The proposed height for the additional building is 40.8 meters, or 134 feet, and the application proposes a total site-wide FSR of 3.49.
The proposed additional building will occupy space on the northern half of the site, shown here on the right, where currently there is an underground parkade and a hardscaped garden area. The application proposes expansion of the existing underground parkade for use by residents of both buildings and will meet the requirements of the parking bylaw. The majority of trees will be retained to the north of the new building, and access will be provided to this currently fenced-off green space, along with a new nature-focused children's play space.
The existing pool will remain on the southern end of the site, and no changes to the existing building will be made. New amenity spaces will be created between the new buildings, as well as atop the podium and rooftop levels of the new building. New landscaping will be added throughout, including agricultural plots, trees, shrubs, flower beds, multiple patio seating areas, and more.
The Housing Vancouver strategy seeks to deliver a range of tenures and affordability across the housing continuum. Renting, shown in green on the left side, has lower monthly costs than home ownership, which is shown in orange, particularly on the west side.
A total of 247 submissions were received during the public consultation on this application. Support related to the building form and rental tenure. Concerns related to the building form, unit type, traffic and noise impacts, and management of the existing building. In response to feedback, staff note the proposed height and density is an appropriate response to the surrounding context of residential apartment buildings and towers. The proposal meets the minimum 35% family unit requirement at 37%. Engineering conditions in Appendix B of the report include traffic calming measures for the lane, new street and lane lighting, and new sidewalks. Because the new building will require deconstruction of the existing underground parkade, a condition in Appendix B requires the applicant to provide temporary replacement parking off-site on private property for existing residents within a 10-minute walk during construction. A future development permit will not be issued until this parking is confirmed. Any future noise in construction must abide by city bylaws, and similarly, both the existing and new building must meet maintenance standards as set out in the city's Standards of Maintenance Bylaw.
In addition to securing both the existing 88 units and the new 145 units as rental through a housing agreement, the application also includes a community amenity contribution of $7.5 million to be allocated to public benefits in and around Arbutus Ridge, Carisdale, and Shaughnessy. The applicant is not pursuing a DCL waiver, and development cost levies are estimated to be approximately $3.25 million.
In summary, staff recommend approval of this application to rezone 5455 Balsam Street from RM3 to CD1, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix B of the report, as it meets the intent of the secured rental policy. If approved, the application would secure 88 existing and 145 brand-new market rental units with no displacement, helping to reach the City's goals identified in the Housing Vancouver Strategy. Thank you for your time. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer questions you may have regarding this application.
Okay, thank you very much. Would the applicant team like to present the application? Yes, please come up to the podium.
Good evening, Acting Mayor and Council. My name is Wendy LaBreton, and I'm the Development Manager at Larko. I just wanted to start by introducing our applicant team who's here tonight to answer any questions you might have, starting with Art Phillips of Director of Development of Larko. We also have Bryce Rossich and Anca Hurst of RH Architects here who designed this building, along with Steven Vincent of DKL Landscape Architects, Daniel Fung and Hannah Storer of Bunton Associates. and Kevin Welsh of Intrabah, who completed the sustainability and green building analysis. He's attending virtually. On behalf of the team, I would first like to thank staff for their diligent and collaborative work on this file. It's an ongoing pleasure of mine to work with people who are so passionate about sustainable city building. Tonight, I wanted to quickly address a couple items that have been raised about this project, the first being parking. We understand there is apprehension among tenants at the existing building about what will happen to their parking while this new building is under construction, and we want to ensure that this is as minimal a disruption as possible. While construction is still more than a year away as we progress through permitting approvals, we will offer all existing tenant parkers the first option to lease in the new parkade. We will also work to secure off-site temporary parking for those tenants who are renting parking spaces at the time of construction. We will work with our tenants to ensure accessibility and walking distance are factored in appropriately to the needs and abilities of our tenants. We completed the same exercise for tenants at other properties who face construction interruptions, and we are confident we can achieve the same positive outcomes here.
Indeed, we understand that we will not receive a development permit without finding and securing these off-site parking spaces, so of course we're committed to this plan moving forward. Secondly, we were made aware of concerns around building maintenance. Those requests are addressed by our property management team. If tenants raise issues, they submit a service request to the property manager. Of course, we want to ensure this is a desirable place to live and will wholeheartedly commit to ensuring tenant concerns within both the new and existing building are addressed expediently. As a member of the development team at LARCO, I will be taking the feedback I hear today and relaying it directly to our property management team for action. I trust these points will help in your deliberations tonight, and both myself and members of the project team will be here to answer any of your questions. Thank you.
Thank you very much. So now is an opportunity to ask questions to staff or the applicant team from council, noting this is the only opportunity to ask questions of the applicant team, and we've got a number of people on the queue, so we'll start with Councillor Frey.
Yeah, thanks, Chair. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Great. Okay, yes. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation from staff and from the applicant. Obviously, we had a lot of correspondence on this, and I recognize that some of it may be centered around other holdings from LARCO. So I want to focus on the specifics here. And under the charter, this may even be a question for legal under the Charter 565, where we talk about zoning bylaws. And specifically, I heard staff say that there was an expectation that the new and existing building must meet standards of maintenance.
We've heard some allegations that the standards of maintenance aren't being maintained in this current building. I'm curious if, A, there's been any information that staff have received that suggests that indeed there are standards of maintenance violations in the existing building. And B, if we can explicitly tie that kind of need of standards of maintenance specifically around the aged boiler that doesn't work all the time, and if we can tie that to the approval of this particular project or not.
Thank you for the question, Councillor Frey. With regards to the standards and maintenance bylaws, staff acknowledge and are aware that there is a record within the property use inspections branch of there being registered complaints. there are currently no open case files uh we so we've looked into that and uh from advice from law there also are no current orders um counselor fry what was part b of your question well if if so so i i i i'm very uh i mean first just to hear that there are a history of registered complaints that we're hearing uh from you now Is it possible for us to tie any approval of this project through a public hearing to specifically mandate that those standards of maintenance issues are addressed in the existing building?
I appreciate that there may not be registered complaints currently, but clearly there are some issues. And if we have some kind of history of complaints that are on file, I'd be curious to learn more and if we can actually specify that that is indeed a condition of subdividing this property and rezoning. Thank you. We'll have Law answer the question for you.
Hi, it's Grant Murray from the legal department.
Our understanding is that there are no current open files
relating to the standards and maintenance issues on this property. There have been issues in the past, but there are no open files. There are no ongoing prosecutions. And admittedly, there have certainly been some complaints in the past. Your question is specifically about whether we could link the subdivision to whether or not they would comply with the standards and maintenance bylaw. That's what you're asking? Yeah, essentially, yeah. Or even more specifically address know the um outlined standards maintenance you know specifically the boiler issues in in approving this they're currently obligated to meet the standard of maintenance bylaws so i'm not sure that it would be necessary to put anything further on it and typically the subdivision conditions relate to the development of the property not the maintenance of a property, but I could look certainly through section 565 and get back to you. I wasn't anticipating this kind of a question. Yeah, so it could be 565 F1, 565 H possibly. Yeah, no, 565 F1 is the CD1, the comprehensive development zone power. I'll take it away and I'll get back to you before the end. Okay. And thanks. I'll come back on. Thank you very much, Councillor Fry. Councillor Kirby-Young. Yeah, thanks. May I have my time reset since I'm just starting, please?
Please, you can start and we'll, there we go.
Okay, thanks very much. I have a number of questions. Maybe I'll start with the applicant since this is our one opportunity. And Councilor Fries asked my questions around maintenance practices. So I will move on to a different one. And that is around feedback we received from the public with respects to garden access. And I know that there was commentary in the presentation from our staff that It was saying the garden is currently gated. Can I get some feedback from the applicant as to what is the access today? What's the gated situation? What is the amount of green space that current residents in the existing building will have access to after this new one were completed? Looking for what's practiced today and what would be tomorrow?
We do have a limited amount of time. Thanks. Thank you for the question, Councillor. The access to all of the upgraded amenities will be open to all tenants or available to all tenants of the property.
Thank you. My question is, what do they have access to today? Is it completely unfettered? Is it gated? What will it look like tomorrow in terms of the nature of the access and the size today versus the future? I understand access today is unfettered for tenants. Okay. And in future, will it also be unfettered? Yes. Okay. And will the size of that space change? Well, yes, with the addition of a new building on the property, the size of the outdoor amenity space will reduce. However, there will still be outdoor amenity space as part of the new build on both at grade in between the two buildings on the fifth floor, basically on the rooftop of the podium of the new build on the top floor of the new build. And then also to the north of the property to the north of the new building is a large grove of existing Not old growth, but mature trees. And within that area, that will be retained as well. Okay, great. Will all of that be available to tenants of both buildings? I don't know that in the existing building they'll be able to go into the new building unfettered. I think there will be some security. So just the outdoor space then? Correct. Okay. With respect to parking, and given that we've heard there's a lot of seniors in the building they're concerned about, and I appreciate that you have an obligation to provide off-street parking during the construction period. Yeah. There's concern raised about mobility issues and the distance that people might have to go and may have mobility challenges or otherwise. So how would you address that? I think on a case-by-case basis, we'd have to work with individual tenants on their mobility and access requirements and address them as needed.
Okay, so if somebody can't walk, for example, what would you do?
A block down or two blocks? We would have to work on possible alternative arrangements for that. Such as? Can you give me an example?
No, I can't off the top of my head. Okay.
Okay, maybe this is a question to staff, and just I noticed you said the existing units will also be secured. Can you just recap for us, for the public's benefit, the age of that building and how long they would be secured for? Is it the life of the building remaining? Can you just give us a bit more perspective on that? Yeah, I can speak really quickly to that. It would be the life of both buildings. So if the existing building kind of ages out, it would need to be replaced. Those units would need to be replaced as part of that housing agreement. As long as the new building is still standing, the existing one has to be replaced. Yeah. Okay. How old is the current building? I don't have the number off the top of my head. I'm sorry. 60s. Okay. And all of the tenants can stay during construction. Pardon? All of the tenants can stay fully during destruction. There's no expected displacement. Yes, correct. Okay. I'll leave it there for now. Thank you.
Thanks very much. And I will pass the chair to, I believe, Councillor Kirby-Young is due to councillor. Oh, no, to ask questions. I don't need to pass the chair. Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you very much. I just have a few questions. My first is to the applicant. And it is in regards to, well, first of all, in the renderings, there looked like there was a swimming pool. Is there a swimming pool there?
Thank you for the question. Yes, there is a swimming pool. It's been closed, though, for a couple years due to COVID.
Due to COVID?
Mm-hmm. That was the initial reason for closure, yes. Yes.
Okay.
Yeah.
All right. Is it going to be opened?
Not to my knowledge at this time, no.
Okay. Okay. So it's a closed pool and there's no upkeep maintenance or servicing happening?
Yeah, no, they didn't give me a timeline as to when it would be reopened.
Okay. The rents include parking for the existing building, is that correct?
No. For some tenants, they get it leased separately. Okay.
Do you have a sense of any of those numbers?
I do, actually. The park aid is not fully rented out to tenants of the building. There's non-tenants that rent the parking spaces as well. I think roughly 60 currently rent in the park aid.
Okay, so if a tenant is losing their parking and the plan is to find parking off-site and if suitable parking can't be found off-site, is there... sort of financial benefit back to the tenant.
If parking cannot be found, we will be unable to achieve our development permit. So there will be no, like we need to find this parking. So we are going to do that.
Okay. Can you just offer a little, I know Carisdale very well. Okay. I live there, so when I know this area, I think of the Easy Park parking lot that's behind Carisdale, Carisdale Parkade. What other options do you have really?
To be honest, we haven't begun exploring it yet because this construction period is so far off. We're going to begin exploring it as we near construction and after we get the necessary approvals to start, but we haven't begun that process yet.
Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. I'll just forward some of my other questions now to staff. So first is... It feels like a pretty significant development and process to be undertaking to have such an uncertain variable such as, so do you know how many parking spots are being sought after to satisfy the development permit should it get to that stage?
So to speak to the information that I have right now, it's so, where's the number? Just a moment, please. I believe the application is proposing 142 new parking stalls overall. Part of that is looking at using TDM measures with the new building to save on some of the parking stalls. And then part of that is the replacement of the existing parking for the existing building. And those would meet the parking bylaw. If that answers your question.
My question is, how many spots do they need to find off-site during construction to satisfy the DP?
Gotcha, sorry. They're looking at, I think it's 110 stalls in the current unit. Not all of those stalls are being used, so obviously that changes what they're looking for. But I'll also note on the street frontage outside of the building, if people choose to park on public property, there is freely available public parking on those streets. Granted, that's very different than having a private access to a parking stall.
Okay. So obviously then the question is who pays for the permit because this is a disruption to the existing agreement. But I'm going to not get into the weeds on that one. A quick question on the CAC. Is there a heritage component to this existing development?
Not the development itself. In terms of the CAC allocation, there is a 5% to the heritage.
I understand. That's why I'm asking. So how do we... Justify a 5%. Just curious when we're looking at CACs overall and the costs associated with amenities upgrades, what's the criteria that we would decide? that almost half a million dollars will go into the heritage fund. I just don't know.
Yeah, my understanding is generally that's what we look for in terms of CAC allocation. I don't know if any other staff have a more specific response for you. We look at that 5% target from most projects that are outside of a public benefit area just to be able to go towards heritage projects.
I'm not getting a clear answer.
I'm sorry. Casey, you want to take a stab at that one? Thank you.
Hi, Casey Peters, Assistant Director of the Rezoning Center. I can say that this project did go to our standard process for the CAC analysis. The real estate review came to the dollar amount, and that was determined that it would be a cash contribution, which went to our group... that's represented by a number of different departments through the city that came to this conclusion. So as Robert mentioned, there is not a PBS for this area. So it was determined, different staff groups put forward their recommendation and it was determined at a senior management level.
That's my time and I need to be fair, of course, with that, but I was just waiting for that answer. So thank you very much, Councillor Meisner.
Yeah, thanks so much. A couple people have touched on some of my questions already, but I'm looking for a little bit more clarification. It was mentioned about street parking. Is there permit parking in that neighborhood or is it just free street parking? That's a question for staff.
In the immediate vicinity, it is freely available street parking. I can take another look if you can come back to me and I can see what is out in the further reaches. Sure. I guess what I'm wondering is would it be possible, like what would we need to do to establish, say, a permit zone in that area? Because if we're going to have many people looking for parking on the street as a result of this redevelopment, I imagine they would want to be competing with people that are parking there and shopping nearby. How does that process work in terms of establishing a new permit zone?
Thank you for the question. Desiree Drew at Senior Planner Rezoning. We'll have to check in with our engineering colleagues on that when they're not on the call tonight, so we can get back to your question about that. Okay, sure. Thanks. And then question for the applicant, again, on the pool. I heard that it wasn't quite clear to me if that pool is going to be fixed and operational for the redevelopment. Can you confirm what the plan is for the pool, if it will be back online?
Thank you for the question. I can confirm that not at this time. It will not be reopened. Not reopened even when the new building is completed? There's no intent to at this time, unfortunately. That's all the information I have. okay uh thanks for confirming that and then uh also for you um if you don't mind on the parking again to the parking so people will be offered parking uh within 10 minutes walking distance obviously that's going to pose challenges for some people but my question is are they still going to be paying the same parking fee or is there going to be a discount as a result of the inconvenience I expect there would be some kind of discount as a result of that inconvenience. I should also add in other projects that Larko has developed, the off-street parking that we secured was in adjacent or neighboring apartment building parkades. So back to Councillor Bly's question. Okay, so just to confirm, you're hoping to find it within 10 minutes, but you haven't actually secured a lot yet. So you don't know how far it'll be. It could be closer, it could be further. I think the condition reads it has to be within that limit, so I don't know that we have much flexibility there. Okay, okay, great. Okay, that's it for me. Thanks for answering those questions. You're welcome.
Thanks, Councillor Meisner. Councillor Carr.
Yeah. Like I think Councillor Meisner said, a lot of my questions have been asked and answered. So I just have a few. One of them has to do with the rooftop area. And at this point, I believe in Schedule B, it talks about green roof elements. So I wonder if someone can explain to me what the intention is around that rooftop and green roof elements.
Thank you for the question, Councillor Carr. I'm going to ask Stephen Vincent of our landscape architecture team to respond to your question. Great. Thank you. Yes, good evening. I'm Steven Vincent from DKL Landscape Architects. So the green roof elements really are related to an extensive green roof, which is essentially a very thin profile. Seed of mats, if anybody's familiar with that. So very low maintenance, drought tolerant, so that would be on the top. Then we also have urban agricultural elements, which is people are able to grow vegetables. We also have your typical intensive green roof shrub planting, which is 18 inches to 24 inch depth of soil for a variety of different broadleaf evergreen plants and some trees. Yeah, so just a variety of different depths of soils, different types of plants, different colors, textures, seasonal planting, that sort of thing. Does that answer your question? That does, and it answered my next question, too, which was whether you were going to incorporate any urban agriculture or food gardens because... We do, yes. We have on the top floor. That's excellent. Just looking like food security is a big issue these days. It is, yes. All the rest of my questions have been asked, so thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you, Councillor Carr. Yeah, thanks, Chair. So, yeah, also many of my questions have been asked. So some questions here. I think there's some concern from the community regarding the very limited family-sized units in this new building. So when I check these numbers, 36% are two-bedroom units. That means, you know, more than 60% are studios. Well, most of them are studios and one-bedroom units. So that's the question for applicants. So can you explain to that why we have a very limited family unit in this building, where this is a very family-centered neighborhood?
Thank you for the question.
We were meeting the policy for family housing in this project, and that's why it's the 36%.
Okay. All right, so the next question is about the shadowing. You know, on this existing building facing north, is shadowing a problem for the existing building? For the existing building shadowing to the north? Yes. I wouldn't say it's a problem. I'd say it's typical shadowing of a tall building over the garden. Okay, that's probably for staff, not for that. Sure, thank you.
Thanks for the question. Grace Jiang, development planner. Yeah, the shadowing to the north, it's not a problem from what we can see. It's just extended a little small portion to the north side of the church site and also didn't extend it to the open spaces during the most of the year. Okay, thank you. Last question, again, about this parking. You know, if I understand correctly, so there are 110 parking spots off-site right now, which will be off-site within 10 minutes. And then we're going to have 142 new parking spots. So altogether, that's 252 parking spots for 233 units in total. Is that right?
Yes, yeah, the numbers you have are correct. And that will be confirmed finally if council makes a decision on this at a development permit stage to make sure that the application meets the parking bylaw in effect at that time. Okay, so that's under the assumption that 110 parking spot will be available off-site. So we have this number. Are you speaking during construction or in the final? The final one, yeah. That piece, I'll maybe look to the applicant if they can address that number. Okay, thank you. Thank you.
Sorry, Councillor Zhao, can you please repeat the question? Oh, yeah. So about the parking spots, there are 110 parking spots off-site, which will be available within 10 minutes, plus the new parking spot, which is 142. No. So currently on site, there are 110 stalls. Yes. We will be making arrangements for off-site parking during construction for a selection of those spaces that are currently tenanted for those that need it, for those who have rented spaces in that existing parkade. We will seek to secure off-site spaces during construction time. Yeah. And then the new build will comprise 142 total spaces. And after the construction, that 110 parking spot will be available or not? No. Okay, so that means only... I would conclude at the... Sorry. I see. So only 142 parking spots for 233 units. That's correct. Okay, thank you for the confirmation. That's all my questions, Chair. Thank you very much, Councilor Zhou.
Councilor Kirby Yang. Sure, thanks. A question for the applicants that are on a chance. You're opting to pay $7.5 million in CACs. It's a pretty whopping amount. A lot of proponents choose the below market units to offer market units at 20% below market rents. Why? Why are you choosing that option?
Thank you for the question. It was the outcome of the negotiation with staff that we would pay the cash CAC instead of the 20% social housing. We rarely see that, so I'm curious if you can give us more insight as to why versus below market units. I think Larko historically builds rental housing, and we're happy to secure rental housing. And we acquired this site on the proviso that it would be built as rental housing and secured long term. And so that was our opinion as we purchased it.
Yeah, that was why we bought the property.
Okay, that's time. Thank you very much. Councillor Frye, you have 20 seconds.
Oh, you're on mute, Councilor Frye, and that ate up five seconds.
Can I move for a second round?
Oh, okay. Second round. Seconded. All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay, thank you very much. And, Councilor Frye, I'll just put on... Yes.
Well, I see Councillor Dominato's on the queue, and I, in fairness, would want her to go first. Thank you.
That's great. Thank you very much. Okay. Councillor Dominato.
Yeah. Thanks, Chair. A couple of clarifying questions just based on some of the questions and things I've heard to date. Just going back to parking, this is a question for our staff. You mentioned that this application will need to meet the parking bylaw requirements at this time. Council just recently voted to eliminate minimum vehicle parking requirements across the city. Could you just give me some sense of what that means for a proposal coming forward at this time for rezoning? Would the current parking bylaws apply or would the future ones apply in this context? So great question. It's always interesting when staff make changes to bylaws in the midst of a process. For this one, like you say, a new amended parking bylaw was just approved by council. The application would need to meet the parking bylaw in effect at the time of a DP, a development permit application. And so these are the numbers that we have for rezoning. This is what we understood at the time that the parking bylaw was in effect when the application was submitted. So I would expect that there may be changes at a development permit stage, but those would still be reviewed by staff against the parking bylaw and including TDM measures and so on. Right. So in that case, just to make sure I clearly understand, is that... So it could be the new parking bylaw in place, which removed the minimum. So then it's really left up to the builder to determine what they want to build at that point. Aside from needing to have some visitor parking, some accessible parking and access for deliveries and so on. So that could be in place potentially by the time we get to a stage of DP. Yes, exactly. And further to that point, like you say, visitor parking, accessible spaces, bike spaces, loading and pickup and drop-off, those all are still required. It's just it would be up to applicants to determine how much vehicle, kind of standard vehicle parking to supply. Okay, great. Thank you. And then my question is to the applicant. I do want to circle back on the issue that was raised around building maintenance of the existing building. I appreciate we got quite a number of letters, and many of them being form letters, but I did get one kind of unique letter where an individual is expressing concerns about... not having an on-site property management. There had been a couple there previously, I think, residing in the building and were accessible and able to address building maintenance in a timely manner. I'm curious if you could address with some clarity what LARCO's commitment would be to the... existing building and future building around that, given those concerns. I appreciate our staff said there's no current complaints in front of them, but there seems to be some persistent concerns.
And I think that this council would need to have a sense of what that looks like for you as a plan going forward. Thank you for the question, Councillor Domenato. I don't know how much clarity I can give you, but I can tell you that it is every intent to ensure that that property management office is staffed. I know there has been a high level of turnover in recent years, and so that's unfortunate. But like I said, I'm going to be relaying all of this feedback tonight to the property management team for action, and I hope that's the best I can do at this time. Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Fry.
Yeah, thanks. So I need some clarity on this because recognizing this is a quasi-judicial process and we're doing a public hearing based on the referral report. And I heard staff pretty clearly say in the referral report, it says that the mature trees and swimming pool will remain. But then I'm pretty sure I heard the applicant say in response to Councillor Meisner's question that the pool will not remain. So I'm struggling with how the applicant has a different perspective on the pool, that it won't be there, but the report that we're dealing with actually talks about the pool remaining. Can I get some clarity on what's happening here? Does anybody else catch this? Look to Wendy to answer that question.
Thank you for the question, Councillor Fry. Yeah, so because the pool has been closed for a number of years now, the property management team advised me that they need to do a thorough kind of cost-benefit analysis of it now to determine the benefit of whether or not they want to keep it open.
I mean, I totally appreciate that the pool may... not functional but it is in the in the referral report that we're actually kind of making a decision on and it does create a i think a bit of a challenge perhaps legally i'm not even sure how this reflects because we're doing a public hearing on a very specific referral report that says there will be a pool and mature trees and and if that's now changing and i mean are the are the mature trees changing can i get a legal opinion on how this uh possibly works One item that might help understand, in terms of the report itself, there's nothing conditioning in Appendix B to maintain a pool on site. There's nothing in the draft CD1 bylaw speaking to a pool. So it's within the body of the report describing the understanding at the time of application, if that helps. Otherwise, perhaps Grant may have something else for you.
Sorry, it's Grant Murray. If it's not in the conditions of enactment, then it wouldn't be a legally binding requirement. There's two types of conditions, as I understand it in the report, the conditions of form of development and the conditions of enactment. If the preservation of the pool is not in there, which I understand it is not, then it wouldn't be a requirement to be continued after this is redeveloped. If it is in there, then it would be. If I can, as an aside, go back to your earlier question, if you were to require that I think if you were seeking to have some assurances that the heating system in the building was brought into conformance with the state standards of maintenance bylaw, you could add as section 2.11 to the conditions of enactment, a term along those lines.
It could say something like, sorry, a drafted one, that the heating system in the existing building be certified as in compliance with the standards of maintenance bylaw.
Okay. I appreciate that. But Grant, since we have you on here... We have some conformance with the section that you suggested earlier, 565.1.F.1, which authorizes at the time of a rezoning to provide for utilities in a building.
Excellent. Okay, that's super helpful. Back to the specifics around this public hearing, though. I appreciate that the conditions of enactment are a separate matter as far as the legal, but I... We've also run into some scenarios where public hearings are complicated by virtue of the fact that, I mean, if the public are of the expectation that what they were applying. I'm sorry, you're freezing. Are we, is there any jeopardy in that? Oh. I apologize, but I did not get the question because you froze during the course of that and it went black. So I don't know the question.
Councillor Fry, if you just turn your video off while you ask the question, that might just help with bandwidth.
Thanks. So the question was specifically around the fact that this public hearing and the referral report that people are speaking to has the provision of the pool of mature trees. And if that is changing, does that change the nature of this public hearing legally?
I'm not aware of why it would. If it gets mentioned in the report and it's not included in the conditions, that's just a mention in the report. People are certainly allowed to attend and speak to any matters that they regard as relevant. And if things outside of the report come up during the course of it, that's not always improper. In most circumstances, the reports are quite comprehensive and not many other issues arise. But if there is an issue... that arises that is relevant to the rezoning, like the condition of the current building, that would not be inappropriate.
All right. I'm going to have to leave it there. Councillor Fries, that is your time. Thank you very much, Grant. So we'll go to Councillor Kirby-Young. Yeah, thanks very much, Chair.
I have a couple of questions, and I'll... Follow up a little bit. Just in terms of the comment earlier around there's no open complaints, can I get some clarity? Are we talking about RTB complaints or City of Vancouver complaints with respects to infractions on the standards of maintenance by law? And do we have stats on both? I'm just looking for source and current situation.
Thank you for the question. We would only have information related to anything registered at the City of Vancouver. Okay, so there could be complaints of the RTB? There could be. We are not aware. We don't know the answer to that question. Okay. Are staff aware of what the occupancy is of the current building?
I asked the applicant to answer that question. All right, has staff tracked the occupancy of this building at all as part of the process? Do we know what the occupancy of the current building is?
There's currently 88 units. As for number of people, I don't know the answer. It's probably the applicant may know the answer to that. Do we know? Let me make the question more explicit. I know how many units there are. Do we know if the occupancy has been going down during this process? Is the, are we aware if the applicant is leaving the existing building units vacant as they're turning over and deliberately not tenanting them?
Hi there. Our housing staff have confirmed that there was no requirement for a TRP process for this one because the existing rental units are not being removed. So we did not require a submission from the applicant about the tenancy of the building. I understand there's no TRPP for the new building because the existing tenants are staying. What I'm trying to get at, because we are essentially tying these two units together by requiring a covenant... that the existing 88 units are secured? If we have any information about the current 88 units, how many people are in them? Have they been left vacant? We do not. We typically request that information for TRPP purposes, and because this one didn't apply, we did not ask for that information from the app. Okay. Separate from the legal question that's been asked by Councillor Fryer, which I'm very glad about, can you advise us with respect to the standard maintenance by-law, what recourse the city has to require maintenance if it's deficient and doesn't meet the by-law?
Someone? Sorry, it's Grant Murray with Legal Services. There are no current active complaints that the building is in violation of the standards of maintenance bylaw.
So if there were, Grant, what is the city's recourse? Typically what the city does is they receive a complaint, they send a letter to the management company or to the owner asking them to fix it. And my understanding is that in all of the circumstances that have arisen so far, the management company has responded and brought the building into compliance with the standards of maintenance bylaw. There's been no prosecutions associated with the standards of maintenance bylaw for this building, which typically is a hallmark of a non-responsive management company. But the city's, just to be very clear in layman's terms, the city's options are letters, fines, and prosecution in terms of ascending order. Is that correct? It's an order typically, possibly a letter first, but then an order. And if the order is complied with, then they will not prosecute in most circumstances. You can prosecute in the event that it's already a breach, but most of the time, if it's brought into compliance, the city will not proceed with the prosecution because it's not seen as a public interest. But the city can order compliance, correct? I'm sorry, I didn't catch that. I said the city, if there is a deficiency, the city can, with the standard maintenance bylaw, say, for example, a boiler, the city has the authority to order compliance. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much, Councillor Beyan. Councillor Kerr.
Yeah, thank you. I just reread the section of the report that states that, and it's on pages five to six, the proposal provides high-quality open spaces for outdoor activities and greenery. The outdoor amenity area to the south of the existing tower, which includes mature trees and a swimming pool, will remain. Then I looked into the conditions of approval, and to my sort of surprise, because I think I can't remember a recent application for rezoning that didn't have a condition of approval that included some language about retaining trees or replacing trees if there were trees that were going to be cut. There is nothing in the condition of approvals in Schedule B that talks to the trees, retaining the trees, or if they're not to be retained, although the reports... says they're going to be retained, but if they weren't, to be replaced. So my question is, can we, as the council table now, add a condition of approval that states the retention of those trees?
That's pretty unusual. Thank you for the question. We can certainly add conditions, as Grant mentioned earlier. So if there was a request from Council to add a condition, we can work with you on that. Great.
Thank you.
Appreciate that.
Thanks, Councilor Carr. I'm just going to advance myself for a second round. This question is to staff. Could you remind Council what happens if this rezoning was to be approved and then, let's say, nothing happens maybe parking or what have you was not found and so all those conditions were not met um if this site was to be sold is it can you just remind council what happens in that situation
Verify Counselor, you're looking at if the application is approved or if it's not approved or where in this process?
If this application were to be approved, it never goes to DP.
Yeah, all of the conditions in the report would still stand on the site.
Whoever the new...
Correct. Yeah, and part of that, speaking to the temporary parking, that piece is a required piece, particularly for the development permit process. And so in addition to all the enactment conditions that would be required for the CD1 bylaw to be enacted to kind of make this form more possible, more real with the zoning on the site, there are certainly, there's a lot of work to be done for someone if it were to change ownership.
So just to... I think that went all the way through. Can you just remind what assurances there are for us as the city, for the residents of the city, broadly speaking, that rezoning a park aid to this level of density that has no below market units required. Of course, the CAC is still negotiated and would hold. Is that correct?
Correct. It's a condition within the penance.
Is this a good deal in that situation for the city?
Sorry, can you repeat that?
Is this a fair deal, would you say, if that was to happen?
I would say in this neighborhood where we don't normally see a lot of rezoning applications, having a CAC of $7.5 million could do a lot to help achieve better and renewed amenities in the area.
Over below market units, 20%.
I can't mix that myself. That was the outcome of the negotiation. We know that there are facilities in the area that could use some work, some renewal. There's potential for transportation improvements in the area as part of the CAC. All of these would go to help both new residents in this building as well as in Kerristale in general and Arbutus and Shaughnessy.
Okay, just one final question on that, Bain, is related to the Karisdale Community Center and the idea that 95% of the CAC would go towards its renewal. Where is that renewal going? in terms of planning process and funding, identified funding?
I can't speak in detail to that. For CACs like this one that are kind of going to our sort of general fund, the allocation would be determined through the capital planning process. And so there would be work yet to be done to determine exactly where it would go if approved, if it gets to that stage. So I don't have an answer for you specific to the Karastel Community Center.
I'll leave it there. Thank you very much.
Okay. I'm seeing that we don't have any other questions. folks on the queue for questions, so we can actually move to our second call for speakers. If there are any speakers for this item who wish to speak to council, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445 before the close of the speaker's list. The phone number will be posted on X and made available on the live stream. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the podium before the close of the speaker's list. And speakers will have five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merit of the report being considered. So we will now hear from the public. And we have a number of speakers in chamber as well as signed up to speak online. So our first speaker is registered in person, Daniel Kazowitz.
My name is Daniel Kasowitz. I reside at 5455 Balsam Street. I oppose the rezoning. My thesis is that the owner, landlord, and developer, Larco, has done a poor job of managing our Fountain Blow building, so Larco should not be permitted to construct and manage another rental building. The Fountain Blow Apartments at 5455 Balsam Street is a 14-story rental residence with 88 suites and 125 residents. It was built in 1968. It was the premier apartment building of its time, tastefully and beautifully designed. The previous owner did it justice, making the necessary repairs and keeping it clean all the time. But since Larcom Investments took over on February 7, 2020, the building has been neglected and our amenities have been taken away without compensation. The owner is an absentee landlord who treats the concerns of us residents with indifference. Larka was not providing services commensurate with our rent. The sidewalks were not shoveled after snowfalls, nor rock salt sprinkled on top of the sidewalk. The Fountain Blow is the only apartment building in Currisdale whose sidewalks are not shoveled after a snowfall. We complained to the city about this. Citations were issued to the management here, but those citations were ignored, and to the dismay of the residents, the sidewalks remained unsheveled. One elderly resident hurt herself when she slipped and fell on the icy sidewalk. Finally, in the third year of the building's new ownership, and after numerous complaints to the management, a thin strip of sidewalk was shoveled. According to the Residential Tenancy Act, Chapter 78, a landlord must provide and maintain residential property in a state of decoration and repair that complies with the health, safety, and housing standards required by law. Laundry machines, toilets, leaky pipes, and kitchen sinks are not repaired or replaced in a timely manner. Tenants have had to wait several months to have these things repaired. Some tenants have resorted to paying for the repairs themselves. The laundry machines on four floors, including three floors, have been broken for over a year and have not been repaired or replaced despite our pleas. Our elderly neighbor across the hall moved out of the building last October because the lack of working laundry machines on our floor meant she, like the rest of us now, had to go up and down to different floors looking for workable laundry machines. The boiler that heats this building is old and needs to be replaced. The last time it broke down, the repair workers said the boiler needs to be replaced because it is a fire hazard. However, the management refuses to spend the money to replace it and instead settles for Band-Aid repairs.
Since Larco took over February 7, 2020, trash and garbage in the basement have been allowed to pile up for several weeks at a time without being collected.
This has happened several times, the last time being January 2023. I included a picture along with that. The exterior windows were washed only once in five years. Under the previous owner, the exterior windows were washed twice a year. But since Larco took over, our windows were washed only once, the last time being July 2021. Nor is the building's exterior steam cleaned once a year as it should be. The swimming pool, as we've heard, has remained closed. This is the fifth summer in a row that the residents have been unable to swim in our outdoor swimming pool. The many elderly tenants, there are 65 to 70% of the building are elderly, who live here, chose to live here because of the pool, which they find essential to their health, provided one of their only sources of exercise. The first year of Larco's tenure, the pool was closed because of the COVID pandemic. That was understandable. The second year, Larco kept it closed for no reason at all. The third and fourth and fifth years the pool was closed because repairs that should have been made during the previous fall and winter were delayed until the summer. Makes me wonder whether Larco is doing that so they don't have to hire someone to maintain and clean the pool every summer. Despite the fact that our rent pays for the maintenance of our swimming pool, Larco has kept the swimming pool closed since they assumed ownership. Renters that we have talked to at another Larco rental building or Budist residences complain about Larco's same negligence in dealing with their problems. In summary, because Larco is incompetent in managing the fountain blow and because the demolition of our two-level barcade and garden will make life difficult for us, Larco should not be allowed to construct and manage another rental building. Must the tenants of the city always be at the mercy of negligent absentee landlords? Must the greed of developers and landlords take priority over the welfare of renters? Can't we make this a livable city?
Oh, very good. Okay, that is your time. Thank you very much. You do have questions. I have a question for you. One clarification question. You said that what I heard you say is that the pool has been closed for more than five years.
It's been closed for five years since Larco took ownership.
But I had asked why the pool was closed and it was said that it was because of COVID.
First year was because of COVID. Second year, the city allowed all the pools in the city to open. Larco did not open it.
Okay, but that's four years ago. I just want to be crystal clear that it was closed before COVID or not.
Yes. No, it was not closed before COVID. I lived in the building since 2016, and the previous owner kept the pool well-maintained all the years that we were here.
Understood. I understand now. Thank you very much for clarifying.
Thank you.
Those are all your questions.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, next we have speaker number two, Karen Kazowitz.
I'm Karen Kasowitz, a resident of 5455 Balsam Street, and I oppose the rezoning of that address. I'm going to continue where my husband left off. So the lack of management. Despite the fact that Larco claims that its properties are professionally managed, the managers it hires have worked only part-time here. Right now, two days a week. dividing their time between this building and other buildings. Presently, there is only a part-time manager for our building of 88 suites and 125 residents, but the manager's hands are tied because the Fontainebleau's owner is reluctant to spend money for the amenities that are due us. There are times when we tenants take upon the responsibility of cleaning the common areas of our building. the elevators, the laundry rooms, the garbage area, and the pool area, and also watering the plants in the lobby and watering the garden last spring when the sprinkler system was not working.
Larco has only shampooed... the carpets once in the five years since they took over. In addition to the swimming pool, another source of exercise for us seniors is the garden. We residents walk around the garden for exercise, socialize there, and find shade under its trees. But if the rezoning is approved, the garden will be demolished. If the rezoning is approved, 73 residents will lose their parking spaces and will be forced to compete with motorists in finding parking space in the already busy neighborhood. Now, Larco says they're going to supply us with parking, but we have very little faith in our needs being supplied right now. So we need our cars. We cannot take taxis and buses all the time to do our shopping and go to medical appointments. Many of us have mobility problems. We do not want to be forced to park 15 or 20 minutes away from the Fontainebleau and have to walk back with walkers in the rain carting our groceries. Many of us will feel forced to move out. Where can we go? Many of us are on fixed incomes. Don't squeeze us seniors out of existence. If you truly want to make Vancouver a better city, include us seniors too.
Thank you very much, Karen. You explained yourself very well. There are no questions.
Okay, thank you.
Next, we have speaker number three, Elena Madrid.
Ileana? Ileana. I'm Ileana. Ileana, did I get it the second time?
Thank you.
Great. Go ahead.
Hi, my name is Ileana Madrid. I've lived at 5455 Balsam Street for 27 years. I strongly oppose the proposed rezoning and development by LARCO. Vancouver City Council has received over 1,000 letters from the community in opposition to the rezoning. many of which raise concerns about the effect it will have in the neighborhood. In the referral report, even though many times this property is referred to as an infill, That's definitely not the case. And if this development is approved, we will lose a beautiful garden, which is also a bird sanctuary. Although neglected, mostly since Largo bought the property in early 2020, it's still a favorite habitat for many species of birds. There are 10 bird species that make this garden their home. There is existing provincial and federal legislation for protecting birds. Since 1970, there's been a 35% decline in bird species on the Pacific coast due to habitat loss caused by humans. According to the City of Vancouver's bird-friendly design guidelines, the goal is, and I quote, to protect, enhance, and create bird habitat in the city as well as reduce threats to birds in the urban environment, end of quote. We don't have to enhance or create bird habitat because we already have it. The rezoning and proposed development goes against the city's own guidelines for protecting habitat for wildlife and providing green space for people. Well, birds aren't the only ones who enjoy this garden and green space. We humans love it too. Mayor Sim recently expressed the importance of health and exercise, and we agree. Our garden is our gym, and we say it's even better than a fitness center because it's a welcome open space with fresh air surrounded by beautiful plants, flowers, mature trees, of which three are designated heritage trees. The development proposal claims the trees won't be removed. However, their roots are thick and long. So certainly the construction activity will damage them, even maybe fatally. Our garden isn't just a place for outdoor activity. It's also a place for us, mostly seniors, to relax and visit. So it's great for getting outdoor exercise, also for socializing, which we know is vital for mental health and well-being. Larco has neglected our garden over the years. So last year, other neighbors and I tended it. Now it's coming back. In the referral report, some concerns were expressed regarding the proposal.
One was the management concern with the existing building management, which we've heard a lot about already. But... The quote from the referral report says, residents provided examples such as not salting, shoveling snow, not responding to repair requests, not providing proper maintenance to common amenities such as the swimming pool. The response was... The owners are aware of the concerns expressed regarding upkeep and response to severe weather events, and they commit to improving management of the property. Well, because we haven't had use of the pool in three years since Larco bought the building, they haven't fulfilled their word commitment. Why should we believe what their proposal is for the future? development. The City of Vancouver website claims the goal of the city is to become, and I quote, the greenest city on earth, end quote. The rezoning and proposed development of 5455 Balsam Street goes directly against the city's own stated goals and should not be approved.
You do, that's the end? I'm sorry, should I say that's the end? No, that's good. I just didn't want to cut you off. You do have questions. Councilor Carr.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, you talked about the area that has the landscaping that's very bird-friendly. I'm going to read you a section of the report, and I wonder if that's the section, that's the area with the bird-friendly habitat that you're talking about? It talks about, additionally, there's a large existing green area on the northern end of the site, and it will be expanded, contributing to park-like open space with mature trees, tranquil paths, and a children's play area. Is that where you're talking about that has the bird-friendly habitat already? Well, the entire garden is bird-friendly. Now, the heritage trees that I was referring to, as the report says, they don't plan to cut those down. At the same time, the entire garden is where birds come to nest, and that is the area where the building will stand on. Okay. Okay, so that's not on the northern end of the site. Well, the whole site is north of the building, but the northern, northern end is where I'm saying that the heritage trees are.
I'm just going to ask you to pause for a moment, please. We have lost quorum. So we've got a couple of people online, but I know Councillor Fry was having connection issues and isn't reconnected. So we just need to... Maybe you can ask Councillor Domenato to come back.
What are we doing?
We don't, we have quorum is six and we don't have six in the room in terms of. Oh, okay. We just need everybody to stay put for a minute.
We do have council fry back. So you are free to continue or sorry. Councilor Meisner. So no. Yes.
One, two, three, four, five. No, we don't have quorum.
Okay, we're going to have to take a recess.
I'm not sure where. Okay, we'll take a recess.
And, you know, but one, two, three.
Oh, yeah, we do. Okay, great. Okay, we are good to continue. Sorry, Councilor Kirby-Young, that was close. But I'll need you just to stick with us for another minute until someone comes back. Okay, Councilor Carr, over to you.
Thank you. Yes, I was just seeking clarification that because, so you're saying there is the area that... will be replaced because it's on the footprint of the new building, right? That'll go. Yes. Okay, can't do anything about that. But there is, I'm trying to verify, this green area that's stated here in our report on the northern end of the site, and it has a sort of park. It says it has a park, light, open space. It has mature trees, tranquil paths, and a children's play area. So is that area familiar to you, the north side of the site? Well, it is. I'm just wondering, though, when the entire garden is replaced, that area is quite small. I wish I had the measurements of it.
So I'm not quite sure how they're going to fit, a children's play area, a path, and the trees. It's just... I don't understand how that can happen. I can ask staff later. Oh, okay. At the end. Okay. But thank you very much for the information.
Okay, great. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. So now we're going to speaker four, Bhavna Solecki, and we do have a presentation indicated.
Hi there. I have a presentation. Yes, we're just going to pull that up for you here. There you go.
Sorry, I have two kinds of glasses that I can't see. No problem. Yes, I understand. OK. My name is . I'm an old resident at Fountain Blue, 5455. I've been there for 15 years. I moved in when my daughter was only five years old. And this is a great community where I brought up my daughter. She's 20 now, going to university. And I'm very proud. She has so many grandmas in the building. As my friend said, the site is not infill because it already serves vital purposes for the tenants of the property. Next slide, please. So the loss of underground parking garage will, first of all, force a lot of seniors to leave the building. If we can go on the next slide.
Ah, yes. This is the first floor of the garage, which is also our garbage disposal area, compost area, recycling area, which is connected from the back door of the existing building, going into the garage to dispose of all of our garbage, compost, recycling, which, by law, Vancouver City Hall needs, right? So how are they calling it infill? Because it's... not just losing a garage, where is all this garbage going to go? We've had problems before with the garbage disposal. With Larco, they canceled the contract. We had to call up Vancouver Coastal Health Services. The garbage was, the compost was leaking everywhere. And I was one of the residents with other five residents who cleaned the garbage area because the stench was so horrible. And it increased the pests around the building because we didn't have pest control going on. So I don't think so the site is infill. Also, I looked at my old lease agreement today and I looked at other lease agreements. In our lease agreement... The parking is part of our lease agreement. It says one parking stall, you pay $35, $40. Two parking stalls, you pay $80. So it is part of our lease agreement, you know, the parking. So I actually went to everybody's house today to see the lease agreements that I'm not wrong. The slide before, please. So the laws of underground parking is going to, a lot of seniors have already signed a letter that they will be leaving the building.
Since Larco has taken over, we have empty units anyways from two to three years. They're falsely still advertising, if you look at their website, The amenities include parking, include swimming pool. So now if the swimming pool is not operating, why aren't they removing it from their rental site is my question. So many tenants here, as my friend has already related, 75% to 80% seniors, we have a lot of caregivers coming in. They will... It'll be a big struggle to find a parking nearby. Kerrisdale has no parking anyways on the street. Next slide, please. And the slide after. So this is our green space, the community garden, where... We come and socialize, exercise, and that way we can get some seniors out who are totally lonely and living in isolation. We don't want them to live all alone. So we have a really great, strong community. As Ileana mentioned about the bird guidelines of City of Vancouver, we have bird watchers I have contacted. It is a big organization. According to City of Vancouver guidelines, bird-friendly design guidelines, is to protect the natural habitat in urban environment now in the north side of the garden now this is all north which you're seeing in the picture we have a community garden and this is the garden to socialize you go more north we have a large section of natural habitat where there's a gate And there are all these old growth trees. The roots are about, I actually measured them, about 8 to 10 inches long. Yeah, wide, and they're all over on that rooftop, which goes into the parking garage from there.
Now, there are lots of heritage trees there, and there's a lot of old growth, and 16 species were found by these birdwatchers.
Avna, that does bring you to your time. Oh, okay. Yes, that's five minutes. Thank you very much for coming in to speak to Council. You explained things very clearly. There's no questions. We'll now move to speaker number five, Jacqueline Jameson.
Good evening, honored council members. Thank you so much for the work that you do for the city. Oh, yeah. My site is fading, so please bear with me. I'm going to try and read this. My name is Jacqueline Jameson. I am a resident at 5455 Balsam Street, and I am very firmly against the rezoning of our property. The task before us tonight is very daunting. And I feel as if our lives are being held in balance over what one can say in five minutes. But I shall try. I think I'm going to repeat a fair amount of what the preceding speakers have mentioned, but please bear with me. Our building is truly unique in that... Oh, gosh, I can't read my own writing here. It's unique in that usually building apartment buildings have their underground parking below the building. This is the first time I've ever lived in an apartment building. I've been there for two and a half years. And I didn't realize that our parking is adjacent. It is not underground. And that is the reason that should this rezoning go through, it would have a terrible impact on not only our senior members, but the people who depend on their cars, which are underground. Oh dear, my writing is awful.
The car is the lifeline for most of these seniors. And they shuffle down the elevator, they go to their cars, they go to their appointments. And moving, as we all so well know, isn't just simply an address change. It's a change of your whole life. It's a change of address. It's moving. You're losing your community. You're losing your friends, your neighbors. And you have to now find your new hairdresser, your new pedicure, because the elderly have, you know, you have to take good care of your feet. You have to start up a whole new community. At this point in our lives, I think that's very cruel. I mean, we have a shortage of housing. Where are we going to go? We can't go to a retirement home. We can't go to a care facility because, hello, there are lines, there are lists you have to apply way ahead of time. So what's going to happen to some of us?
Land out on the street? We've heard of a lot of elderly people landing out homeless on the street. I think we don't want this. We don't want this for anybody. Canada is renowned as a caring and very generous country. And we welcome all people from all around the world to find home, safety, and hopefully a better future for them. But please, not at the cost of our seniors. Where are their rights? To me, this is a David and Goliath situation. Larko is truly a terrible, terrible property owner. And we are but a grain of sand in the desert of all of their holdings. We have no face. We have no names. And we have no history with them. We're just disposable. Doesn't matter they don't know us.
So in, and as we've been saying, the decay of the building, so many of our tenants have had to step up and do terrible things to clean up terrible messes in the building. I myself had to hire private window cleaners. And a friend of a friend, her husband is a fix-it man. And he came and fixed my brand new kitchen. I pay the big rent in this building because mine was renovated. And the drawers all just fell apart. I called, I called. You can never get a human being. So this friend came in. He fixed it. It isn't perfect. But we're having to bring other people in to fix all of the problems that supposedly our landlord will do for us. Okay, I know I'm running out of time here.
You are actually out of time.
I am out of time? Yes. Thank you so much for hearing me. And just imagine if it was your family or parent in this building. How would you feel about them having to move?
Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for coming in to speak. Speaker number six is withdrawn. Speaker seven is Nathaniel Colers.
Hello, my name is Nate. I live in Vancouver, and I'm a representative from Unite Here Local 40, which represents thousands of hospitality workers that live and work in Vancouver. And so some of our members work at a local hotel that's owned by Larco. And because of this connection, tenants from this building reached out to us last fall for help. And when we met with them, we became deeply concerned about the stories that they told us about Larco's building management. And I should say we were concerned but not necessarily surprised by what we heard. based on how they have treated our members in the workplace. Larco is owned by one of the wealthiest families in Canada. The Laljis are billionaires who stash their money in offshore tax savings, according to the Toronto Star and North Shore News. They have no excuse for managing their buildings in the way that these tenants have described, just as they have no excuse for refusing to pay their workers a living wage. It's important to note that even if Larco did pay their workers a living wage, they wouldn't be able to afford to rent from this development. And it's not even close. Based on the prices in the referral report, all the unit categories would be unaffordable to median income individuals. We appreciate and support council initiatives to increase rental housing opportunities in Vancouver, but this is simply not the right kind of development that will address the most urgent needs of the housing crisis. We need to prioritize non-market rental, social, and cooperative housing. And so on the topic of occupancy rates that Councillor Kirby-Young raised, tenants have reported to us that there are seven empty units in the existing building, some of which have been vacant for over two years. So if Largo wanted to help increase housing stock, they would start with these first. But instead, residents are being expected to accept this hugely disruptive development, which threatens to displace them. I think it's clear from their testimony that the applicant has not put much energy at all into ensuring that tenants with mobility issues will be accommodated by off-site parking. I've sent counsel signed statements from 11 seniors in the building which affirm that they will be forced to leave their homes if they lose the parking garage. tenants say that they'll be required to leave as a direct consequence of this development. And this puts the site in contradiction with the Secured Rental Policy's locational eligibility criteria for sites in multifamily RM3 areas, which only include infill development, quote, where appropriate on sites where existing tenants are not displaced. Now, while the city planners may have their own definition of the word displacement, I think you're going to have a hard time convincing any of these tenants that this development does not constitute displacement of seniors.
Last week, CTV and Global BC covered the rally we had outside City Hall, where around 20 senior tenants were joined by community allies, and they made that journey out with their canes and their walkers to voice their opposition to this rezoning. Where do you expect these seniors to go if they are forced to leave? How would you feel if your parents were displaced from their home during a housing crisis? Currently, or clearly, there's been some kind of semantic mistake here with the definition of displacement used by city planners, not covering the situation with the loss of parking. This is not a regular site. The section of the property which planners have called infill serves vital purposes for the existing tenants of the building, such that losing them will force them to leave. At the very least, this decision should be postponed until the dispute over this definition and the parking is resolved. You have the opportunity, or you have an opportunity to do the right thing here. Ultimately, this decision is about putting the well-being of our city's most vulnerable residents over the interests of a wealthy developer who has demonstrated to them that they're unwilling to adequately maintain their buildings. I urge you to reconsider this decision. There are too many outstanding questions between the ongoing maintenance issues with the boiler and the swimming pool and the imminent displacement of seniors to make this adequate for approval at this time. So, yeah, we need more housing, but serious issues have been raised by tenants this evening, and they should be addressed before council approves this rezoning approval. Thank you.
Thank you very much. And you have no questions, but thank you very much for coming in. Next, we have Speaker 8, Sal Robinson.
Hello. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Please go ahead.
Hi. My name is Sal Robinson. I live in Vancouver, and I am opposed to the rezoning. at 5455 Balsam. A quick online survey of Carisdale Apartments for Rent shows that this development is no gift to the neighborhood. There are places to rent there today that can be had without the damage this will cause in future to the quality of life in adjacent properties and without the devastating loss of peace of mind now afflicting many elderly tenants of Fontainebleau who will be compelled to move if they can't continue to park near their homes, not a 10-minute walk away. I'm heartened to hear that this project cannot proceed without a solution to the parking issue, but sad that it has been the source of so much stress to the current tenants. This particular rezoning request has the unusual consideration of the suitability of the proponent to manage the rental building that would result if it is successful. Shouldn't history inform the future? Right now, how lovely would it be to splash around in your apartment pool on a warm night? I'm sure the tenants of Fontainebleau would agree, but their pool is still empty, just as it's been for the duration of Larco's ownership. Here's how Fontainebleau is marketed on Larco's Maple Leaf Property Management website. Quote, Fontainebleau offers residents a tranquil setting in a laid-back atmosphere with an abundance of greenery. Quote, quote, the website features page illustrates the pool area. The water appears as an appealing turquoise. I spent some time this morning looking around the Fontainebleau property. Neglect is obvious in the hard landscaped area, with former gardens now dust and gravel, skeletons of dead shrubs all over the place, sunken paving slabs with warning cones instead of repairs. All it lacked to complete the ghost town image was rolling tumbleweed. I could not access the north garden through the gate. The website goes on. By calling Fontainebleau Apartments home, you can have peace of mind knowing that you are being supported by an experienced team that takes pride in their work. And, as a final slap in the face of reality, our properties are maintained to high standards and we believe in building long-lasting relationships and tenancies. On the contrary, it appears that Larco believes in destroying long-lasting tenancies through malignant neglect of the property. After all, long-lasting tenants are the ones that pay the least. I know it's been quoted already, but it also struck me how the city staff's May 28th referral report recommending rezoning explains Larco's response to the residents' complaints. The owners are aware of the concerns expressed regarding upkeep. They commit to improving management of the property. Well, let Larco prove their commitment with positive, consistent, sustained action. before giving any consideration to this rezoning proposal. Thank you for listening.
Thank you very much for calling in. There are no questions, but we do appreciate you taking the time. Next we have Speaker 9, Robert Gibson.
And Robert, you're welcome to start when you're ready.
Thank you. Mayor and councillors, I do not approve of this change in the zoning to CD1. I have a number of issues that I wish to point out. My wife and I actually moved into the building, into the Fonda Blue building, exactly two years ago, almost to the day. We are senior citizens. I'm 84, and my wife is 81. And... We felt we were going to be with, we would fit right in, because in actual fact, probably about 65% of the residents of 5455 Boston are also senior citizens. So my wife and I certainly fit in well. When we moved in two years ago, the building had many strengths, which attracted us quite apart from the apartment we've lived in for two years. The swimming pool was one of the strengths that definitely caught my eye. I'm a swimmer, and so a number of comments have sort of confused me, because for the first two summers, up until last summer, the pool was full of water. The water was being redistributed, so it didn't stagnate. They also had a pool cleaning company or a person who came in to clean the pool once a week to make sure that there was no refuse floating around.
Four months ago, approximately, the pool was emptied. And that certainly disappointed me and disappointed many of the tenants because I wasn't the only one using the pool.
The pool, unfortunately, has become a disgrace, actually. It was emptied. There's stuff sort of refuse in the bottom of what was the pool. and quite apart from that it's now been empty for I'd say four months and it poses a danger to All of us who use the pool deck and always have used the pool deck to to visit to Enjoy the Sun Yeah
When we moved in, we realized at that time that the outside windows were not washed, but we really felt that that was a temporary thing.
Well, I was wrong. In actual fact, the outside windows have not been washed since we moved in.
The gardens on both the south side and the north side of the building have been available to the tenants to enjoy and visit with each other. In fact, actually, my family, six of us, had a picnic on the north side garden where we enjoyed the picnic. We also enjoyed the flowers and the trees that exist on the north side garden.
I would also point out that the North Side Garden, which is the one being discussed here, is, while it's private property, it is not locked and is available to the community in general. And the community, not just at the Fond du Bleu apartments, but the community around, do use it. I'm sorry about that. Parking, of course, is a major convenience for most of the tenants, particularly seniors. The two levels of parking exist directly below the proposed construction site and will presumably, the parking will be eliminated. About 75 vehicles will be forced to park on the street, making on-street parking more difficult than it already is.
that is your time that's my time yes okay thank you for your attention thank you very much for coming in and sharing your thoughts um we are now moving to speaker number 10 peter dowdy hello my name is peter dowdy i'm a resident of vancouver and i support the proposal
Vancouver needs more housing, and Carisdale more than most places. Vancouver has grown in population by about 50% over the past 50 years. Carisdale's population remains unchanged. Local amenities are falling into disrepair. There's an enormous demographic hole in the social indicators where 25 to 45-year-olds should be my generation who can't move there to start families. There's nowhere for seniors who need to change their living circumstances to go. So, Karesdale desperately needs this. And when we decide that we're going to prioritize parking spots over housing, what we're doing is we're prioritizing parking spots over seniors, prioritizing parking spots over new families. And I don't think we should do that. This is a city for people, not for cars. Opponents say, yes, we need more housing, but not this. This is luxury housing. It won't make things any better. which is a funny thing to say because I have an article from 1964 here describing the existing building as, quote, Terresdale's fabulous fontainebleau, Vancouver's most elegant residence in an unsurpassed park-like setting for those who require large prestige suites, end quote. Somehow that unaffordable luxury housing became cherished affordable housing for generations of people. We should take a lesson from this about what it takes to build cherished, affordable housing for generations of people and realize that if we decline this application, that is what we are sacrificing. I'm sympathetic to complaints that people have that Barco is not a good landlord. It's somebody who has had multiple bad landlords himself. This is not the venue for enforcing the Residential Tenancy Act. And I hope that all of the existing tenants do get what they were promised in their leases. And I hope that higher government sees fit to enforce the Residential Tenancy Act. But it's not the role of this city council to attempt to indirectly... force LARCO to perform unrelated tasks at the cost of housing for future generations of people. We can't let that be the deciding factor in whether or not we approve this application. We really need to approve this application and many more like it. There's transit five minutes away from the site. There's the Carisdale Community Center. I don't live here, but I go here regularly to shop, and there's pharmacies. There's grocery stores.
This is, in fact, a fantastic place to live, and I don't believe that anyone who lives here is tied to their car. I think that if you create room for people to live here, they're going to move here, and they're going to love it, whether they have a parking spot or not. So please support this application.
Thank you. We are moving on to speaker number 11, Omar Visram, and there is a presentation noted.
So just before I start, there's many pages to this. I included this just for reference material for council. I wasn't quite aware of how the process works. The only one we'll need to really be on is the density chart that I've included there, which is a couple of, yeah, it's that one in the previous page.
Okay. Okay. Can I start? Go ahead. Thank you.
Good evening, Acting Mayor and Council. My name is Omar Vizram, and I'm an owner in the 45-unit townhouse complex called the Larchwood, which is adjacent to the proposed project. My partner and I moved into the Larchwood in 2020 to plant roots and raise our young family. I'm joined by my family this evening. We are passionate about building community and I'm actively engaged in the strata of the Larchwood. As a family, we are against the proposed project and rezoning. A little bit about me professionally. I'm a chartered professional accountant and I worked at KPMG in Vancouver for eight years. In 2016, I launched Ankle, which today has 80 employees delivering accounting services to hundreds of Canadian small businesses and not-for-profit organizations. As an entrepreneur, I feel the challenges of a lack of housing supply firsthand. Out of my team of 80 employees, less than 15 are in BC and only seven call Vancouver their home. I'm keen to grow and scale my business in Vancouver, but this is only possible with a greater supply of affordable housing. My neighbor, Ms. Jeanette Kopach, has submitted a document to council that appropriately articulates the very serious infrastructure challenges with the proposed project. So I will not go into detail on this. It was part of my submission. Now let's back up to 2022 when a group of concerned citizens and I came together and submitted a document with the initial Shape Your City consultation process related to the project. I emailed a copy directly to Mr. White and did not receive a response. The document was developed after significant discussion among nearby residents. To reiterate from the attachment to our initial submission, that's this up here, the proposed additional development will increase the total number of units on site from 65.9 units per acre to 232 units, or an equivalent site density of 176 units per acre, far exceeding by... two and a half times the achieved density of existing residential developments in the neighborhood. And so I ask you, if allowed to proceed as planned, for what equitable justification could City Hall officials deny other neighborhood landlords and developers from seeking similar advantages of upzoning their existing RM3 sites to CD1 zoning to also permit higher gross densities? Density will bring young families. The catchment school that my children attend is Quilchena Elementary. This school is in need of seismic upgrading and modernization. So I ask you, when the time comes for these upgrades, where will all of our children go to school?
Though the proposed development is close to public transit, this public transit does not connect to primary transit routes. This will mean more reliance on personal vehicles, increasing traffic congestion. I encourage you to recognize that this is in no way like the infrastructure that exists in the Broadway corridor or at Marine Gateway. I remain deeply troubled that if approved, the proposal will abandon the existing community vision with no new plan to guide future development. Ad hoc approvals are not consistent with accepted community planning principles. Coming back to my professional career, I understand the way money works. I recognize the huge budgetary benefit of the community amenity contribution of $7.5 million, making it hard for you to pass up this project. But community members have a right to be involved in the planning processes, advocating for decisions that are transparent and reflective of community needs and expectations. I can assure you that if approved, the demands for accountability and transparency from our community will only intensify. We should also remember that these community members have good reason not to trust their landlord, who will benefit financially from the increased density if this rezoning request is granted. You have heard many details from tenants tonight and through written submissions. I've spoken to many residents and have heard firsthand of the lack of care of the existing apartment building. Broken elevators and lack of sidewalk maintenance after a snowstorm are just the beginning. The referral report to council dismisses these complaints and notes that, quote, the owners are aware of the concerns expressed regarding upkeep and response to severe weather events and commit to improving management of the property, end quote. This comment is merely lip service to the residents of our community and downplays the real-life issues facing the tenants of the Fountain Blue. We ought to be ashamed that this treatment has occurred unchecked, and you as Council should seriously consider whether any social good created from additional rental density should occur in partnership with landlords who have neglected their existing development to such a degree. While Mr. Sim was campaigning, I met him at an event and mentioned the project without getting into specifics. Mr. Sim promised me that development under his administration would be sensible and balanced. I voted for you, council, fundamentally believing that you would do the right thing. And now I'm asking you to do just that.
Thank you very much. Omar, that is your time. And you explained things very clearly. There are no questions.
Thank you.
Next, we have speaker number 12, Anastasia Estropova.
Estropova, how did I do?
Hello, everyone. My name is Anastasia Estropova. I'm here to oppose the rezoning. I live at 5410 Balsam across the street of the existing building. The main reason for pausing is the lack of infrastructure. The streets are narrow and already packed with parked cars. But that was mentioned many times today already. There will be 145 units, and the minimum 36% of them must be two-bedroom apartments. This is approximately equal to 53 flats for families with kids, so around 50 additional children in the area. Some families may have none, but some may have two, so let's stick with 50.
Of the four childcare facilities mentioned in the referral report, two are home-based, so their maximum capacity is seven or eight, depending on the staff. And another one is a preschool that doesn't provide full daycare, only three hours a day. Kilchenna Elementary School, that was already mentioned, is over capacity already. The last figure I heard from our principal at the PAC meeting this winter was 113% already. Before and after school care located in the same building, Shaughnessy Point Gray it is named, cannot fulfill even the existing demand.
In my talk today, I focused mainly on Kint's infrastructure. However, as we all can see, there are other areas of concern that were covered by other speakers. And in conclusion, I just want to mention that this huge building will be a disaster for our area, not only while it will be constructed, but afterwards too. And for everybody, including the residents. Residents of this new building they will not have place for children. They will not have parking spots.
They will not have anything Thank you, thank you very much in our final registered speaker is speaker 13 William Snowdy Thank you
My speech is quite short because I think an awful lot of it has been well covered by previous speakers. But again, I will reiterate the loss of more green space and garden that Vancouver prides itself on. So that's one of the things we've been losing. Parking. Elderly tenants like myself with walking limitations, where do we park? could be blocks away, so how do we juggle and handle our groceries and et cetera to get them home? Proposing about both units, which would be the new unit and the existing unit, to be using the existing swimming pool must be a joke. have not been able to use the pool since Larco purchased 5455 Balsam Street four years ago.
I'd like to expand on that a little wee bit. The pool has been drained and has been empty for the past four months or so with a bit of stagnant water at the bottom of it. The pool is 10 foot deep at one end and three and a half foot deep at the other end. There's no barricades around that pool. The pool is empty. If somebody should happen to fall in in a 10-foot drop, you know what the severity is. We do have 65% or more of our residents are seniors with a lot of walking disabilities and that type of thing. So it's a real hazard, and something needs to be done about it. I'm quite sure Larco will have an excuse for that too. The existing tenants have lost most of their amenities that was provided in our contractual agreements. Larco is doing the best to discourage long-term tenants who have to move out so they can max out what the market can bear for rent. I've been a tenant of that building for 12 years. Community amnesty contribution. I'd like to point out that everybody else knows the same. Larco has offered $7.5 million, which staff recommended that the offer be accepted. Is that like a bribe to get their way? Enough said.
I believe that those who run City Hall should consider people before the almighty dollar. that this new development could generate. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for coming in to speak. So we do have, I think what we'll do is we will take our third call and then we will have, there's two additional speakers, but we'll do our third call first. Can I get a nod? Yeah. Okay, so we're going to do our third and final call for speakers. If there are any speakers for this item who wish to speak to council, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445. And before the close of the speakers list, the phone number will be posted on X and made available on the live stream. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the podium.
I just asked whoever's not registered to come. So that would be the next speaker. So who is that?
Yes, please come and let us know your name.
Sorry to disappoint you. It's been a long evening for you.
No, no, no, not at all. Please go ahead.
I've heard a lot today about the landlord.
Just before you begin, would you mind just stating your first and last name?
Sorry. I'm afraid I'm very deaf. You're going to have to yell.
Oh, no problem. Just your first and last name.
My first and last name. My first name is Fergus and my last name is Hawthorne.
Okay, great. Thank you very much. We will note that.
We've heard a lot this evening about the landlord and what have you. And I guess I just want to come back to the couple of points about the building and then about the location. Firstly, the building, the size of the building. I noticed that the SRP limitation is around 120 feet. And this building is going to top out at about 151 feet if the director of planning approves that. And that's just two dot high. It is most inconsiderate to everybody around that area where it would dwarf other buildings. The separation of the building from its neighbor is too low. It's not specified in the report. At least I couldn't find it. I paced it out with my calibrated one-yard pace, and it's about half of what other buildings are separated. And I think that's too darn close.
We end up with a concrete jungle situation.
The style of the building, the size of it, it's crazy. It's 15 stories, and everywhere else in Kerrisdale, we're limiting them to four and five stories. And I don't understand that. Those five-story buildings around the Greenway are all there in a very busy area with lots of knots and lots of space. This one, there's no space. It's being winkled in. And I think that's inappropriate. There's some major local impacts, things like the loss of sunshine. The crowd on the west side, they'll lose all their morning sun, whilst the people on the east side will lose their afternoon sun. There are impacts on the lane that really worry us who live on the lane.
It says in the report that the director's got to make it friendlier and safer. Well, it's friendly already, and it's safe already. And doubling the amount of traffic on that there certainly isn't going to contribute to making it safer.
And finally is precedence.
If you approve this project, every square foot of Kerrisdale is going to be up for grabs. And you will be inundated by offers to infill. And it will change it majorly from that pleasant, bright, and leafy environment that everyone cherishes.
And we'll be headed towards a concrete jungle again. And one other aspect of it, which I want to bring up, about the Fontainebleau's garden. The Fontainebleau's garden is not fallow land. It's not some undeveloped weedy tract that needs to be improved. It is space. It's light. It's leafy. It's airy. And it's a source of views.
And those are rich pickings for any city anywhere. Our luck is that it's here in Vancouver. And it's here where, as the years go by, those attributes are in shorter and lesser supply.
Here in the city, among a sea of high and low-rise buildings, we have this space, this amazing, delightful, open space. And it was constructed by a developer who clearly wanted to add something of value, intangible value beyond just a fine residence. And he succeeded. That tangible value now, as then, flows not only to the tenants, but also to the community at large. Today, everyone who lives nearby or walks by appreciates the value of this light. and bright open space. They take in the view or follow a flight of, I don't know, northern flicker as it swoops into its many trees. That developer's building with its garden is a one of a kind. It really is. It reflects that developer's pride in building something classy, something unique, and something very French. How could you even consider demolishing that developer's most valuable legacy to society? Thank you.
Thank you very much, Fergus, for speaking to council. Now we are going to pause for five minutes, take a recess, allow anybody who wants to speak to this item a chance to call in. That number has been posted on X at Vancity Clerk, and we will come back in five minutes.
Okay, so I'll just ask counselors to turn their video on and take their seats and we will reconvene the meeting. I'll ask clerks to let us know, is there any additional speakers on the line? Okay, we do have speakers on the line. We also have a speaker in the chambers who has come forward. So I'll call on the speaker in the chambers first while the speakers on the line are getting ready. So that's Robin.
I'm a quick study, Robin.
Yes, thank you. Yeah, I've listened to so many thoughtful people speaking tonight, and I guess, you know, when you start off, you call this a quasi-judicial body. I mean, I don't know if that means you're, like, applying some bylaw standard, and then as long as the sort of information presented doesn't suggest there's a contradiction in that bylaw that you have to approve or whatever. So I don't pretend to understand all of the... legal part to this but I'm very concerned because a couple people have mentioned there are birds that live here and in many ways urban development doesn't consider the impact of the development on the rights of animals. And as Council's aware, I'm part of a mobile indigenous people called the Standing Water People. And one of the most unfortunate parts of the way that urban development goes is that you lose space for animals. And so I really wonder where the birds will go. when you approve this sort of built form. And of course, in the Crown law, birds don't tend to have rights other than, I guess in some ways they do, because there are migratory bird treaties. In some sense, certain migratory species of birds have more rights than humans do to move across national borders. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I REALLY WOULDN'T APPROVE THIS, PARTLY FOR THE REASONS THAT I HAVE HABITUALLY STATED ABOUT THE BUILT FORM AND THE DENSITY PROVIDING STRAIN ON THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, THE AMENITIES, BUT ALSO BECAUSE I've mentioned this before as well. I asked the proponents whether there are any three bedroom units. And there are no three bedroom units. So I just can't wrap my head around doing new development where you're not going to have three bedrooms for people to have families with two or three children. Because as I understand most of the national planning guidelines, children cannot be cohabited in one bedroom if they're of opposite sexes or genders. So how does it work to have no three bedroom units? to support the development of families. So I really don't understand that. I've mentioned that before. I don't think that it's fair. And I mean, this is the difference between the Crown law and my people's law. Like in our law, you gain an estate by living somewhere. And this illustrates one of the gross inequities of the Crown law. All of these nice people have a place to live. It seems to work for them. And because of this corporate entity that somehow gained the token that the Crown issues, they can now perform actions that will displace all of these very kind people who seem very concerned about real human concerns, not so much the obvious motivation of the corporate landlord and the proponents, which isn't immoral or wrong or anything, but it's to make money. So you have on the one hand, you have the making of money.
And then on the other hand, you have all of the horrible impacts this will have on birds and other creatures. So I just wonder how that's fair and how in this quasi-judicial process, as you call it, that you balance those concerns and if there's a legal test. And I don't know that there is. I suppose that's what you're supposed to apply the law. And if there is too great an impact on birds... or too great an impact on the human beings that you've heard about tonight, I just have difficulty weighing that against what is ultimately a profit-oriented undertaking. And I'm not, you know, suggesting profit motivation is bad. I just really don't understand how you're going to formulate a reasoning or a ratio that tips the scale in favor of making money over the concerns about the trees, the birds, and of course all of these kind people who have shown up to explain the consequences this will have for them. So thank you very much for listening to me again.
Thank you very much, Robin, for speaking to this item. We are now going to go to speakers who have called in online, and I'll ask the clerks to indicate our next speaker.
Speaker, we can't hear you, so thank you for calling in. If you could please state your first and last name and if you're a resident of Vancouver.
Sure. My name is Linda Stanley, and I am a resident of Vancouver, and I do live across from the property in question. I do have a question, and I don't know the proper terminology, but from listening to everyone, which has been fantastic, Some of the things I heard, which I kind of questioned, was one of the terms, I don't know the proper terminology, but they said that the pre-existing building would remain until its final usage. I'm unclear as to what that term means. Is there a certain date, number of years while it's there before they decide to tear it down and put up a new one. And my second question is pertaining to, again, I don't know the terminology, but about the Heritage Commission or fee. Is this a normal process in order to get rezoning? Again, I just find it somewhat confusing in order to have these things changed. I'm a little confounded by them, not knowing. And I guess that was it.
Okay. Thank you very much for calling in. There are no questions at this time.
Okay. Thank you. And any further speakers in the chambers? Okay, so seeing that there are no additional speakers, the speakers list is now closed. And seeing there are little or no public comments received after 5 p.m., I am now closing the receipt of public comments. Does the applicant have any closing comments?
Just very briefly, thank you again for the opportunity to speak today and to review our file. Thanks to everybody who came in today in a heat wave, no less, to voice your concerns. And as I mentioned, we'll be relaying those concerns to property management. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much.
Does council have any questions for staff? And I see there are questions. Councillor Montague.
Yeah, thanks. I was noticing in the referral report itself, on page 9, section 5, it talks about that in addition, as the new building is proposed, the location of the current underground parking site, the applicant will be required to provide parking for existing residents within close proximity, et cetera, et cetera. But I don't see that in Appendix B anywhere. Is it not in Appendix B, or can I just not see it?
Council Montague, there's a section here that I missed, which is asking staff if they have any closing comments. Would it be okay if I pause your time and then we can answer your question? So I just want to ask staff if there's any closing comments.
I would like to respond to a question that Councillor Meisner had around the on-street permit parking as part of my closing comments. Just to describe the process as it's unsecured parking right now on the public streets in this area. If residents wish to secure that so that the parking permit is required to be able to park there. for residents. There's a process that can be followed on Vancouver.ca. It's a four-stage process. You submit an application. Granted, there is a long queue in this process because of a variety of residents seeking this that can take 16 to 18 months. After that point, there's an initial survey with surrounding neighbors. And if there's 50% in support of securing parking on the public street, it progresses to a second survey that again looks for 50% support in the surrounding area. If that is achieved, then a new permit area is created. And there is more guarantee of parking if a permit is acquired. Outside of that, I'd also like to thank all the speakers tonight for coming and participating in the process and for providing me with their feedback throughout the process as well. I have valued hearing from all of you, so thank you for that. And staff are here as well. If further questions arise, thank you.
Thank you very much. And now, Councillor Montague's question, if there's a staff person who can answer that, please. And happy to ask Councillor Montague to repeat it if necessary.
Yeah, just in the report itself, it talks about the requirement to provide parking for existing residents during construction. But I can't find it in Appendix B. I mean, is it just not there or am I missing it? Yes, we did add it in for this application. We don't normally add that item into the conditions because it is a standard expectation at a development permit stage. But we do have it. You can find it on page 8 of 16 of the Appendix B under item 1.36.
Okay, great. Thank you. I missed that. That's all I have for now. Thank you. Councillor Domenato.
Yeah, thanks, Chair. I just want to clarify one point going back to parking.
Back to my question, which was that with the new parking by-law, which will come in place, we don't know if that will be in place at the time of DP or not. And then we had some tenants indicate that in their lease agreement, there was a provision of parking. Would that be a matter, and I can't ask the applicant this, so I'll ask staff. Would that be a matter of negotiation then between the property owner and the tenants? If so, if the new parking bylaws in place that has no parking requirements and their lease agreements stipulate parking. then the onus would be on the property owner to renegotiate those lease agreements and tenancy agreements? That is correct. Again, I'm putting a hypothetical out there, but I'm just trying to get some clarity because we're in this transition with our parking bylaw, and that's what this hinges on, right? right now is saying, okay, it would be 142 spaces, number of bike spaces, and so on. But in the future, that could be. Yeah, the lease agreement would stand for the existing residents. So if it says that they have access to a parking spot, that would continue. Okay, okay, thank you. And then could Grant just speak to... What type of conditions we can impose on an application like this just at a high level? because council is the opportunity to approve this To impose more conditions to deny it and as well as to refer it to staff for further work But I'm just curious if grant could speak to what is within the realm of possibility of conditions that can be imposed based on feedback We've heard from residents today
grants on the line.
works. Do we have? Yes, we're just looking to just help me for grant you just check to turn this video on, but we can pause your timer.
Thank you.
Sorry, it's grant Murray, I did not hear the question. I was in discussion with the another councillor. I can repeat it, Grant. I was just asking, we've heard quite a bit of feedback, both in correspondence and in residents who've come here in person today about this proposal. Could you give council an overview of what we're permitted to do with this application in terms of support, denial, referral, as well as what is the nature of conditions we can impose on this application based on feedback? Certainly. Well, the three options were discussed at the beginning of the hearing. You could approve the application. You could refuse the application. You could approve the application. I guess there's more than three. You could approve it with further conditions, or you could send it back to staff, and that would very likely trigger a future public hearing.
The conditions would have to be acceptable, presumably, to the applicant. But because there's little ability to now get feedback from the applicant whether any conditions being imposed are acceptable. So at this stage, the applicant has already spoken. They've already been asked their questions. And further discussion from the applicant indicating whether they support or don't support a condition is problematic. or could be problematic because it would require further public hearing. But you could impose conditions, and it could be that they would say they're not acceptable to them at a future time, and then it would require a further public hearing. Or you could not impose conditions and approve it, and presumably that's already satisfactory to them. It could also be refused. But the difficulty at its core is that it's now – problematic to speak to the applicant and to get further impact from the applicant because all of the people who have been spoken are unaware of what the applicant is about to say and that might have changed what they would have said at the public hearing. So that's the crux of the issue as I understand it.
But just to reiterate, approve, approve with conditions, send back to staff and very likely trigger a new public hearing or I think that's it.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Those are my questions. Thank you, Councillor Domenetto. Councillor Kirby, yeah.
Yeah, thanks. I'm going to follow up on that with Grant with one point because Councillor Domenetto asked my question and I want to be explicitly clear here. Grant, are you there? Yes. Okay. I had sent in a couple of questions as well and I know you were speaking to them and it's important that everything is clearly on the public record during the public hearing. I have two notes from you, one that says it would likely trigger a public hearing, and one that said it's possible to have it come back without triggering a new public hearing. I just want to really zero in on that and get some clarity. The point is this. If staff consider the conditions that are going to be imposed and do not communicate with the applicant about it, then it could come back to council without triggering a new public hearing. It would just have to be adjourned so that it could be for debate and decision later. So it would be similar to where questions are asked of staff and they bring, are these conditions possible? And then you would adjourn this to a future date, a date specific, and you could discuss it. That entirely rests on the fact that no further communication is made with the applicant. If you want feedback from the applicant, then that's going to trigger a further public hearing. Okay. And if we refer with conditions and do not engage the applicant, that can be a time-bound referral. You can set a period of three months or whatever the case may be. Is that correct? Yes. I'm not sure that it would take that long, but you could say you could adjourn it to a date specific. If you were going to adjourn this meeting, you have to say that you're adjourning it to a particular date. at a particular time, and you also have to indicate that it will be available by electronic means. That's how you adjourn a public hearing. Can I ask?
Sorry? Can I jump in and ask you one more question? In your opinion, is there any discernible legal or substantive difference between approving with conditions tonight, which will be, as you said, without further engagement with the applicant, or referring? with conditions without further engagement with the applicant, did they not essentially result in the same outcome, in your opinion? I'm not entirely certain. If they were unworkable conditions, then I agree that it would collapse in both circumstances. Like, if it's impossible for them to achieve them, then it would not matter whether it was done one way or the other. If you were seeking just to avoid a further public hearing, you could ask staff to develop the conditions and bring them back for approval at a later date, as I said already, a date specific. So that could certainly be done. But I absolutely agree that you can't get blood from a stone. And if it's impossible to do whatever the conditions are being imposed upon them or it makes it non-economic, then that would probably be the answer in both circumstances.
Okay, I'll leave it there because I want to save some time. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Kerby. And Councillor Fry.
Thanks, Chair. Now, I realize we don't have a renter's office specifically that does this work, but I'm hoping staff can answer. And this kind of builds off what Councillor Dominato was asking. My understanding of the RTA is that if parking is in the tenancy agreement, then... the tenancy agreement would need to be renegotiated. And in fact, any associated fees are protected by the same annual rent increase that one would have on, say, their actual apartment rent. And by extension, that also applies to non-essential services and facilities as defined in the RTA. And the termination of non-essential services and facilities would require some kind of dispute resolution with the resident tenancy board? Is that a sort of accurate summation of the legal recourse for tenants? So in the case of, say, the pool, if... Okay, that's a question to staff.
Sorry, Councillor Frye. Thanks, Councillor Frye. I can try to answer that question. It is RTA jurisdiction, as you've noted. The existing lease agreements would need to be honoured. If they changed, then the tenants would have, I suppose, an ability to seek arbitration through the rental tenancy branch. if something isn't offered that was previously offered as part of their tenancy agreement. So I think that would be their recourse. I don't know if that's the case here, but I do understand there are concerns related to parking. But generally speaking, if it's helpful, we don't typically link parking with rents. They're separate and it's up to the landlord, property management company. to determine rates for parking. What we say when we're securing affordability, though, is that you can't arbitrarily make the secured affordable units pay higher parking fees than the market units as a way to artificially increase those market rents on the below market rental units. In this case, we have no BMR, so it's not an issue. I don't know if that helps. No, that is helpful because I think where I was going with this is because I know that in the case of, you know, we have a 3.5% rent increase for 2024, they can't just jack the parking to kind of squeeze that extra money out in that case, nor for non-essential services and facilities like laundry or a swimming pool in this case.
I just want to kind of articulate that we don't, because we don't have a renter's office anymore that could actually do this work and kind of share that with tenants. And I just... Really kind of want to put it on the record there. So thank you, Annie. I appreciate that. Thank you. All right. That's it for questions for me then. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Fry. Councillor Carr. Yeah, thank you. I just have a question also for Grant Murray, and that is around the potential to add a new condition of races. I raised this earlier in the discussion, but I just want to know that it's okay to add a condition of approval regarding maintaining the existing mature trees. This is just straight from what the report says. As I said, it's just not in the conditions of approval yet. So number one, to maintain the existing mature trees in the outdoor amenity area. And secondly, to maintain the outdoor swimming pool. Now, the report itself just says that it is going to be remaining. I'd like to know if I can add language that said it will remain and be maintained as operational. Sorry, it's Grant Murray with Legal Services. There's no reason that you couldn't do that as a condition here tonight. The difficulty is that if the applicant cannot achieve that, then it will be an approval without any ability to construct. But there's no reason that that couldn't be opposed as a condition, just like the other conditions that have been, just like other issues that have arisen here tonight. They could be imposed as conditions to deal with the pool, to deal with... the trees to deal with the standards of maintenance bylaw. It's just that that may make it more difficult for the applicant to proceed with the construction. And without communicating with the applicant, which would trigger a new public hearing, it's difficult to assess that. But there's no reason that that couldn't be done tonight and the dust would settle later.
Okay, thank you very much. I see that our DMF planning, Josh White, is at the microphone.
Yeah, just in talking with staff and having heard some of the dialogue back and forth, maybe just offer a suggestion that might be productive. Maybe suggest that we adjourn the public hearing and suggest a date for us to come back soon and staff can propose a reasonable set of amendments to address some of the discussions that have happened tonight and come back for council's consideration at that time towards the end of this month.
OK, thank you very much for that suggestion. I wonder, just to be clear, do you require direction from council in the form of a referral, or what would that look like?
My understanding is we can simply adjourn and you can recommend a date for us to return from that adjournment. Okay. But maybe Grant can opine on some of the procedure of that.
Okay. Thank you. I'm going to just... May I ask a point of procedure?
Point of procedure, yes. And I just wanted to clarify with our Director of Planning whether or not he's meaning that we adjourn or we recess the public hearing. to a future date, just looking for clarification.
Thank you very much. So we are going to just take that advice. There are other questions on the queue, so I'm going to allow those. And that's the question that was being raised. So, Councillor Carr, back to you. I'm good. Okay. Councillor Domenato.
Thanks, Chair, and I'd also like the answer to that question that Councillor Kirby-Young asked. One last question. I just want to ask, it was discussed earlier, the notion of imposing conditions related to the existing building being certified to the satisfaction of the chief building official in terms of being in compliance with standards of maintenance bylaw. Could Council impose a condition that the new building also be certified and there being an operational plan or some sort of maintenance plan associated with the new building? Is that possible as a condition?
I heard some background. The charter uses the word adjournment.
Okay, Grant, we have a question for you, and we can also hear, I think Grant's on a call at the moment, so he's trying to get the response.
I'm sorry, I was speaking to Jeff Greenberg, who's also counsel on this matter tonight.
Not a problem.
Thank you.
Not a problem.
I'll add a minute to your talk.
Here's the question. I understand that it's possible to impose potentially a condition related to the existing building that it be certified to be the satisfaction of the chief building official as being in compliance with our standards of maintenance bylaw. My question to staff is, could we impose a similar condition with respect to the new building? And could we require the applicant to provide an operational plan demonstrating how they will maintain and upkeep the new building? Is that something within the purview of council to impose as a condition? And I get that maybe that would be taken away as part of an adjournment or a recess, but I just want to ask the question now.
So, Grant, that's to you. Thank you.
The standards of maintenance bylaws are typically more relevant to old buildings than to new buildings, but I don't think that there's any reason that it couldn't be required to be maintained in accordance with the standards of maintenance bylaws. It's just that eventually that will become difficult to, usually it's a condition of enactment or it's a condition of the form of development. And this one will be something that would linger afterwards. There's already a requirement that all the buildings in the city meet the standards of maintenance bylaw. So it's a peculiar thing. It's a peculiar notion to impose a requirement that's already a legal requirement on it as an ongoing condition. to indicate that the building must in the future be in accordance with the standards of maintenance bylaw would be lawful.
Okay. Thank you. That's all I had for questions. Thank you very much. Councillor Herbie-Young, questions to staff?
Yeah, so I want to follow up I suspect I feel a break for legal consultation in our in our future so I'm just gonna throw a question in there and It'll send in this language, but speaking to what we heard from my director of planning. I'd like to hear from legal send this in Would it be something along the lines of the council refer the application to staff to reconvene public hearing with such date to be? determined By staff or something of that nature, so I'll be looking for a specific feedback around That's my question. Are you emailing that in? Okay, thanks. Sorry, I can answer that question right now. You have to adjourn it to a date specific. You have to adjourn it to a place and a time that are quite specific. And you also have to indicate that it will be available by, like it'll be a meeting that is subject to electronic. It'll be an electronic meeting. Sorry, can you repeat that, Grant? You just cut out on the last few words, please. I'm sorry. You need a date, a time, a place, and an indication that it's going to be an electronic meeting. This is actually just recently changed in the Vancouver Charter.
Okay. Thank you. I will send language. The Charter uses the word adjournment, so I don't think that there's a significant distinction between a recess and an adjournment. The Charter talks about adjournment. Use the word adjournment.
Okay, I'm going to just pause. If that's okay, Councilor Kirby, you can send that in. Just as chair of the meeting, I just want to clarify at the beginning of the meeting, three options are provided. After hearing from speakers, Council may, one, approve the application in principle, two, refuse the application, or three, refer the application to staff for further consideration. So just to be very clear, having heard from the GM of planning, it sounds like... Option three is what's being discussed. So rather than recess or adjournment, then the three options we have are to approve, not approve, or refer back. I just want to clarify that's where we're at. And we'll move to Councilor Carr. No, I'm just saying now we're moving to you for questions to staff, okay?
All right, good. Well, I have a second point, but the first point is I did not hear Grant Murray say that. I think I heard him give us a fourth option. So I would like to simply recess and adjourn. It's not as part of the. I know it's not part of the instructions, but this has never happened before. So the fourth option is simply another form of approval. It's approved with conditions, right? The three options are approve, refuse, or send back to staff. But you could approve with conditions, and that's a subclass of the approval.
Grant, I think the clarification is being asked that where does the recess and adjournment come in based on the advice you just gave to Councilor Kirby Young?
That would have been the third one that Councilor Carr stated. Or the third one that's stated at the beginning of the meeting. So that would be to send it back to staff. But there's a couple of variations of that. If you send it back to staff and the staff want to speak to the applicant, that's going to trigger a new public hearing. If you send it back to staff and they don't have to speak to the applicant, that doesn't trigger a new public hearing. But at this stage, I'm not sure that there wouldn't be some requirement for further direction as to what we'd be reporting back with. If it's imposition of standards of maintenance obligations, imposition of the tree preservation, the pool preservation, and some other issues, then it might be useful to have that direction prior to us breaking and coming back.
Okay, thank you very much. In a vacuum, deciding what we're going to do.
Thanks very much for that clarity.
He led exactly into my next question. My next question was going to be, because I have circulated an amendment, and that's the amendment that I'd already talked about. So we haven't moved the recommendations yet? No, I know, but I have circulated that I would, if we proceeded as normal, I would have tabled under the normal process. But the point is I've circulated it. And so, therefore, my question is, and apropos of what Grant just said, Will staff take any circulated amendments into consideration while they have a break to then assess the situation and then come back to us?
I'm seeing some nodding, but let's hear from staff directly.
Thank you for the question. We have received a few potential amendments, and staff would take what's been received so far into consideration should the choice be to adjourn and come back. We would come back with recommended.
Excellent. Okay, that's fantastic. Thank you. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Councillor Zhou.
Yeah, thanks, Chair. So I also have a question to legal, I guess, so grant. I guess my question is, if this is approval of this condition, and if this condition is not workable for the applicant, what are the possibilities after that? Would that kill the project?
I'm Story Counselor Zhao. It's Grant Murray. I didn't hear all of that question. Okay. I'm going to repeat the question. So if it is approval with condition for this project, and if the condition is not workable for the applicant, so what are the possibilities afterwards? Would that kill the project?
Well, the difficulty is that I don't know that. It could be that they're perfectly acceptable to the applicant. But obviously, the less expensive the conditions are, the more likely it's going to be amenable to the applicant. But I simply don't know which ones could or could not be done. And so if you impose a condition and it turns out to be unacceptable, you'd find that out in the future. But if you want to go back with particular conditions and speak to the applicant, that will trigger a new public hearing.
Okay, so I'm just thinking about all different scenarios after this approval of its conditions. Of course, if the conditions are acceptable, everything is good. So in the case of conditions that are not acceptable, you said we're going to trigger another public hearing. So what are the options there? So we still have the exactly same situation at a new public hearing.
So we're still outpacing the similar options. Presumably it would have different conditions imposed in the conditions of enactment or the conditions of form of development.
So I'm going to just pause us there if that's okay. We've got a few things that are being thrown around on the table here. I think your question is bordering a planning question and not a legal question, but I just want to be very clear about the next processes. So if it is okay with council, let's call a five minute recess. It will give legal a chance to confer with our staff and make sure we're all on the right process. And then we'll come back. And we'll come back right in five minutes. So 20 minutes past nine.
Okay, thanks.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So I'll just ask our counselors online also to join us.
Okay, so we are, as was stated, in a quasi-judicial process. So we have to be very careful that we're legally sound. So thank you very much to our city legal team for advising. So the process now is that we have, And I recognize we've got councillors on the queue. There have been amendments or conditions that have been sent in. Our planning staff have those amendments. The issues related to specifically trees, standards of maintenance, community amenities, and the parking are the four main topics. So what legal are proposing and planning staff have also agreed to as a good next step is to adjourn this public hearing, and then we will defer debate and decision to the council meeting of July 24th.
And in that time, legal will have time to review proper language, and staff can work with language related to those four issues. And then that will be shared back at that time with council as well as part of the debate decision process and That will all happen on the morning of July 24th If I missed anything So that we don't need a motion the recommendations have not been moved It simply would be an adjournment of this public hearing and defer debate decision to July 24th
july 23rd apologies council july 23rd tuesday july 23rd yes i just want to turn on your mic for phone i'm sorry if i can just interrupt we need a date a time and we have to say that it's going to be an electronic meeting we're going to return thank you very much okay we will do that yeah Okay, thanks, Chair. So, again, if that's the case, I want to understand what are the legally, what are the difference between the adjournment to July 23rd and the referral? What are the difference?
Grant, do you want to answer that question?
I think typically a referral is regarded as something that automatically triggers a new public hearing. This will not necessarily trigger a new public hearing. Okay, I see. Thanks. So then the other question is for our staff. If we adjourn until July 23rd, that would give us two weeks. Do you think two weeks would be enough to negotiate with the applicant?
Can I just clarify? I'll just clarify, Grant, if I may. There is no negotiating with applicants. What staff are doing are working with language to make sure that it is legal in accordance with our procedure by law and our public hearing criteria. So that does not mean going and negotiating with the applicant so that it keeps the public hearing process sound. And legally compliant. Okay. It's just deferring debate and decision to the morning of July 23rd, where the recommendations could be moved, the amendments could be moved, or the conditions of approval can be moved by individuals who would like to move them, and then that becomes the result. I see.
That's clear. So that basically means that on July 23rd, we are facing exactly the same situation, exactly the same condition, without new information.
We are looking at the same application, yes.
Okay. All right. Thanks. That's all my question, Chair. Thanks.
Okay. Thank you for clarifying, Councilor Giroux. I'm sure that is helpful for everybody. So you're still on the queue. I'm good. Thanks, Chair. So, Councilor Carr, we're still on the question queue. We're going to wrap this piece up and, yeah.
Okay. Go ahead. I'm there for a question. My question is to staff that if we are referring for debate and decision to that meeting, does it still hold that we as council members should not be discussing this amongst ourselves, nor with the public, nor with staff? Is that still the rules?
It's the grammar legal. Yes. Yes. Thank you for the short and sweet answer.
Okay, thank you very much, Councillor Carr, Councillor Frey.
Yeah, and just to clarify then, as far as amendments that have been submitted to the queue, those will be incorporated into... So I do have a leave coming up, and I'm just curious if those amendments will be incorporated into...
No, they won't be, Counsel Fry, because we haven't moved the recommendations and amendments haven't been moved or voted on. So you would need someone to do that in your place.
Okay. So there's no new recommendations coming forward from staff then? What we are anticipating is just a reset to deal with some legal parameters before we just reconvene doing the exact same thing. That's correct. Okay. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. So that does bring us to the end of the question queue. So I'd like to, we don't need a motion. So this meeting is adjourned until July 23rd, 2024 at 3 p.m. No, at 9.30.
Well, yes, I know, but I'm just reading the motion. 3 p.m. or 9 p.m.? It says 3 p.m. Okay.
I understand. Okay.
So this meeting is adjourned until July 23rd, 2024 at 9.30 a.m. here in council chambers to continue with item number two of this meeting. And I'm looking for a mover.
Councilor Kirby Young, seconded by Councilor Zhou. All those in favor? Any opposed?
meeting will so that motion passes so this meeting will reconvene in person and by electronic means as authorized under section 14.3 of the procedure by law as such council members may participate in person or by electronic means members of the public may also view the proceedings by the live stream and youtube link which we posted on x advanced city clerk i will remind council that it is very important you do not engage in any discussion or correspondence in regard to the remaining uh to the application that will be discussed at that future date. And this meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much. And thank you for everyone who came to speak.