Public Hearing — January 20, 2026 — Transcript
← Public Hearing January 20, 2026
Hello, Councillor Bly. Can you hear me? It's Tina.
Yes, hi, Tina.
Hi.
I can hear you.
Hello. We can hear you as well. Thank you. Councillor Kirby-Young, how about you?
Hi, Tina.
Hi. Yes. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you.
Great.
Thank you very much. Okay. So why don't we get started then? It's 6 o'clock.
Ah, okay. Good thing I wasn't wearing my glasses.
Thanks, Tina. I'm sorry. Thanks, clerk. I will now call the public hearing of Tuesday, January the 20th, 2026 to order. This meeting is being held in person and by electronic means. Council members and the public may participate by either method. Any council members joining electronically are reminded to enable video to confirm quorum. The meeting is being live streamed on the city's website and YouTube and meeting progress will be updated regularly on X at Van City Clerk. Now in the case of an emergency, there are two exits located just beyond those glass doors and to the left pillar. If the glass doors are blocked, please use one of the four additional exits on the side of this chamber here. Please don't use the elevator, use the stairs instead. And if you need any type of mobility assistance whatsoever, please remain in place and one of our super friendly security team members will guide you to a safe location. There's also a defibrillator available at the end of this hallway if we so need it. I do want to acknowledge that we're hosting tonight's public hearing on the traditional territories of the Musqueamamamam, Squamish and TTTTsleil-Waututh First Nations. And I do want to thank them for their generosity and their hospitality and the love and care they show this great land that we get to live, work and play on. I also want to acknowledge and thank all of our team members throughout the entire city of Vancouver for just... working incredibly hard and with purpose and passion every single day to make this city a better place for all of us to live, work, and play. So, Clerk, can we please have a roll call?
Yes, of course. Mayor Simmons in the chair. Councillor Kirby Young.
Present.
Councillor Domenato. I'm not seeing her. Councillor Bly. Present. Councillor Frye. Present.
Do not see. Councillor Fry. Councillor Montague.
Present.
Councillor Meisner.
Present.
Councillor Zhou. I'm not seeing Councillor Zhou. Councillor Maloney. And Councillor Orr. The hearing has quorum. Mayor Sim.
Great. Thank you very much. Now, before we begin, a few announcements. Please note that a new public speaker podium has been installed on the left-hand side of the public gallery, so my right. Speakers should adjust the podium to a comfortable height for speaking into the microphone by using the controls on the bottom right-hand corner. The public may speak in person or by phone or may submit written comments to Mayor and Council. Speakers may only speak once and will have up to five minutes to comment on the merits of the application. Please state whether you support or oppose the recommendations and if you are a resident of Vancouver. Those representing four or more individuals or groups, including themselves, may speak for up to eight minutes. Each person being represented must confirm their name and presence in person or by phone and may not speak separately. Please follow the live stream on at VanCityClerk on X to track meeting progress and know when your turn to speak is approaching. Please note the live stream has a slight delay. Written comments can be submitted through the Mayor and Council Public Hearing Feedback Forum on the City's website and linked on X. If you preregistered with a presentation, see next to have the clerk advance your slides. The procedure bylaw prohibits council members from the use of words, tone, or gestures that express negative views of individuals or groups. Members of the public are expected to not engage in improper conduct, such as hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory language. Council members may raise a point of order if language is not respectful. As chair, I may ask speakers to adjust their remarks accordingly. A reminder, at public hearings, council acts as a quasi-judicial body and must focus solely on the merits of the rezoning or heritage application. Members may ask clarifying questions of our team members or speakers, including the applicant, but should reserve debate until after the speaker's list has closed. After hearing from speakers, Council may 1. approve the application in principle, 2. approve the application in principle with amendments, 3. refuse the application, or 4. refer the application to team members for further consideration. Finally, if all speakers are not heard this evening, the public hearing will recess and reconvene on Thursday, January 22, 2026 at 3 p.m. So the first item on the docket is item number one, miscellaneous amendments concerning various CD-1 bylaws. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anybody wish to disclose a conflict?
Right, seeing no one's hands up.
The clerk's now going to read the application in summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability to make miscellaneous amendments to bylaws for the following. CD-1772 for 1102 to 1138 East Georgia Street. CD-1475 for 26 Southwest Marine Drive. And CD-1868 for 1045 Burnaby Street. The bylaw amendments would remove limitations to the location and types of commercial uses in CD-1772 and CD-1475 and would increase the allowable height in CD-1868. The General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability recommends approval subject to conditions set out in the summary and recommendation and the yellow memorandum dated January 20th, 2026, entitled Rezoning Miscellaneous Amendments Concerning Various CD-1 Bylaws. Proposed Height Amendment to CD-1-868 Bylaw, number 14084 or 1045 Burnaby Street. No correspondence has been received on this application since referral to the public hearing.
Great. Thank you very much. Now, this is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll free at 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 106144-POUND before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. This item does not have a PowerPoint presentation. Would our team members from Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability like to provide an opening, sorry, any opening comments on the application?
Yes. Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Esther Ewan, and I am the rezoning planner for this item. This report recommends text amendments to three CD1 bylaws. Items 1 and 2 removes limitations to the restrictions on commercial uses and is intended to support the viability of commercial units. Item 3 increases allowable height for portions of the rooftop appurtenances to accommodate for design elements, such as elevators and acoustic flooring. Staff would also like to note that there is a yellow memo attached to this report that would need to be moved as well, relating to item 3 within the report. Thank you. Staff are available to answer questions.
Great. Thank you. Please note that the applicant for this item is the General Manager of Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability. With that, does the applicant or their designate have any additional comments?
No comments.
Thank you. Are there any questions from council to our team members or the applicant? Not seeing anyone in the queue, so I'm going to keep going. This is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council, please call toll-free at 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 106-1445-POUND before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on accent displayed during the recess. We're now going to hear from the public. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the left podium when your name is called. Phone and speakers will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Speakers will have five minutes to make their comments, up to five minutes, I should say, to make their comments, and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered. So our first speaker, registered speaker, is speaker number one, Natalie Ming. Is Natalie on the line?
No.
Okay. If there are any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium. Clerk, are there any additional speakers on the line?
No, Mayor, and I'm not seeing anybody in the chamber.
Thank you very much. This is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445 before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. So we're now going to take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in or come forward to the podium.
That's two minutes. So, Clerk, do we have any additional speakers in the chamber or online?
Just checking, Mayor.
Do we have anyone on the line? Could you send me a note, please?
None on the line? I'm not seeing anybody in the chamber.
Thank you very much. Seeing no further speakers, the speakers list is now closed. Clerk, has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item since 5 p.m.?
No.
Seeing there are few or no public comments received after 5 p.m., I'm now going to close the receipt of public comments. Do our team members or the applicant have any closing comments?
So does our team or the applicant have any closing comments?
Hello, Mayor and Council. Staff would like to remind Council to move the yellow memo and referral report together.
Thanks. Thank you very much. Does Council have any final questions for our team members? Seeing no one in the queue. Clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the close of public comments?
No.
Thank you. I will remind council that we need to move the recommendation for item one together with the yellow memo dated January the 20th, 2026 entitled rezoning miscellaneous amendments concerning various city dash one. Bylaws proposed height amendment to CD-1-868 bylaw number 14084, and that's 1045 Burnaby Street. Council will now make its decision on the application. Do we have a mover for the recommendations? Thank you, Councillor Claston, seconded by Councillor Zhoue. And by the way, that was for the recommendations and the yellow memo. Great, thank you. Council members, is there any discussion? Seeing no one in the queue, a reminder that any council member participating virtually whose video is disabled will be marked absent for the vote pursuant to section 14.13 of the procedure bylaw. I'm now going to call the vote. If we can please go to the voting panel and council register your vote.
Mayor, I have a tech issue. Can I have a vote assist in favour, please? You sure can. Thank you.
A vote assist in favour. It's Councillor Donanato.
Thank you very much.
That passes unanimously with Councillor Frey absent. Okay, and that completes item number one. Thank you. Thank you very much. Item number two, CD-1 rezoning, 426 through 428 West 14th Avenue and 3015 through 3027 Yukon Street. Before we begin this item, agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anybody wish to declare a conflict of interest? Councillor Montague.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor.
I'm going to have to declare a conflict in what I believe could be perceived as a conflict of interest because of a personal connection to be affected by this application.
Thank you very much, Councillor. If someone could just text me when the items complete. We sure will. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Seeing none, the clerk's now going to read the application and the summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by Stuart Howard Architects to rezone 426 to 428 West 14th Avenue and 3015 to 3027 Yukon Street from R3-2 Residential District. to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District to permit the development of an 18-story rental residential building containing 133 rental units with 20% of the residential floor area for below-market rental units. A floor space ratio of 5.5 and a height of 58 meters are proposed. The general manager of planning, urban design, and sustainability recommends approval. Subject to conditions set out in the summary and recommendation and the yellow memorandum dated January 13th, 2026, entitled CD-1 rezoning 426 to 428 West 14th Avenue and 3015 to 3027 Yukon Street. amendments to one and two, recommendation A, and three amendments to modify rezoning conditions. The following correspondence has been received since referral to the public hearing. Eight pieces of correspondence in support, 59 pieces of correspondence in opposition, and three pieces of correspondence dealing with other aspects of the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today.
Great, thank you very much. Now, this is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445 before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. Now, we do have team members from Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability here to present the application.
Please go ahead.
Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Oskar Eriksson, and I'm the rezoning planner for this application located at 426-428 West 14th Avenue and 3015-3027 Yukon Street. This application before you is accompanied with a yellow memorandum that notes the recently enacted R3, R4, R5 district schedules, and that the current zoning of this site is R3-2. Secondly, the memo corrects the typographical error in recommendation A, and thirdly, it amends the public art and transportation demand management conditions to align with the recently adopted development viability report.
The site, shown in red, is located on the southwest... Can you see the presentation?
Can you see the presentation?
Yes, perfect. Thank you.
The site, shown in red here, is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of 14th Avenue and Yukon Street. The surrounding context consists primarily of single detached houses with commercial or mixed-use buildings along Cambie Street. The site is currently developed with three single detached houses. There are tenants on site eligible for protection under the Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy.
Consideration of this application is enabled by the Broadway Plan. The site is located in the Mount Pleasant RT area, Area B, which allows for considerations of rezonings for 100% rental housing with 20% of the residential floor area as below-market rental units. Buildings up to 18 stories and 5.5 FSR can be considered at this location.
The application, submitted December 19, 2023, proposes a rental building of 18 stories at a density of 5.5 FSR. The proposal includes 133 rental units, where 20% of the residential floor area is delivered as below-market rental units. Please note, in December 2025, Council approved a two-year time-limited rental development relief program to improve the viability of rental projects. This project is eligible to apply for the program and can apply when intake opens in February 2nd, 2026.
A virtual Q&A period was held in October 2024, and in total, 517 pieces of correspondence were received. Support was expressed for the contribution to the housing stock, including the delivery of below-market rental units. the location, given its proximity to transit services and amenities, the climate-friendly aspects of the project, which promote car-free living and support sustainable urban growth. Generally, concerns were expressed within the following areas, height, density, and massing, neighborhood character and livability, and sunlight, privacy, and view impacts. In response, staff note that the scale of the proposal is consistent with the intentions of the plan. In regard to neighborhood character, the proposal aligns with the expectation of the plan. Future development must adhere to the form of development guidelines outlined in the Broadway plan, ensuring a contextual fit with the neighborhood's character. Further review of the form of development will occur at the development permit stage. Additionally, the project aligns with solar access guidelines outlined in the plan. The proposal complies with tower separation guidelines. Privacy impacts will be assessed further at development permit stage, and the project does not impact any protected public views.
At the time the rezoning report was finalized, the expected DCLs and public art contribution were approximately $1.8 million.
Additionally, the project will deliver 106 market rental units and approximately 27 below-market rental units. I will note the Development Viability Report, which Council approved on December 10, enables a 20% reduction in DCL contributions, which is not factored into these numbers.
In conclusion, this proposal aligns with the Broadway plan and advances the city's rental housing targets by delivering 133 rental units, of which 20% are below-market rental units. Staff recommend approval, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix B of the report. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer questions. Thank you.
Would the applicant like to present the application?
Thank you, Worship, and members of the Council for hearing our application tonight. My name is Neil Robertson. I'm the Principal of Stuart Howard Architects and the applicant for this application. I think staff did a great job presenting the project, so I don't have anything to say other than we're here to answer any questions that any of you might have regarding our project, as well as to listen to any comments that the public may have and hopefully address them throughout the design process.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from council team members or the applicant noting that this is the only opportunity for council to ask questions of the applicant?
Councillor Dominato.
Thanks, Mayor. I think maybe my first question will go to staff. It might also be for the applicant. But there's been obviously we've received some public input around the proposal. I understand it's compliant with the Broadway plan in terms of FSR. But I'm curious, in the past, we've sometimes been able to see the contextual landscape of... developments of similar size and it didn't see that in the presentation and we don't do the models out here anymore do we have any information about sort of other buildings nearby of a similar size or not because I know we've heard from neighbors about it fitting with the existing context and so just wondering if we have any of that information in the past we've had a bit of a visual that shows us other existing buildings or other ones that are planned
I'll pause there. Hopefully that was clear. Thank you for the question. Casey Peters, Assistant Director of the Rezoning Center. We could certainly prepare something and get back to you later on in the evening with a verbal update on what's surrounding, but I will say that while the... We haven't necessarily seen the developments be built yet. The Broadway plan certainly envisions a significant change to this neighborhood. Okay, okay. I'd be interested in more information. I mean, you can visually, I walked around the neighborhood today, so you can see some buildings, but... If you have more information to offer before the end of the public hearing, that'd be great. Question to the applicant. I noted in the report there's plans for inclusion of townhomes at the base, and I'm just curious if you could expand on how many. It didn't say in the report how many townhomes are contemplated. That's a very good question. And I've been spending a good deal of time in North Burnaby recently for various kids' activities and things, and I've been noting some of their construction with townhomes adjacent to towers, and it seems to work quite well, but I'm just curious how many are contemplated here. Yeah, thank you for the question, Councillor. And so that's sort of our approach when we're dealing with these more transitional neighbourhoods. Our approach to the design of this building was to do a podium and a tower scheme, similar to what you see quite developed in Yaletown and in the downtown core. So the idea behind that is to create more of a pedestrian-oriented sort of frontage to the building rather than the tower and the park that you sort of see in the west end. And so we're big fans of townhouses at grade for these residential because it creates sort of that physical connection at the pedestrian scale relative to a big tower sort of standing along there. So that's sort of how we envisioned the approach to this building. And then we also articulated that through the materiality of the project. So you'll notice the podium is... was a more traditional sort of brick application where we were even more of a contemporary expression above the fourth floor, right? So that's sort of our... We've had really good success.
Like, I don't know if you guys remember, several years ago we did a project in the Granby Woodland where our approach to that was all the ground-level units in that rental building were two-storey townhouses. And from my understanding from our client, that's been the most popular... within that building because that's where families go. And then with porches and being able to go in and out and children play and similar things to that. So we really like that expression. So that's why we applied that approach here. So in the context of that, do we know how many of those townhomes are constantly? And then the other question I had was, because there's this, I understand you're potentially delivering more family-sized units of two, three-bedroom, I presume some of the townhomes might be those, but what's the square footage roughly for the townhomes as well as for the two- and three-bedroom units? Yeah, so I'm just looking at them right now. We have eight at-grade townhomes right now in this project, and the three-bedroom units, I believe, let me get on the spot here.
Sorry, I really put you on the spot.
It would be 10% of all the units would be three-bedroom units, so it would be 14 units. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Thanks very much. So maybe this is a question for staff. I know that this building is at a sort of scale and massing that aligns with the Broadway plan and the adjacency to the Canada line. Were there any other sort of... sort of factors that went into the recommendation from staff on this item.
And for the question, Councillor, staff look at the policy, the enabling policy, when we assess the proposal, and the Broadway plan is what we looked at when we assessed this proposal. I see that the building itself didn't go to the urban design panel. Were there, and this perhaps is a question for the applicant, were there any considerations given to the context, just knowing that this is a neighborhood that has a number of heritage homes and what have you, just sort of curious as to some of the aesthetic that you were sort of putting into this? Yes, it didn't go to the urban design panel. We were certainly cognizant of the scale of the neighborhood, and as I mentioned to Councillor Dalmenado, that was sort of the kernel of the idea of doing a tower podium and then treating them quite differently from an architectural standpoint. And my understanding of the Broadway plan, too, is in these transitional neighborhoods, there are going to be these staccato moments as you move along the urban fabric as the neighborhoods transition. So we think that a nice approach is to create the early staccato moments, such as this one, where we have a more pedestrian-friendly transition in the lower stories, such as that. Does that answer your question? I think so.
Just curious about the type of engagement that was also conducted with the community given, again, sort of the, as you call it, staccato, but a more kind of abrupt sort of shift of this area. Yeah, so we did the public engagement. I mean, not that long ago, we used to do public information meetings for those. Now the city, since COVID, has transitioned to an online forum. So we did receive comments from the public, and we did use that to tweak the design and to try to address as many of those concerns as was possible with the application. This might be a question for our staff teams, just with regards to traffic mitigation.
This is an area that's very close. I know that, for example, 14th has the banana barriers at Canby. What considerations have been given into just making sure that car traffic to and from this building would maybe not overwhelm the immediate area?
Thank you, Councillor, for the question. I'm going to pass that to my colleague in engineering, Carol Yee. I hope she can answer that question. Yes, hello, Mayor and Council. This is Carol Yee. I'm the engineering representative. This area is already in a traffic-calmed area, so there are existing traffic-calming measures in place already. So the city will continue to monitor once this has... if this development goes forward, to see what additional measures we can implement. It is also Slough Street, also on Yukon Street and West 14th. Thanks very much. I've got about a minute left, so just at a high level, given, again, the zoning that applies for Broadway plan in this area, are there measures in place to make sure that we're stable to retain as much of the quality, kind of the character of the neighborhood, if you like, over time as we start to see more projects of a different scale sort of coming forward.
Hi, Councillor. Thanks for the question.
John Grottenberg with the Broadway Plan Team. So in this area, which is an area we consider a bit further away from transit, there are still tower limit policies, which limit the number of towers to two per block. So that will moderate the amount of change in terms of the higher density form in this specific area. And so we'd expect a mix of building scales from six up to 18 stories. Thanks very much. That's my time. Thank you, Councillor Meisner. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. My question is for the applicant. It's a design question. I was looking at the renderings and I see two different kinds of balconies. I see ones with metal railings and I also see ones that I'm not sure if they're concrete walls on the balcony or if that's glazing. So I'm just wondering if the applicant can clarify for me what that material is on those. I guess more enclosed balconies that don't have the metal railings. Okay, thank you, Councillor, for the question. At this time, we haven't done all the technical detailing about the intent is to have a solid articulation on the edge of the balconies there. What we were trying to avoid when we were designing the facade of this building was what you see in a lot of the mid-century post-war buildings, where it's just the exact same floor plate, just repeated and repeated and repeated. And we wanted to sort of break that up a little bit, to break down the monotony of it and create a little bit of visual interest. As mentioned by staff, this is the rezoning. So we still have a whole development process, development process to go through it, and we'll be working out those details in that. But the intent is to create a visual mass at the edge of a certain number of the balconies to create that variety along the facade. Okay, thanks for that additional information. Around understanding the development process, and there's still a few more steps, I'm just curious as well, your thinking around the kind of darker color scheme of the building, given it's one of the first towers in this particular neighborhood. Again, it was to create a sense of contrast. Yes, some of the building is quite a darker finish. I don't know if the renderings necessarily do it justice. But yeah, it was a point of comparison against the quite white facade that we're proposing on the other half of the building. So it represents about half of the building. As I said, we're still going to do a development permit process, so we're not married necessarily to those exact tones or those exact renderings, but that's the generation of that idea, is to create a balance between the white and the black of the facade. Okay, thank you. And then my other question, I don't know if you're able to answer this, but I wasn't clear on, I understand you're the architects, but I wasn't clear on who the applicant was.
It's a, I believe, a numbered company that I don't obviously recognize. They're a small family developer. They've owned those houses for several years.
To be honest, I just know them by their first names. They're not a large developer by any sense of the imagination. Okay, thanks very much. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, this is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 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 displayed during the recess. We're now going to hear from the public. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the left podium when your name is called. Phone and speakers will be unmuted when it's your turn to speak. Speakers will have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered. So our first speaker today is speaker number one, Karen Weber.
Karen Weber, and I live across the street from 14th and Yukon. I oppose this application as it will have a significant adverse impact on nearby schools. The city, in its referral report, used the Vancouver School Board VSB 2020-21 data to consider needs for schools in the Broadway Plan. But this VSB's data did not take into consideration the Broadway Plan. First slide, please. Simon Fraser, the closest elementary school, a seven-minute walk from the site, was at 186% capacity utilization in 2019 and was projected to decrease to 176% by 2031. In reality, it rose to between 194% and 196% capacity between 2022 and 2024. Next slide.
And can we pause the timer for one sec? If it makes you comfortable, you can move the podium up and down so it's easier to speak into the mic.
Thank you.
And we'll add some time to your timer here.
Thanks very much.
Is that better? Great. Thank you.
Edith Cavell, the next closest elementary school, was projected to fall to 107% capacity in 2024 and 90% by 2031, but it was at 123% by 2024. The following comments were made in that VSB report. Both schools have insufficient capacity to accommodate current and forecast enrollment levels. Both schools have catchment waitlists with Simon Fraser's severe enrollment pressure resulting in lengthy waitlists. Enrollment space has been maximized inside the schools and portables have been added to both sites. This report states that overflow from these schools is accommodated at... nearby schools. These schools are not within walking distance for the children and their families. The 2025 VSB Long Range Facilities Plan now estimates new residential growth will offset previously anticipated decline for the near future, while high growth may be seen in the long term. It also notes that over the past two census periods, Mount Pleasant saw an increase in families with children due to an increase of overall dwelling units. This has been the case in our neighborhood without towers, as most homes have been converted to duplexes, triplexes, or multiplexes, not single-family dwellings. The latest VSB report indicates that the long-promised Olympic Village School is finally projected to have a fall 2029 occupancy. One would think this new school might ease pressure on Simon Fraser. Projections indicate otherwise. Each VSB analysis shows enrollment pressures are expected in this Canby corridor. Next slide. In the 2039 projections, VSB estimates both Simon Fraser and Edith Cavell to have very high capacity utilization with ongoing enrollment strategies required. Simon Fraser's actual capacity is 177 students, and the utilization is projected to be at 377, or 213%. Next slide. Interpreting the 2021 report, the city planner by email indicated Eric Hamber, the closest secondary school, was at 83% capacity utilization in 2021 and was expected to decrease to 79% in 2031. In reality, the rate has risen and is now projected to soon exceed 100% capacity. Families are adversely affected when the closest schools are over capacity. My grandson lives across the street from the proposed development site and two blocks away from Simon Fraser.
He was 72nd on the wait list for the fall 2023 kindergarten class. BSB provided a placement several kilometers away, requiring him to be driven to and from school every day. You may be thinking this is not your job. It is your job to work collaboratively with VSB as is ensuring neighborhoods are livable and meet the needs of all ages, a guiding principle for the Broadway Plan. I recognize the need for more housing. Deny this application that does not make this neighborhood more livable or meet the needs for the families with school-aged children. Alternatively, send the application back to staff to genuinely consider the community with making a more appropriate FSR and height to make it livable within this neighborhood. Anything more will push local school capacities beyond overwhelm. Thank you.
Speaker number two, John Snow.
My name is Jan, and I have lived in the Mount Pleasant area since purchasing our strata unit 28 years ago in 1997. I understand there is a push for more rental housing, but I'm not in favor of the rezoning application as it stands now and request this imposing rezoning application. be sent back to staff to consider a more appropriate floor space ratio and height for this neighborhood site. Why, you ask? I am confident that you know this lovely corner of Mount Pleasant, being so close to City Hall, that you have walked the streets during the different seasons, enjoyed the cool air provided by the tree-canopied streets in the summer. You will have admired the new builds and renovations which have complied for decades With the city's mandate for preserving consistency and compatibility with the neighborhood character, that emphasis is placed on requiring the external design of buildings and addition to buildings to follow the proportions, rhythm, and details of historic architectural features of the area. What you will not have noticed are the, and I quote, from page two of the architect's design rationale, predominantly single-family residential buildings surrounding the subject lots, because there are few. In fact, the majority of the area surrounding the subject lots is made up of duplexes, multi-unit townhouse properties, and if a house does look like a single-family dwelling from the street, there is most likely a secondary suite not visible from street view. On my block of West 15th, it is all multi-unit townhouse properties, a mix of owned and rental. Ditto south of me on 16th, north on 14th, and along north and south on Alberta. There are no single-family dwellings. The proposed imposing building is not sympathetic, nor is it harmonious to its surroundings, to the houses immediately next door to the west, across the street on 14th, across the street on Yukon, nor the residential buildings south on 15th. On Cambie, we have multi-floored residential buildings, the Spot, the Olive, W16, Pacifica, all presenting neighborhood-friendly heights. If residential new builds and renovations are expected to follow the compatibility design guidelines, why then is this proposed building not adhering to the same guidelines or preparation and scale? Also, as an avid pedestrian and cyclist, I am concerned there is potential for an additional 66 cars in what is now a traffic-calmed area, which could pose increased risk to fellow pedestrians and cyclists, not to mention added congestion. As it is, when Canby Street is congested, drivers cut quickly through our neighbourhood, making it dangerous for everyone.
Thank you, and I hope you will listen carefully to what my neighbours and I have to say here tonight.
Thank you, Mayor and councillors, for this opportunity. My name is Richard Cavell. I'm a Vancouver resident. I was born here 77 years ago. And I oppose... this proposal profoundly, all right? The key element that subtends my opposition is what I've heard too many times this evening, the Broadway plan. And this is the big problem here with this particular project, the idea that the Broadway plan is a one-size-fits... all proposal. What suffers with a one-size-fits-all proposal are neighborhoods, or if you wish to call them, villages. I live in Cambie Village. I live in Mount Pleasant. I've done so for three-quarters of a century. And what you're proposing here will undermine it. It's character. It's out of context. And it is deeply, deeply alienating. In a recent article reported by Kerry Gold in the Globe and Mail titled Vancouverites Hate Their Houses But Love Their Hoods, a study by urbanologist Andy Yan was cited showing that 30% of Vancouverites rate their homes very low on a scale of one to five compared to 17% in Toronto. However, 64% of Vancouverites rate their neighborhoods very high. What this tells us is that communities and urban villages are the key to livability in Vancouver. They are what make Vancouver special. Former senior urban planner for Vancouver, Scott Hines, states that the city plan is aimed toward, quote, the erasure... of clearly defined neighborhoods by using policies that create blanket zones for generic housing forms and densities across all neighborhoods, and starting with what matters, including the high-rise tower. Instead of working with a city of distinct neighborhoods and starting with what matters to those communities, and you've heard some of this already, policymakers are choosing to let the real estate market guide decisions on growth. It is neighbourhoods that are the foundation of civic life. As critics have pointed out, the Broadway plan, the City of Vancouver's comprehensive plan to guide growth around the Broadway station, subway, came up short on amenities such as parks and community centres and schools, emphasising redevelopment and a one-size-fits-all approach to density. Developer and planner Michael Geller has publicly criticized the Broadway plan as upsetting the livability of Kitsilino and Mount Pleasant neighborhoods, displacing renters and offering them poorly designed, tiny new rental units in return.
Planner Sandy James also pointed out that the Broadway plan and the province's transit-oriented development areas program, which call for towers around transit hubs, fail to emphasize neighborhoods. Mr. Hines said policymakers can avoid greater future dissatisfaction, such as the one I'm expressing right now, by returning to the neighborhood as the starting point. I urge city council to make the Broadway plan more relevant to neighborhood coherence, and I urge them to begin by rethinking putting a grotesque tower in a neighborhood where it does not fit.
Thank you, Richard. Speaker number four, Kenneth Wayne Savigny. Sorry, I mispronounced your name.
Bear with me. Please take your time.
My name is Wayne Savany. I live at the corner of 14th and Alberta. I am a professional engineer and geoscientist. My expertise is risk assessment of ground conditions affecting construction and operation of structures. My remarks here tonight reflect conversations with Mr. Alan Dakin, a senior groundwater engineer. I oppose this amendment for two reasons. Risk exposure and lack of heritage consideration. Regarding risk exposure, the scale of the excavation and foundation requirements are unprecedented in the area. Yet, no detailed subsurface investigations have been completed. The proponent's hydrogeological report is woefully inadequate. Nearby investigative reports of the city and TransLink are unavailable. Published regional scale geological maps indicate layers of glacial sediments overlying rock. With such limited site knowledge, risks arising from ground conditions cannot be assessed. Here are examples of what we take on with this. Number one, ground extraction is necessary where excavations go below the water table. It causes layers to consolidate and nearby ground to subside. Published maps from 1880 through 1900 show swampy conditions and north-flowing streams through Mount Pleasant. The city's own mapping shows a nearby area of potential soil sensitivity to water table changes. We can conclude that the site has a high-water table. If it is lowered during construction and operation of the deep foundation parkade, there are settlement implications, and nearby structures, city infrastructure, and trans-lake facilities can be affected. Example 2. The Sea-Watch subdivision in Sechelt was a community of homes located on similar ground conditions. It is now an abandoned community, forcibly evacuated in 2019 when construction contractors lost control of groundwater. This led to sinkholes that undermined homes. The risk was foreseeable, in fact forecast, but ignored and trivialized by the developer, its engineer, and the municipality. Homeowners continue the battle for compensation. Example three. Deep excavations involving temporary shoring require detailed design and management during construction. There have been several recent failures. I refer to the 2023 incident in Coquitlam, where a prominent UBC engineer attributed causation to insufficient engineering and sloppy workmanship.
Similar causation explains the 2024 UBC Okanagan Tower failure in Kelowna. An appeal body recently rejected a proposed short excavation in Northeast Vancouver. It was deemed unfeasible from a constructability standpoint. I now move on to heritage. My wife and I purchased our Mount Pleasant home in 2010. It was a rundown rooming house built in 1907. We undertook renovations, 14 months. The work was guided by city planners who required that we preserve or add heritage attributes, including a wraparound veranda, restoring the stained glass windows, preserving the heritage appearance of the structure, right down to the stucco character and paint colour. We complied because we were excited and proud to move into a vibrant city centre community. There are many heritage homes in Mount Pleasant area. Virtually every home, whether a heritage or not, already has multifamily residences, which itself reflects the area's heritage. Mount Pleasant was the first suburb south of Falls Creek. Street railway construction started in 1890, encouraged people with jobs to move to the suburb and access downtown easily. Mount Pleasant was development hub for Vancouver's expansion south of Falls Creek. The proposed 14th and Yukon development offers nothing that honors this heritage. Indeed, its scale is an affront. It is perplexing that the city planners can so quickly set aside what only recently was a strictly enforced heritage policy. To conclude, two recommendations. First, potential ground hazard exposure.
Wayne, I'm sorry, we're out of time. Thank you for coming in. Speaker number five has withdrawn. Speaker number six, Mike Mangan.
Thank you, Mayor. Please tell me when you start your clock.
Thank you. I'm Mike Mangan, a retired real estate lawyer. I reside in Mount Pleasant and I oppose this application. First slide. There is no genuine developer here. The owner is a numbered company, effectively a corporate sale, created about one year ago to hold title to the three properties in question. Its principal is Mr. Hassan Salari. Next slide, please. These are the properties. Each is divided into two or more rental units occupied by many residential tenants. Mr. Solari previously listed all three properties for sale as a land assembly. At some point, the listing ended. As far as we can tell, the properties are not listed now. Neither the numbered company nor Mr. Solari are developers. Neither is a licensed residential builder as the Homeowner Protection Act requires. Neither have any relevant experience building an 18-story tower or anything similar. Rather, it appears Mr. Solari has various dissolved or inactive companies, most apparently involving promotion of health products. He will not build the proposed 18-story tower. Mr. Solari has a record with the BC Securities Commission for misrepresentation. Next slide. In the public interest, the Commission prohibited Mr. Solari for seven years from engaging in various activities, including promotional activities under the Securities Act. The order expires in 2030. This is what happened. In 2018, another of Mr. Solari's companies, called Linus Medicals Limited, issued a private placement memorandum to promote a device for injecting medication. The Commission found that Mr. Solari prepared that memorandum. His company used it to raise money from investors. Next slide. The Commission found that the memorandum contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions to state a material fact. about the value of patent rights, the company's financial liabilities, what all the proceeds would be used for, and whether Mr. Solari's company had initiated registration of the device with the United States Food and Drug Administration. This application is just about money for Mr. Solari. Next slide. The 2026 assessed values for all three properties total $8,841,000. The moment you approve rezoning tonight, You instantly give Mr. Solari's numbered company an additional $10 to $20 million in increased equity. He's going to put these properties to the first buyer willing to meet his price, whether qualified to build an 18-story tower or not. And do not trust Mr. Solari to comply with the Residential Tenancy Act or the city's tenant relocation and protection policy. He has a history of failing to comply with the act. Next slide. Mr. Solari is before the residential Tennessee branch, accused of unlawfully evicting Michael Markowski, the single father of a severely autistic six-year-old child from 428 West 14th, one of the properties under consideration tonight.
The hearing is in March. When Mr. Markowski refused to agree to a rent increase without statutory notice... Mr. Solari suddenly evicted him, claiming that Mr. Solari was converting the unit for the use of a caretaker. The act required Mr. Solari to keep a caretaker in the unit for at least 12 months, unless extenuating circumstances occurred. Mr. Solari claims to have installed a caretaker who left a short time later because of illness. Mr. Solari did not install another caretaker to fulfill the 12-month caretaker requirement. Instead, five months after the eviction, Mr. Solari advertised the unit for rent. At six months, he rented the unit to new tenants for an 86% increase in rent. Mr. Markowski would today be shielded by the city's tenant relocation and protection policy if Mr. Solari had not evicted him. Mr. Solari also has a history of using rental agreements that contravene the Residential Tenancy Act. Two quick representative examples. Next slide. Here he's using a rental agreement that purports to terminate a tenancy automatically if the property is sold. Next slide. Here he's demanding a rent increase without three months' notice for the approved form. We foresee Mr. Solari quickly evicting all the tenants to make the site more saleable, demolishing their rental units, and leaving the properties that way for years as the land is flipped from one speculator to another. It would be reckless to approve this application. Protect the public and the affected tenants. Wait for a qualified developer to acquire the properties and apply to rezone. Please deny this rezoning application. Or alternatively, next slide.
impose these conditions thank you mr mayor and council thank you uh thank you very much for that presentation uh speaker number seven uh ariane uh sorry i think there's some type maybe some typos uh here uh ariadna fernandez hi um
Thank you.
Thanks. My name is Ariadna Fernandez. I live on 14th and Yukon with my family and one of the four plexus.
I would ask that. Oh, sorry. Can you move to the next slide? Just has my name. I would like to request that the council please deny this rezoning application. My reasons are on the next slide. First of all, I think that the affordability metric that the city presently uses, you move to the next slide, please, of 20% below market value is insufficient to address affordability concerns in Vancouver. The Canadian Housing Mortgage Corporation defines affordability as under 30% before gross income. And I think that is what we should consider in Vancouver for affordability and make sure that households are not unable to afford their homes. Next slide. I think the other concern that I have is that below market rate only applies to the first tenant. and the owner could enter into short-month leases at below market rates and then very quickly turn around and move them up to market.
The proposed development and developments like it actually make the affordability problem worse. When you zone to allow more homes on one piece of land, it inflates the value of the land rather than decreasing the cost of the homes or the rents. Next slide please. To my knowledge there's no community amenity contributions proposed in this project and especially for something of this size I think that the community deserves to have appropriate amenities provided certainly the residents to be and the residents that currently live there do. Next slide please. I don't believe that height over six stories is not appropriate for seniors, families, or those needing support. There's multiple studies to support this, and that medium-rise buildings of four to six stories are much more appropriate for building long-term stability and fostering social relationships. All of the high-rises along the Cabney Corridor right now are only six feet. six stories pardon me um next slide please the proposed homes are woefully small very few family units that are included in the proposal do not actually even meet the livability criteria on the housing design um technical guidelines of the city itself. All of the three bedroom units are under 900 square feet, which is smaller than what is required. There's only one, I think, a handful of two bedroom units that are at the townhouse level for the developer who didn't realize. And they're actually all smaller than 700 square feet. Next slide, please. According to the housing design and technical guidelines, a family unit needs to have at least two bedrooms and each bedroom needs to be large enough to accommodate a single bed, a dresser, a desk, and if they're for children, they need to have some floor space for playing. It's impossible to tell if these proposed floor plans would actually accommodate these requirements without more details. Next slide. So I would strongly request that you deny this, but if you're going to consider it further, I think you need some more information and the information needs to be available to the council and also to the public. I would request that there's a more appropriate FSR and height for the site and that there's an appropriate community emanates contribution and further that a proper hydrological study that complies with Vancouver's groundwater management bulletin is done. And the last slide. At the very least, you should impose a minimum of 20% of the units for below market, although I think, again, that's not really ideal for affordability. It should, in fact, be less and tied to the actual incomes of people who live in Vancouver. And that the below market rate should be secured for at least a period of five years. But again, I believe that's too short. It should be much longer than that. And that is all I have to say. Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Barb Boychuk, and I'm a longtime resident of Mount Pleasant. I'm not opposed to rezoning for building rental units, but I do not support the scale of the proposed 18-story structure on 14th and Yukon. The focus of my discussion tonight is on the impact of health care delivery and the demands of an ever-expanding community. How does health care delivery and density interact? I'll just give you a few details which you likely may already know. The lower Mount Pleasant area is one of the first areas outside of Vancouver's downtown to be developed for residential use. Based on census data, Mount Pleasant has a significantly higher proportion of multiple dwellings compared to single detached homes. Mount Pleasant has a density of 7,000 people per square kilometer. This is considered high. The Broadway plan expects to add 50,000 more people to the area. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority covers a population of 1.25 million. Research demonstrates that population density directly impacts hospital services. Currently, the emergency departments of St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver General combined see over 185,000 patients per year. And they have combined 1,500 acute beds. Both these hospitals are considered major referral hospitals for BC. we know that hospitals are at overcapacity. In 2023, the BC government increased the hospital bed count by approximately 7%, but this did little to meet the growing demand. Healthcare delivery is impacted by staffing shortages, burnout, lack of primary care physicians, decreased bed capacity, and they're still trying to catch up from COVID. Increasing population density further strains an already overburdened health care system. A consequence of increased density are higher rates of socioeconomic challenges and lack of community services. As it stands, government is unable to provide the appropriate levels of service to match the population growth, resulting in a significant strain on public services. This is a critical issue that deserves immediate attention, given the Broadway plan to increase density. A successful community building plan accounts for key infrastructure needs, access to sustainable resources, and services that contribute to an environment that supports good health for all.
I support responsible rental unit development that is carefully planned and regulated to prevent overcrowding, infrastructure strain, and disruption to existing neighborhoods. A successful plan also balances community stability and livability with strategic development. I respectfully urge the council to carefully weigh community concerns before approving the rezoning request for an 18-story development in the heart of a residential area. Rather, perhaps a compromise height restriction of four to six stories. The council's decision will have a profound and lasting effect on the community that we live in. Please weigh this rezoning application carefully before voting. Thank you.
Hi, I'm speaking in opposition to this proposal to build this particular tower. I live adjacent to that property and I've lived there for 40 years. I originally moved there so I could walk to my job in the emergency psych unit at VGH and have a lovely neighborhood to come home to at the end of the day. But this will change it. This green heritage neighborhood is now under threat of becoming something very different and much less pleasant. And I want to just talk about why. What I see when I think about this and read the material is that there's a need for affordable rental housing. But densification by towers increases housing quantity at the expense of quality, at the expense of character, affordability, ecology, and aesthetics, the things that others have spoken about. And if we're choosing quantity of housing over quality, I think that's a huge and long-term mistake. It's the wrong thing to do. We can use euphemisms like staccato when we mean disruptive and inappropriate, but it's a bad thing to do. It's a bad strategy. What this does is reduce the quality of this city. Hyper-dense development with towers has been shown to increase the cost of housing. It benefits investors rather than citizens, and I don't think that should be our priority.
Instead, what we can do if we want to increase density in a way that is reasonable and respects the values of citizens and their needs. One, to increase housing. Sorry, I'm not telling people to move on the slide. Excuse me, I'm used to doing my own presentations. So let's, sorry, move on from this. And one more. Okay. One strategy that's been put forward is to increase housing quantity densification by building the missing middle. You've, of course, heard about that. A lot has been said about it. It's a very reasonable concept. which is to increase house scale buildings with multiple units located in a walkable neighborhood. increase the quantity of housing through the strategy of building this missing middle, which is to say this range of reasonably scaled buildings with multiple units and walkable neighborhoods, kind of like what Mount Pleasant is now, but with greater density, without sacrificing or undermining its character with this staccatization, if we want to call it that, to use some euphemism. Next slide.
Second idea is to build mass timber, three- to six-story buildings instead of these 18- or 20-story concrete towers. There's been a lot of focus on mass timber as a construction method at all levels of the city and the province and the federal government, of course. Here's a good quote about mass timber construction.
As a renewable resource that sequesters carbon and has low embodied energy, wood, has an increasingly important role to play in the creation of high performance buildings and more sustainable built environments. I think that's something we should really look into as part of a strategy for densifying in a way that raises the quality of this neighborhood and doesn't eliminate it. Next slide. The aim is to balance quantity and quality, to say we can increase the availability of housing without undermining or destroying the quality of the actual neighborhood where people live along these various dimensions people have put forward. One more slide. And I just want to quote this, as Patrick Condon has written and quite elegantly expressed. This concept of pivot to what he calls perimeter block typology, a pattern of four to eight story mid-rise structures made of wood or mass timber and enclosing green courtyards as perfected in European cities like Berlin or Barcelona. Vancouver's love affair with glass and concrete towers has inflated construction costs, energy demands and prices while delivering poor livability. These tower forms built for investor flips is inefficient and environmentally costly. So I think it's well expressed. I've traveled through many European cities and have seen how beautiful they can be, and often by pushing back against the concept of replacing these wonderful buildings with concrete towers. I know that happened in Amsterdam, which is one of my favorite cities, but they resisted it. They refused the concrete tower approach, and I think we should as well. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Speaker number 10, Mary Irvine.
Mary here I had a question just with regard to the map whether it's going to be possible to bring it up there's a link there I'm not sure, but anyway, I'll just start, and then we'll see how that goes. Okay, so my name is Mary Irvin, and I reside in Vancouver, and I own a triplex three houses east of this proposed development. I am opposed to the 18-story high-rise, but I support increasing density in Vancouver to build affordable rental housing. My topic today is about the sewer shed and the fact that these five properties at 14th and Yukon are within the City of Vancouver sewer shed. And if you click, if you put 428 West 14th up on that line... you will see the yellow is the sewer shed of the city of Vancouver. And you will see that this proposed development, that little dot there, if you move the white thing away, you'll see it's right there. So it's within the sewer shed. Next slide, please.
Yeah, one more.
Yeah, yeah. So building an 18-storey building within a sewer shed presents significant engineering and logistic challenges. The primary difficulty lies in ensuring the infrastructure integrates with the existing sewer network without overwhelming it. The local sewer shed must have the capacity to handle the increased wastewater flow, particularly during peak times and storm events. which we know we have more than we once did, and especially if it's a combined sewer system. Given the age of the street on which this proposed high-rise development lies, the sewer and storm lines are likely combined and insufficient to support a high-rise building. The City of Vancouver Water and Sewer Department told me that until building permits are issued, no information regarding the state of water and sewer lines at 14th and Yukon could be released. Next slide, please.
The ground in a sewer shed becomes saturated, and that is something that property owners adjacent to this proposed development at 14th and Yukon have reported. So during the excavation necessary to erect an 18-storey building, it will be challenging to pump out sufficient groundwater. Also, a very deep foundation will be necessary with piles or cassons to safely transfer the immense loads of a tall building making construction complex. Construction must respect easements around existing sewer lines. Foundations or manholes must be built within 500 meters of an existing sewer infrastructure such as a manhole chamber. Next.
Building a high-rise in a dense area where a sewer shed is located involves complex and costly logistics, including material transport, equipment access to tower cranes, and waste management on site. Next. So in summary, while it is structurally and mechanically feasible to build an 18-storey high-rise on a sewer shed, the process must involve rigorous design coordination with civil engineers and local utilities, adhering to strict regulations, and managing complex and costly on-site challenges. The process must include the extensive review of design plans and adherence... to specific local design criteria and building codes, and those require detailed documentation such as functional servicing and stormwater management reports. Next. A professional review of detailed design plans is yet to be completed for this proposed development. Without this, it is unsafe and unwise to proceed. The owner of the five properties, which has been previously mentioned with this proposed development, has yet to hire a reputable experienced developer. Next. In summary, I would like to request that this proposed development should not be approved until a reputable, experienced developer is hired.
And secondly, next, that this application should be modified to a smaller building of three to six stories. Thank you.
Speaker number 11, Susan McKay Jamison. Herbal thought.
So my name is Susan Mackey Jamison. I live in the area of the proposed tower, and I am opposed to it. Sustainability, the environment, is a factor which relates to the proposed construction at 14th and Yukon. It also is a significant factor, as far as I'm concerned, being ignored in the discussion of increased housing. I'm in favor of increased housing, especially rental. The environment and housing are the issues of the era, but let's do housing in an environmentally responsible way. I want to address what I'm going to refer to as the greening of Vancouver. First slide. The most sustainable buildings... First slide, please, love. The most sustainable buildings are five to eight-story wood frame. It's reported that they were in fact endorsed by you, Ken Sim, February 24th, 27th, 2024. The majority of buildings slated for destruction in Vancouver are three to five-story wood frame. So explain that. Most sustainable buildings are already existing buildings. So if you take down an existing building and you rebuild according to the latest green principles, the original is still the most sustainable building due to landfill, et cetera.
Next slide, please. The construction industry is the world's greatest polluter. It accounts for 37% to 40% of greenhouse gas emissions. Concrete, especially as a building material, is hugely carbon intense, and it retains heat. Next slide, please.
Global cities have had a 25% increase in extremely hot days since the 1990s. Most vulnerable, such as the poor and elderly, are most impacted. Heat is now the deadliest weather phenomenon globally. It kills close to half a million people worldwide annually. The World Health Organization figures this is likely an underrepresentation. So for an example, a heart attack precipitated by heat may be designated heart attack death. Loss of established trees and green space is a significant environmental risk. Street trees are a simple and cost-effective cooling strategy. Established trees with canopies are best. They provide the most shade. Vancouver has been losing tree canopy mostly due to construction. Data show that 50% of new trees planted by this city don't survive. So it's not simply a matter of replacing. Next slide, please.
We should support the softwood lumber industry by using wood for construction rather than concrete.
Wood frame is cheaper, faster, more sustainable, and more aesthetic. Sweden and Norway are leaders in wood frame construction, even high-rises. I'm hoping Vancouver can be as smart and creative. Next slide, please. Two requests. So if you look at this image on the... Well, this is the tree canopy at 14th and Yukon, close to where I live. On the right... are the properties which are designated for whatever you want to call it, destruction and rebuilding. So my first request is please deny this application. I'm in favor of rental, but please build more sustainable four to six-story wood frame buildings. and please protect the 100-plus-year-old trees and canopy. They provided extremely effective cooling in that 2021 summer of the heat dome. The roots go far into the properties and could be destroyed by digging, and the supports required for an 18-story tower in a sewer shed. I'd like to finish with one comment. I find it kind of inexplicable that we are shown a property development which doesn't really reflect what is the actual proposal for what's going to be built in our neighborhood. I have to say I don't understand that. So thank you for your time.
First of all, I'd like to congratulate the people who have spoken so far. I suppose my presentation might be a little more lighthearted. My name is Doug Weber, and I live in a duplex on 14th Avenue, directly across from the posed 18-story tower. And I'm opposed to it. I could say that I and my family have some skin in the game, as is the majority of people speaking against it, being actually from the neighborhood. I trust that people speaking in favor are also from the neighborhood and will identify themselves as same if they are not. We aren't naive about the likelihood of council approval for this tower. Next slide, please. One could say that this is a waste of our time quoting a prominent member here in the room after a recent public hearing referring, I assume, to his time.
Next slide, please. The topic of cranes will be addressed in another presentation. Suffice it to say that tower cranes in residential neighborhoods carry significant risks and will be opposed by all means available. Next slide, please. And trains. The extension of the train along Broadway to Arbutus, and being a bit of a rationale for the Broadway plan, is unlikely to be extended further for a very long time. And it's truly, at this point, a train to nowhere, offering nothing beyond what the current 99B line does. Does the council and planners seriously believe that workers will be pouring out of rental towers along the Broadway corridor from Commercial to Arbutus to go to where exactly? Downtown has an office vacancy rate of 12% in quarter three of 2025. So not there. Tech is downsizing big time. Are they going to go to the suburbs? Or is it envisaged that people will be pouring into the corridor for work? But exactly where will they be working along that corridor if most of the development is rental or hotels? Next slide, please. And what about automobiles? It is said that limiting on-site parking will force people to ditch their cars. We know that's not true. Most families with children need a vehicle, and those with disposable income prefer to have one. The proposal has 67 parking spaces for 134 units. This won't be enough. The adjacent block of 14th Street to which the proposed tower faces has parking on one side only and is a traffic-slowed, much-used bicycle route. Yukon Kitty Corner has both sides for parking, leaving one narrow lane. There's also a busy bicycle route. Within two blocks of the site, although there are 204 on-street parking spaces, are currently filled to the brim in the evening if one walks around there. So what is one to do with parking? Stack the cars? Next slide, please.
Seven years ago, we completed the duplexing of our home, renovating a singleton house, keeping the bones thereof, our own densification project to allow our son and daughter-in-law and two children to have a place to live in this unaffordable city. You would not believe the hoops we had to jump through, nor the time it took to get the needed permits and modifications required after the city planning department got involved, mostly to have our structure fit in with the neighbourhood. And now an 18-storey tower is approved almost as quickly.
Next slide, please.
That's coming. Next slide.
We're not against further densification, but towers have no place on residential streets. Thoroughfares, yes, along Cambie, for instance, but not residential streets. A property such as that under consideration could be developed into a four- to six-storey building, as discussed, or a townhouse grouping for sale or rent. Alternatively, it could be bought by the city and made into a small but much-needed park.
Council, you have the opportunity to... Just say no to this tower in Mount Pleasant or significantly modify it. The majority of the public feedback you have received in the various stages of this proposal has been against this project, as it has with most of the other towers proposed. Concerns being raised tonight ought not to be kicked to the next phase of permitting nor to another body's jurisdiction. Council has more power than maybe you realize, including power versus the provincial government's heavy-handedness. You can, if you wish, exercise it. Next slide, please. And if by some remote chance you do approve the application, please impose conditions to wit, issue development permit, if and only if a recognized developer is applying. And have cities check quarterly that the current owner is complying with the tenant relocation and protection policy.
Thank you.
Hello?
Hi, my name is Amy Elderkin. I'm a resident of Mount Pleasant, and I'm here to oppose the rezoning application. I'm speaking today because the principal of the corporation applying to rezone these properties is Mr. Hassan Salari. All of these properties that are under this rezoning application are currently occupied by residential tenants. In 2016, my then-husband, Michael Markowski, and I moved into 428 West 14th Avenue, one of the properties that's being considered. I lived there until 2022 when we separated. Michael and I share custody of our six-year-old perfect daughter. She is severely autistic and not speaking, and she really depends on routine, predictability, and stability to feel safe and regulated. Several years ago, before any rezoning application permits or legal documentation existed, Mr. Solari contacted us and other tenants within the home to say he planned to build this tower and that we should be looking for alternative housing. At that time, he attempted to evict the tenants based on those plans, despite being told repeatedly that this was not legal. During these conversations, he referred to tenants upstairs as irresponsible parents for not moving, even though there was no lawful requirement to do so. This early attempt at displacement created fear and instability for us long before any of this formal process existed. Contrary to the Residential Tenancy Act, Mr. Solari demanded rent increases every single year that we lived there without providing the mandatory three-month notice or the required statutory form. And despite us sharing with him over and over the rules and requirements for notice, he would typically tell us the month before and then tell us if we didn't like it, we could move. After our separation, Michael remained in the unit until September 30, 2024, when Mr. Solari evicted him. In 2024, Michael's rent was $2,258 per month, and utilities were included. When Michael refused to agree to another rent increase without the legally required notice, Mr. Solari issued an eviction notice, claiming the unit was needed for the use of a caretaker. Under the Residential Tenancy Act, a unit evicted for caretaker use must be maintained for that purpose for at least 12 months unless there are extenuating circumstances. However, just five months after the eviction, Mr. Solari began advertising the unit for $4,200 per month on Facebook. That's an 86% increase. Utilities were also needed to be paid on top of this. Michael has brought a claim against Mr. Solari at the Residential Tenancy Branch with a hearing scheduled for March. I want to be very, very clear about the human impact of this eviction. Major changes are extremely difficult for an autistic child. Being forced to leave her home caused my daughter a lot of distress. For months and months afterwards, she really struggled with her sleep, had to sleep with me, wouldn't sleep on her own, cried a lot. This disrupted her ability to regulate during the day, affected her time at school, and caused ongoing sleep deprivation for our entire family.
This was not short-term inconvenience. It was a prolonged period of instability for a child with disabilities who relies on consistency to function. I respectfully ask you, Mayor and Councillors, to deny this rezoning application. Alternatively, if Council chooses to approve it, I ask that approval be made conditional on the following. That senior city staff actively monitor the residential tenants of Mr. Solari and any of his relevant corporations for strict compliance with the Residential Tenancy Act. and the city's tenancy relocation and protection policy. That staff provide quarterly written reports to council promptly posted online for the public certifying whether Mr. Solari and any relevant corporations are strictly complying and that any failure to strictly comply automatically terminates the city's rezoning approval as of the date of the quarterly report. Tenants here in Vancouver, we deserve to be protected. We deserve accountability and stability, especially families with children and people with disabilities who belong here too. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Sim and Council. My name is Ralph Case. I've been a resident of the Mount Pleasant neighborhood for over 30 years, and along with the 13 previous speakers, I oppose the rezoning proposal. I want to be very clear at the outset. I'm not opposed to density. I'm not opposed to change. I'm not opposed to housing. What I am opposed to is poor planning. I've watched Mount Pleasant evolve into an amazing success story of density blended with livability, the poster child of excellent planning. We're being asked to comment on proposed rezoning of two residential lots in the middle of this success story neighborhood made up of single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, into high-rise zoning, approval of 133 new units. That is not gentle density. That is not... missing middle housing that is dramatic land use leap that carries real and lasting consequences the first one for me is infrastructure the most glaring issue is the absence of supporting infrastructure i'm worried about traffic i'm worried about parking i'm worried about elementary school seats we've heard previous speakers talk about health care and other issues of groundwater and you know various things but I'm worried about Simon Fraser Park, which is very crowded on any given summer evening or weekend. You know, 133 families coming in to share it with a place that barely fits what's there right now. My second concern is we already have ample land zoned for high-rise development, particularly along Broadway, both east and west. So why are we entertaining spot rezonings in our established low-rise neighborhoods when entire corridors are already pre-zoned and ready to go? My third concern is affordability, the myth versus reality. Every time the city rezones a property for higher density, land values in the surrounding area skyrocket. As mentioned by Mike Mangum previously this evening, we're talking multi-millions of profits for the developers. That doesn't create affordability, it destroys it. It drives speculation and permanently shuts young families out of the neighborhood. High-rise rezonings produce smaller and smaller units at higher and higher rents. Construction costs and land prices make true affordability economically impossible without massive subsidies. Finally, my fourth concern is just the community impact. I've lived here for over 30 years, raised a family, contributed to this community. Is it unreasonable for me to expect my local government to respect the existing character of my neighborhood and follow its own planning rules? This is not anti-housing. It's pro-planning. Our neighborhood is not a blank slate. It is not broken. It's a success story. If council wants density, build it where infrastructure and zoning already exist. Please respect your past excellent planning and malpleasance.
Don't blow it up. Respect your residents. and reject this rezoning. Thank you.
Not on the line.
I'm sorry, I couldn't be in person and I didn't bring a slide deck. I support affordable housing. I support density. And that's why I support this project. I live in that area. And I walk down 14th or I bike down 14th all the time. And it's a great place for a tower. It's incredibly close to one of the busiest sky train stations. It's like a seven-minute walk. It's only going to get busier because there's going to be another SkyTrain right there. And it is right next to Canby. It's steps away. And I agree with some of the speakers. I think adding cars here will have a small change. And cars along 14th are already a pain when you're biking. And I do think it needs more traffic calming. Maybe, say, put a parklet at 14th and Canby between Canby and Yukon. That removes the traffic issues and adds park space. And, yeah, I hope you approve this development. We need more housing in the city. And what better place to put it than right next to a busy street and a busy SkyTrain station. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening. My name is Denise Cousineau, and I'm a long-term Vancouver resident and currently live at West 15th and Yukon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this rezoning application that I strongly oppose. I would like to begin by referencing the Broadway Plan Implementation Quarterly Update Memo to the Mayor and Council dated November 4th, 2025. This memo summarizes data on all development permit projects in the Broadway plan area over the last three years. Figure two in this memo paints a bleak picture. 124 projects representing 25,000 residential units are listed as approved or in some stage leading to approval. The total number of building permits issued, one. The total number of occupancy permits issued, one. So the sum total of new homes delivered after three years of the Broadway plan is statistically zero. The 25,000 projects in the pipeline represent 60% of the 40,000 units envisioned to build out under the Broadway plan over 30 years. all being approved now with rock-bottom community and amenity contributions, and with little chance of any of them moving to construction. Looking beyond the Broadway plan, the city's real estate market is seeing its highest level of unsold condos in 25 years, and there are 15,000 more currently under construction that will greatly increase the number of unsold and unoccupied condos this year and next. The fundamental market problem is not supply versus demand. It's not lack of density. It's not approval timelines. It's construction costs exceeding what residents can pay for either as renters or purchasers. Approving these high volumes of projects will not solve this problem. In fact, it will make it worse as developers and speculators chase the golden snitch of highest density approvals and then sit on properties waiting for the 10 years plus it will take for real income to catch up to where the costs have run to over the last 20 years. The city's own statistics are proving this to be true. Smaller, less expensive six-story wood-framed buildings are a much more practical approach in the current market. But every time you approve a much higher concrete tower, you displace the opportunity for this real solution to be implemented now, for the residents that need it now. and you're proving the concrete towers in such huge volumes, you're at risk of seizing up the entire Broadway plan area.
You can choose to turn this around today. As stated in the city's November 4th memo, active monitoring of the block plans development pipeline enables the city to better respond to emerging needs and market trends and refine policies as required. Your approval pipeline and the market are flashing giant red lights at you. Please pay attention. Do not support the recommendation before you. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. Hi. Sorry, just a note to everyone in the chamber here. There is a rule around clapping in the chamber. I know it sounds a little weird, but for some people it could be intimidating. They don't want to express themselves. So I haven't enforced it, but I'm just going to highlight it to you. And if we can please refrain from that, that would be appreciated. So thank you. Okay. Speaker number 18, Christy Dakin. And I hope I pronounced that name correctly. Is Christy on the line?
No.
Speaker number 19, Kathy Davidson.
My name is Kathy Davidson, and I'm a Mount Pleasant resident, and I oppose the building plan for 14th and Yukon. My husband and I renovated a house years ago with city permits, keeping with the rules in place by the city in order to keep the streets safe. This was done with having all the Eves lines line up and keeping our square footage in place. with appropriate to our land size and currently we have a young family just down this two doors down and they're doing the same thing that was done with our house and they're keeping our neighborhood bringing new life to our neighborhood our neighborhood is great to walk in and just today my husband and I were walking where this proposal is I'm really proud of my neighbors that are speaking today. I think they've brought out a lot of the concerns that I think all of us have. And I have not met a single neighbor that is in favor of this plan. I'm a registered nurse. I work at BC Children's Hospital, and I'm a specialist there. I work for the vascular access team. A large part of what we do is put intravenous in the children. When I go to put an intravenous into a child, I first introduce myself to the family, and then we discuss what's going to happen here and what needs to happen. And then I make an assessment of the child, of the vein, and I make sure that the vein size is going to be appropriate to the catheter size and the therapy that is required.
And then, after careful consideration, I insert the IV into the child. So where I work, it's complicated. We do things as best we can, but sometimes things go wrong. And when things go wrong, we have a policy that says anyone can speak up. And if they don't feel like they're being heard, we can say stop the line, okay? It's agreed that everyone will stop and reassess what's happening. This building proposal is very large, 18 stories. It's too large for our neighborhood.
I'm asking you to consider a more appropriate building with a more appropriate height and square footage for this site. I'm asking you as our city council to stop the line on this project.
Thank you.
Thank you, Kathy, and thank you for your service as a nurse with our kids. Thank you. Speaker number 20, Eleanor Clark.
Good evening.
My name is Eleanor Clark, and I'm here speaking as a renter, not just for 14th and Yukon, for which I am opposed. but also for the whole Broadway plan in general. As a renter, you're preaching to the converted when you tell us that we need more rental space, because yes, indeed, we do. But we don't need spaces like are being offered by this building. I currently reside in a four-story walk-up. I'm in a one-bedroom that I pay $1,500 a month for. I'm a senior on a fixed income. And to lose this space would be horrible. These kind of buildings that are being proposed are not in keeping with the neighborhoods, the communities that are built in those neighborhoods. I live in the South Granville area, which is a community, and I've lived there for over 40 years. I'm not against higher density. I recognize the need for more housing, but there are other ways to do it. I'm not going to reiterate what many people have said this evening about four stories, six stories, eight stories, 12 stories, courtyards. What I would like to know is why can we not have co-ops in this city? Why can the city not look at areas like what's going on on 14th and Yukon and say, let's convert these homes into co-ops? Why can the city not provide short-term loans or interest-free loans to organizations that would like to build co-ops, truly affordable housing? $2,000 a month, which is considered below market value, is not affordable for a lot of people, and taking singles into consideration, and also seniors on fixed incomes. Contrary to popular belief, not all baby boomers are rich.
As well with this plan, I don't see community amenities that are really important. I don't see community centres, and we know that we're having problems with pools. We've now lost the Kerrisdale pool. I don't see parks. I don't see green areas to facilitate pleasant living in these high-density neighbourhoods that are luxury-oriented prison cells, basically. We ask that the city reconsider this development because it just doesn't work. It doesn't fit the neighbourhood. We ask that the city reconsider the whole Broadway plan and what's being approved for the Broadway plan to support a variety of types of buildings. Again, co-ops. Why are we so behind the times on offering co-ops for people in this city?
And I mean true co-ops, not the luxury co-ops that seem to be springing up in the Riverside District. And trust me, I've been looking at co-ops.
Why... we providing wholesale destruction for livable buildings such as the four-story walk-ups that are all over the city and that are still in good shape but are letting to be run down into ruin by the owners so that they can say no they're not habitable and then sell it off or a tower please consider the following Reduce funds from the developer, redirect funds from the developer incentive to non-profits that will support true community housing. At the very least, have 20% of units, not floor space, as lower income. Cap rental properties at 30%. Again, $2,000 is considered below market for a one-bedroom apartment, and that would be three-quarters of my monthly income.
Support interest-free loans or have the city purchase low-rises all over the city? These are ideal for co-ops. Purchase mansions in Shaughnessy that can be redeveloped. Disused industrial buildings that can be converted into housing. Vienna does this model. They purchase disused industrial buildings. We ask you to deny this project and the hundreds like it. I fear our city will be soulless with no sense of community or connection to the nature, the beauty, and the neighbours surrounding it. Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is David McVeigh, and I've owned a triplex property, three houses to the east of this development, and I am opposed to the 18-story tower proposal at the southwest corner of 14th and Yukon under discussion tonight. I'm going to elaborate a bit on cranes, which one of the earlier speakers alluded to. The proposed development, if approved, will require the placement of a crane or cranes during construction, almost certainly a tower crane with an operator cab, given the height of the tower. A tower crane in a residential area along narrow designated bike path streets and alleys where the housing is almost exclusively multiplexed homes raises safety concerns. Of the roughly 350 to 400 cranes currently operating in BC, many of which are in the Lower Mainland. Most are located on commercial properties, on major street corridors, and not in residential neighbourhoods. You may be aware that on February 21, 2024, at the Oak Ridge Centre development, that a 41-year-old worker was killed when a crane dropped its load onto an area where she was working. A sling had snapped and the load fell 25 storeys. A WorkSafeBC investigation released in March 2025, CBC reports, was highly critical, noting workers were often found to be present under suspended loads that ought to have been off-limits and designated as ground control zone. The worker had received no training pertaining to ground control. CBC News in July of 2025, through a Freedom of Information inquiry, looked at complaints or incidents brought forward to WorkSafe from January 1st, 2023, through Feb 29, 2024 at the Oak Ridge site, either from site workers or WorkSafe BC inspectors, of which there were five. two of which were instances where heavy loads were dropped, one being an 80-foot-long wall and another a crane block. Thankfully, no injuries occurred.
According to WorkSafeBC, four significant tower crane incidents occurred in Metro Vancouver in 2024. As of early March, including the Oak Ridge tragic death, and 22 from 2019 to 2023.
Load drops are not the only safety concern for tower cranes.
Both assembling and dismantling the cranes is another area of concern. A crane at 14th and Yukon will at times have to overswing cranes part of adjacent bike paths and narrow roadways and laneways, and no doubt will have to overswing at times immediately adjacent properties. The residents of one townhome complex have indicated that they will not allow overswing into their airspace.
The concerns over tower crane safety add to the list of concerns already raised over this proposed development at 14th and Yukon. We concede that densifying neighborhoods is a future for Vancouver, but believe this can be done without towers and with four to six story buildings. Council has some responsibility to protect the concerns of people who live in this neighborhood over the desire of one owner, the mysterious Mr. Solari, who cares only to maximize the profit he will earn. The larger the building goes in on the site. Thank you.
I believe there's a slide deck somewhere. Perfect. So my name is Graham Weber. I'm a Mount Pleasant resident, and I oppose this project. I live in Mount Pleasant with my young family. My kids are four and seven. Their names are Henry and Ingrid, which I'll go home and we'll talk about how they watch me on here, so this will be very exciting for them. I'll go to the next slide, please.
So I'm a teacher and I'm familiar with the world of schools. And this area of the city is bursting at the seams as it is right now. There's no space in the local schools. We're in a situation with my family where we have to drive about 20 minutes away to get our kid into school. When we were trying to get into Simon Fraser, which is, you know, funnily enough, one of the most, you know, subscribed to schools as far as people want to get into it. We're, you know, way deep on the wait list. May 70th on the wait list, something like this. And it's not getting any better either. The people I've talked to in the neighborhood, they've had their kids be 100th on the wait list in recent years. So even though this project is not being built right now, there's still more people coming into this neighborhood as it is. Also... There's not enough parks, play spaces for a neighborhood with lots of children and young families. We're talking about, you know, one area. We're talking about Simon Fraser Park or Mount Pleasant Park as a place where everyone's congregating. and there's not plans to build more spaces like this. Community centres are packed as well. Anyone who's been swimming at Hillcrest knows that the Lazy River kind of turns into a koi pond. It's pretty full. So let's move on to the next slide. All right, so this has already kind of been talked about before, but there's no space in local schools. The data that has been used for enrollment Projections was out of date when this was applied for. New data released by VSB in June 2025 showing that Catchment School, Simon Fraser neighborhood is between 175 to 200% capacity. Now, of course, we all know that the Olympic Village School is being planned, but given that we're already at 200% capacity at Simon Fraser, you know, we've got to... and you're looking at 40 kindergarten spaces at Simon Fraser, right? We were 70th on the wait list. That means that there's 110 applicant families to be in kindergarten. What this means is, well, we could fill up, you know, one Simon Fraser, we could fill up an Olympic village school quite easily. And there's still space for probably, you know, given the amount that the neighbor's already grown with a projection of 481% capacity in 2020, there's going to be the opportunity to build, we'd be able to fill up way more schools. But there's only one school right now in this catchment area. So it's clear that we need more schools that already, as it is in this neighborhood, we don't have the space.
Next slide, please.
Now, this is a map of the capacity for schools and where the schools are kind of over capacity. and where there's way more demand. Now, the one really dark spot is for Simon Fraser. So as you can see, we're talking about building a tower in an area that's already packed, and that is already the most densely underserved place for schools. So it's striking, even from this distance away, you can see that this neighborhood... right now cannot account for the amount of people that live there as it is in this current state. Next slide, please.
In addition, like I was talking about, there's not enough parks and play spaces. Dr. Emily Gemmel at UBC looked at a playability index to assess how will neighborhoods support young children's outdoor free play. Anyone who's been around an elementary school knows how important it is for kids to be outside in unstructured environments. And like I said, really the only outlet we have in our area is at Mount Pleasant Park. And as everyone's talked about before, it's completely packed. Large parts of Simon Fraser Elementary's catchment, as we looked at before, has the lowest playability score possible, right? Just in the same way that, you know, the enrollment for the school was that one color. It would kind of look the same way for the playability index.
Next slide, please.
So before the Broadway plan, there was the Vancouver plan, which is still something that governs our city, and it requires complete neighborhoods. As I talked about, we don't have the infrastructure necessary to increase the population in this proposed manner as it is right now. We need schools. We need community centres. This stuff needs to happen. The only thing being proposed is high-rises. That is not building a complete neighbourhood. So please, I wholly oppose the planned rezoning. Like I said... We need to be building our city in a way that gives us a complete neighborhood, not in a place that just builds more high rises.
Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. And Graham, can I just ask you a question? So you mentioned your kids are listening in right now.
Well, they should be.
Yeah. Can I just give a shout out to them if that's okay? You got it. I just wanted, if they're listening, I just want to say that they should be really proud of their dad. You came in here. You're very thoughtful. You put a lot of work into your presentation, and you made your voice heard in this chamber. And, you know, that should be applauded, and your kids should be really proud of you. So thank you. All right.
Well, I appreciate that. I'm sure they'll be excited either right now or when we watch this back. So thank you. Thank you.
Hi. Can you hear me?
Hi, good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Naomi Wolf, and I live directly across from the street from this proposed site on Yukon Street. I'm here because I'm very concerned about the scale of what's being proposed and how it would affect people who already live here. I want to start out by saying thank you to all my wonderful neighbors who have gone through so much effort to get all the... important information and statistics so compared to that my statement is going to be mickey mouse but it's coming from my heart and um i just want to say that i want to uh i i do understand the need for rental housing and i'm not opposed to the development i know the city is trying to add housing and i support that goal what i'm struggling with is how this proposal fits or doesn't fit in the middle of an established rt6 neighborhood This application would take those properties from what's currently low-scale zoning to allowing an 18-story building right on a neighborhood street. That feels like a huge jump and a very one-sided one. As someone who lives directly across from the site, it's hard to understand how this level of height and density can be justified here without much transition to the surrounding homes. I live in a below-grade garden suite, so light and exposure already is a matter. of my day-to-day life. And an 18-storey building across the street would have a real impact on that. This isn't blocking a view. It's about whether my home stays livable. I'm also uneasy that the rezoning is being considered without a confirmed developer. From my perspective, it feels like council is being asked to prove a maximum possible height and density up front, which creates a big increase in land value without clear commitments around community benefits, or how this will actually be built. I don't pretend to understand all the details, but I do think council should be asking harder questions about what the community is getting in return here and whether this scale truly makes sense in this location. I'm asking council not to approve this as is. If this rezoning moves forward, it needs to be substantially changed, particularly in height and massing, so that new housing can be added without overwhelming the people who already live here. Thank you for your time.
Hi, can you let me know when you're starting the clock, please?
Thank you. My name is Stanley. I live close enough from the annual section that I walk by it pretty regularly. I'm speaking against this rezoning application, but before we begin, though, I do want to emphasize that I actually understand the need for rental housing, and I'm not opposed to development. The concern is whether this rezoning delivers fair planning outcomes and a fair public return. Previous speakers have already commented about the Broadway plan and the maximum height allowed. So I'm not going to go too much into that. However, given the condition involved, the community benefits or lack thereof, along with the lack of financial analysis supporting this conclusion not being provided to the public and the council, I personally find that problematic in terms of building trust with the public. And speaking of trust, I think games are being played with the semantics of the 20% affordable housing, sorry, below market condition. It's 20% of residential floor area. No one really knows what kind of games that could be played. It doesn't mean 20% of the units will be below market. Not to mention all the other fine prints that would... That would put the question of whether it will remain below market beyond the initial tenancy.
The most problematic part of it is the home displacement without the guaranteed delivery.
I think earlier on today or tonight, everybody already knows... And the report confirms that the site contains existing rental units and they're occupied. I'm well aware that there is a tenant relocation plan. However, this is only after the rezoning approval. The most concerning part is that at this stage, there is no requirement that a development permit could be issued within a defined timeframe. And there's another speaker prior to me who already mentioned the actual delivery statistics. And also, there's no assurance that rezoning will be implemented by a qualified residential building. As a result, I'm seriously concerned about the risk of tenant displacement without timely delivery of replacement housing. So for these reasons... We asked council to take one of the following actions.
First, deny the rezoning application. Alternatively, send the application back to staff to consider a more appropriate height and FSR for the site. Require a preliminary hydrogeologic study that complies with the city's groundwater management bulletin. Properly assess the appropriate community benefits. contribution and provide that information to the council and public so that it can be meaningfully discussed before any approval. And finally, if council intends to approve the application despite these concerns, we ask that approval be made conditional on securing a minimum of 20% of residential units, not the floor area as below market units. and securing these below rates for a minimum period of five years, regardless of changes in the tenancy. We support rental housing. However, we don't support one-sided rezonings that deliver extraordinary private value without clear, durable public benefit. If this application is approved, it should be substantially changed. Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Good evening, Mayor and Council. So my name is Ruth Cherry. I am a longtime resident of Mount Pleasant since 1986, and I'm opposed to the amendment to the zoning and development by law pertaining to 14th and Yukon. And so I believe this building as part of the Broadway plan is destroying the fabric of our neighborhoods. And this area in particular is an important part of Mount Pleasant with old homes that are subdivided within to provide housing for multiple families. The unique character of Mount Pleasant is being replaced by behemoth buildings that don't do anything to contribute to the character of this locality, but instead drastically degrade it. People in Mount Pleasant are being priced out of this area by small and overpriced suites in this and other proposed buildings. The interests of Mount Pleasant residents are not being considered before those of developers whose mandate is to make money and then disperse, going to their next money-making project. In addition, it is incomprehensible why... what I understand to be global developers, should have preference to those people who actually live here. As the prophets leave the city and go abroad, people here want to have homes that are truly affordable. Ones that are proposed are not truly affordable, and people are being shoehorned into small square footage.
I would like the neighborhood plans of Vancouver, including the Mount Pleasant neighborhood plan, to be reinstalled, reinstated, actually. And I would like the mayor and council to refuse this application. Thank you.
If you could advance to the next slide, please. So good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Peter Boyd. I live at 430 West 14th, adjacent to the proposed rezoning site. I live there with my wife and three children for the past nine years. I have four comments, remarks to make. One is a high-level comment, and the other three are... proposed changes to the conditions in the referral report. I also have a handout if you want details on those conditions. So the first comment is regarding the form of the structure and its context in the neighborhood and the surrounding area. As you can see in this slide, my unit, you can see the box. It's very small compared to the tower. If you were to shift that box over a little bit, you would have essentially an exclamation mark. It's a very large mass compared to the trees in the houses. If you turn to the next slide, please.
In this slide, you can see two sort of contextual points. One is the arterial streets, and the other is the interior part of the neighborhood. And I, in the family, I would say relate to the interior part. And that's where we spend most of our time, at the park, on the streets, the quiet areas. It's a lot of trees, and we were fortunate enough to get into the school, so we walked to school. And I think that this is really out of context with the interior part. The form does have the townhouse on the first two floors, which is in context, but the area above the townhouse is really different. And it leads us to be concerned about the impacts of this. If you turn to the next slide. In this submission by the architect, you can see some faint blue lines. These are the traffic and routing to the facility. And it zigzags through the neighborhood, through lanes, through the bike path, through Yukon. So it's really concerning on how traffic... circulation will impact the interior part of this this neighborhood which I consider from from can be to Maine and from 12th to 16th returns the next slide this shows the street pedestrian sphere with the traffic calming circle and even right at this moment
It's bursting at the seams with bicycles, with traffic, and adding this will certainly add to that congestion and circulation concern. Excuse me, the next slide, please. Here's showing the shadows that this will cast in the area. We're not used to these type of shadows. It'll put my unit in almost total shadow during the morning and, of course, in the afternoon. also for the neighbors next slide please next slide please so in order to address the concerns you can potentially reduce the height and the mass of the structure to say six to ten stories the other potential solution is to locate this type of development or zoning along that arterial streets being can be 12, 16th and Main. I think that would make a dramatic impact and also frame in the neighborhood and protect this oasis in the middle of the city and preserve that and allow the existing residents and potentially new residents to enjoy this micro neighborhood. Next slide, please. Here's just a quick comment here on the lane improvements the referral report only goes to the western extent of the development I'd propose to carry those lane improvements all the way to can be for high zone lane standards a next slide, please This is pointing out the wall It's on the western side of facade. It's a solid brick wall I would encourage design articulation on that as well as improvement to the landscaping. So it's a a space for the residents as well as the neighborhood. Next slide. And Peter, I'm sorry, we're out of time.
My name is Bev Davis and I live on 14th Avenue directly across the street from this proposal. I oppose this rezoning proposal. and I'm going to talk about the trees and the canopy and the green space. So Vancouver's urban forest strategy of 2018 with a major additional consultant report in 2022 is a framework paper to guide the cities endorsed by council. One of the stated goals is retain and protect more trees during development. In communication with the city during the question and answer phase of the rezoning proposal, I learned that an arborist had been engaged by the applicant of this property and had issued a report about the handling of trees on the properties to be developed on 14th and Yukon. The report was not made available when requested, but city staff did reply that all of the existing 16 trees on the property would be removed and then replaced in planters or amenity niches. with five black locusts, five full moon maples, and six pine shores. Full moon maples are essentially shrubs, shore pines are small trees, often shrub-like, and black locusts often form shrub-like thickets. Not the greatest contribution to the canopy deemed so important in the urban forest strategy. Nine of the 16 trees to be removed have a trunk diameter greater than 20 centimeters. definitely not shrubs. The property currently has four mature hedge groves and abundant grass. There are nine city boulevard trees along the property, none of which are to be removed, but supposed to be protected. Four of these are along 14th and are rare 100-year-old European beech trees with large canopies. The proposed tower immediately adjacent has a three-level excavation underground, 35 feet deep to the lowest floor level with footings underneath. This is a deep excavation and will be right next to the beech trees and their root system. The root system on that side will have to be interrupted. The initial arborist report does not anticipate that this will significantly affect the trees. I'm not sure about that. A closely related issue is the removal of green space on the current properties in replacement with impermeable surfaces of built space. An estimate of the current green space on the properties, given that the two of the five lots have no structures, is that 25% to 30% is built and 70% to 75% green. The 18-story tower proposed with a 12-foot setback from the property lines on 14th and Yukon and an 8-foot setback from the townhouse complex to the west with hard surfaces to the south at the lanes leaves at maximum 22% green space and 78% built space with impermeable surfaces. In the Urban Forest Strategy and its consultant reports, it is noted that Vancouver is aiming to have a summer tree cabin
canopy, covering 30% of the city's surface by 2050. Mount Pleasant had 20% in 2022, when the overall coverage in Vancouver was 25%. Mount Pleasant, with this tower and the many others proposed in the area, seems to be moving in the wrong direction. I would not consider myself ardently green, but the preliminary work on the rezoning would seem to violate principles endorsed by council, e.g. the greenest city, urban forest strategy, reducing green space and tree canopy has delirious effects, from rainwater runoff control to soil retention of moisture, warming of the city space, bird habitat, to name a few, let alone the aesthetic. I would concede that increasing housing stock, rental and non-rental, is a laudable goal, but submit that this is better done with low-rise buildings that pay more attention to a green canopy, rich Vancouver. In addition, if this rezoning proposal is approved, I would ask that you follow two conditions. A registered developer be engaged and not the current owner who has no relevant experience as far as we can tell. and that the Tenant Relocation and Protection Program keep close tabs quarterly on how the tenants to be displaced currently renting suites in the houses to be destroyed are treated. This in view of a wrongful eviction hearing before the Rental Tenancy Board. Thank you.
Impressed about the slides being out perfectly.
Thank you for that.
Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Michelle Martin, and I am a resident of Vancouver, and I do not support this application. I support adding density where it makes sense and is supported by thoughtful planning and infrastructure that supports the community. I live in the home that is split three families, and there are many homes in this neighborhood that have the same. It's not just any home. I am directly across from the proposed development. And as much as my passion for this application is for myself and my family, I'm here to speak on behalf of my neighbors and the community about how density is being added. I am against this proposal, and I ask that you refuse this application. Next slide, please.
So we've got an agenda here, and in the midst of time, I'm going to go through and walk you through how you can refuse this application. Next slide, please.
We've spoke about the application, a large 18-storey tower across from areas where this does not currently exist, and the form of development. Next slide, please.
What's key here today is, Council, you have the ability to refuse or refer back this application. This is what everybody is asking you to do today, and so I ask that you consider that with what I share with you today. Next slide, please.
Concerns of the proposed rezoning have many factors.
We support rental housing, but what's being proposed quadruples the scale of the neighborhood, jumping from 0.75 to 5.5 FSR and 35 feet to 190 feet, completely out of context for the neighborhood. The so-called below-market rentals aren't durable. They apply only to the first tenant and can revert to market rents. That's not fair to the folks who want to live there. We're simply asking council for greater transparency, fair community benefit, and planning that supports both housing needs and neighborhood livability. Next slide, please.
You've seen this slide. Little houses, big building.
Not the right fit, folks. Next slide. The biggest thing I'd like to point out is the hydrological aspects for this application. And the risks council needs to strongly consider prior to approving this application or any applications like this. The site sits over a known aquifer in a former creek, yet the applicant's groundwater report is currently a preliminary death study based on assumptions. We need supporting data on this. Good news. We, as a community, engaged an engineer to get that data because we weren't able to get it from the city. Their initial assessment was that the proposed testing is insufficient. Test holes up to 12 meters while the excavation will reach up to 13 meters. This means groundwater conditions below the excavation depth are unknown. Importantly, the site is within the city designated groundwater area of concern, which triggers the city's groundwater management bulletin. That policy requires more robust investigation than what has been provided. Without deeper testing, issues and safety issues can arise. Council should require a full hydrological assessment, deeper drilling, and clear construction long-term monitoring before approving this application or any development in this area. Next slide, please. Still not the right fit. Take a look at that picture. Next slide, please. Blue-green corridor protection. You just saw some of my neighbors talking about this. This is on a bike lane. It is well used. My family has seven bikes, two cars, and we still walk everywhere we go. We can't find parking where we're at. We are two employed people who need our two cars to work. If the current... Proposal has that it's going to have less than half of the spots for parking. It doesn't work. Those folks are going to need parking, and it will create additional strain. The greenway, which has been talking about with regards to the planting, is also a deep concern. Next slide, please.
Not the right fit. Keeps going. Next slide.
This shows current rental costs. They're high for the average person's earnings. I know this. I hire people. I know the salaries. They are not in keeping with the rents that are required for this. The rents don't match the price. Next slide, please. Sorry, that sounded rude. So rent versus household income, it just doesn't fit. It's 176 plus for some folks. Next slide, please. Not the right fit. Not the right fit. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. Sorry.
So we've already heard how Simon Fraser is over capacity. This impacted my family as well. We didn't get in. Next slide, please. Not the right fit.
Can I just have two more minutes or ten seconds because my slide didn't go?
Next slide. Next slide. Next slide. Let's go to the end. So what we're asking is for the right fit, folks. And we've given a list. So the previous slide gives a list of the different things that we're looking for. We're asking that you take a look at the real impacts that are happening to this community. Thank you for your time, and thanks for letting me go over.
Yeah, absolutely.
Can you give us a little more color on the groundwater issues that you described and the situation where you've actually gone through your own testing and your results?
Absolutely. So we actually hired an engineer. So we were trying to get their freedom of information. We were trying to get information from the city about the groundwater because we're like, what are the reasons why this application would be rejected? So through this engineer, he'd actually pointed a whole bunch of things that are not resolved, that have not been addressed.
Engineer's name. I'm going to have to get that to you. So we can get that information.
It was not a buddy. We paid money. The community pulled together several thousands of dollars to pay for this individual. So, yeah, a validated engineer, we can get you that information. So there are issues. Be happy to share that information with council so that it can be properly addressed.
Thank you.
Good evening.
Okay. My name is Annie Castles, and I'm a longtime resident of Mount Pleasant. I strongly oppose this reasoning application and request City Council to deny it. It represents a big jump in density and height from the current zoning. It's a dramatic departure from the low-rise context on a leafy, quiet residential street. Staff report wrongly states that the area is mostly single-home residences. In fact, we know it's mostly duplexes, multiplexes, and low-rise apartment buildings. It's one of the best examples of how higher density has been successfully achieved over the last decade while preserving greenery, livability, character, et cetera. Let's not turn Mount Pleasant into an unpleasant community. Next, please. If this reasoning application is approved, oops, not the right one, it requires substantial changes. This is the wrong slide.
No, sorry. Okay. Can you stop the counter, please?
It's the wrong slide.
One slide, number two, please.
And the timer hasn't been stopped, please.
No. No, it's number two. OK, before, go back, back.
Okay, we'll stop here, but can the timer be reset?
If this is what we have, this is what we have. I can add a few.
There's only two slides? I sent the whole thing.
Okay, but I... Can you restart, please?
You know what? Are we having technical issues on our own end here?
Can I show you?
Do you have a different slide here? Let's at least pause the timer for one sec here.
Okay.
Yeah, unfortunately, that's all we have. That's what we received. So we can use this presentation here and we can keep going. And we'll add a little bit more time for the conversation. So can we do three and a half minutes?
We'll add it to, bump it up to three and a half, please.
Okay. Well, you can leave it there. I'll get to it. If this reasoning application is approved, it requires substantial changes to meet the needs of the community. It must be sent back to staff to consider a scale down FSR and height, the hydrogeological study, The appropriate CAC have to be considered. And as mentioned before, the guaranteed minimum of 20% below market residential units, not SFR. And we have to ensure the below market rates are secure for a period of five years, regardless of changes in tenancy. The number of parking spots proposed are inadequate. Can City Council guarantee that parking reductions will not be considered at the development permit stage? The DCL... costs have been estimated to be $2.5 million and $1.5 million. These amounts are significant and take away much needed revenue from city budget. The applicant has requested a 100% waiver of the citywide DCLs. Can City Council guarantee that DCLs will not be waived? This one is good. You can leave it there. The trees on 14th Avenue must be retained. It's part of the city policy and existing healthy mature trees provide 12% or more benefits than newly planted trees. And designing away from trees is also one of the city's priority. The street trees would at minimum need to be pruned back, but they should really be protected as they are unusual trees. And city council guarantee that these mature streets will be retained. The next slide, please.
Yeah, this illustrates, this is me hugging one of those trees. As you can see, they're not just regular trees. They're over 100 years old, and they're irreplaceable. Traffic nightmare has been mentioned before. It will get worse. So will street parking, which is already at capacity. It's mostly permit only. Increased traffic congestion, reduced access. We have to mention that this is at the intersection of two bike lanes, so safety of everybody will be at risk. It's worth mentioning that there is no lane on the north side of 14th Avenue, so garbage and recycling are picked up on 14th Avenue. Next slide, please. This is a map of the, no, yeah. This shows the current complicated traffic flow in our neighborhood. Many roundabouts. Slow street, concrete barriers, no left, no right turn, bike lanes, etc. And some city plazas are also being built, reducing access to the neighborhood. So with constructions that will take at least two or three years and increased traffic, it will really be a nightmare.
My other concern is Vancouver community centers. There are 27 in Vancouver. More than half are in poor or very poor condition. Eleven have been identified for renewal.
And city population growth doesn't keep up with the community centers being provided right now. Douglas Park, which is the closest to this area, it already does not meet most targets criteria set by the City of Vancouver. So once we add density, it will get worse. Based on my experience as a... Hi, Annie.
Sorry, we're well over the extra time we allotted, so... Can I resend you my presentation? Yes, please. That would be great. Thank you very much. Speaker number one, Brenda Brashears. Brenda, are you on the... Hello, can you hear me? We can hear you great. Please go ahead.
Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Brenda Brashears, and I love living in this neighborhood in Mount Pleasant. Thank you for listening as I speak in opposition of this current neighborhood rezoning proposal. Several references have been made to parks. Does it not put a smile on your face and joy in your heart to think of enjoying a park, walking with a loved one, walking with your dog, chasing kids, recreating? sitting on a bench and enjoying the green space. People deserve this opportunity near where they live. This rezoning proposal at 14th and Yukon, if approved, will result in many additional people living in small units in this neighborhood who will require more park space, of which there already is a major shortage. With increased density, residents need access to parks for outdoor play and leisure, nature, and for physical and mental health. Between 2006 and 2021, Mount Pleasant absorbed 12,000 people, equal to the Pointe Gray population. The neighborhood accomplished this by using the missing middle, duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and low-rise apartments, rather than towers, while creating an affordable, family-oriented community. Now it, along with the Fairview and Kitsilano area, are already among the densest neighborhoods in the city. Park provision has not kept up. Slide one, if available, shows in fact that the Broadway plan, is there no slide available? Okay. In any case, the slide would show that the Mount Pleasant area is at 0.37 hectares per 1,000, which is third from the bottom. which is not good um slide two would show uh the park plan on the broadway plan the park priority area which is only meeting 25 of the target for vancouver parks and recreation services master plan that is described and proposed by van play which as you know is the blueprint for shaping how vancouverites experience parks and recreation Continuing to increase neighborhood population density requires even more usable recreation space. The response by city staff to question on park area in the Broadway plan indicated that in December, 2024, council approved the Broadway public realm plan. And that went on to state that the plan suggests and sets targets for a new public space to serve a growing population over the course of the 30 year plan. Given the areas covered by the Broadway Plan are already underserved by parks, the following comment in the plan is an admission of continued underinvestment in park space in the neighborhoods impacted by the Broadway Plan.
Quote, acquiring large areas of land within the Broadway Plan area to create new parks that are comparable to size like the Jonathan Rogers Park is not feasible given existing land use and high land costs, end quote. Instead, the focus will be on, quote, creating smaller and well-designed spaces, unquote. The proposed public spaces are generally small, not conductive or conducive to tree canopies and do not include playgrounds for children and adequate space for playing fields of all ages. Concrete street parklets, small public spaces, and reallocation of road space do not constitute true parks. With all due respects, it is the city and the council's responsibility when rezoning to rezone with adequate parks. Vancouver needs to invest in effective park space for this area to bring it up to the van play target and to improve livability for current and future residents, including your family and friends. This is not a separate issue that can be dealt with later. I encourage you to deny this rezoning application. If you must approve rezoning, please consider limiting the new buildings to four to six stories. I understand that more rental housing is needed, but towers ought to be limited to major transportation arteries. Thank you for prioritizing the benefits of nature to enhance the beauty of Vancouver and the health of its residents. Thank you.
Our next speaker is speaker number 32, Keith Baxter.
Mayor Sim, city councillors, thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Keith Baxter. I'm a lifelong resident of Vancouver. I live on 14th Avenue. And I'm here to voice my opposition to the proposed rezoning of the properties on the corner of 14th and Yukon that could make way for a construction of an 18-storey high-rise building. I come to this hearing not as someone opposed to change or the provision of housing, but as someone with deep, long-standing ties to this neighborhood and a strong belief that growth must respect context, scale, and community. My family's connection to this area goes back more than a century. 115 years ago, my great-grandfather, Vancouver's 16th mayor who served two terms, built a house at 12th and Yukon, a stone's throw away from here. That house still stands today. For generations, my family has lived, worked, and invested in this city and our Mount Pleasant neighborhood. Take a walk around 14th and Yukon, and you can't avoid seeing the history of our city in living color. That history matters because it speaks to stewardship. Neighborhoods like this one are not empty canvases. They are layered with history, character, and relationships that deserve consideration, careful consideration, when decisions of this magnitude are made. The proposal before you would introduce an 18-story tower into an area currently characterized almost entirely by two- and three-story homes, many built over a century ago. This proposal is not gentle housing densification. This is an abrupt and extreme change in scale that would fundamentally alter the character of our wonderful historic neighborhood. One of the most immediate impacts would be the probable loss of mature trees along this canopied street. West 14th between Yukon and Cambie is defined by tree cover. These trees provide shade, reduce urban heat, cut down on home energy usage, make the street walkable and beautiful. Promise of future landscaping by a developer does not compensate for what will likely be the permanent loss of a living canopy that took decades, if not centuries, to grow. Traffic is another serious concern. An 18-storey building will bring significant increase in vehicle volume to streets that are already narrow and residential in nature. This is not just about inconvenience. It's about safety, noise, and livability for families, seniors, and children who rely on these streets every day. Furthermore, 14th Avenue is a designated bike route and is used by cyclists precisely because it is calmer, greener, and safer than larger arterials.
Introducing increased traffic, loading zones, and congestion undermines the city's own goal of encouraging active transportation that is emission-free. We cannot, on the one hand, promote cycling, and on the other hand, degrade the routes people depend on. Finally, and most importantly, I want to speak plainly about design and fit. An 18-storey tower in the middle of a low-rise residential neighbourhood would be visually overwhelming. It would loom over surrounding homes, cast long shadows, and permanently change the streetscape. This is not about resisting modern architecture. It's about proportionality. All buildings belong on main arterial roads and transit hubs, not inserted abruptly into the heart of established, beautiful residential areas. Good urban planning is not just about maximizing height or unit counts or developmental metrics. It's about compatibility, transition, and respect for existing communities. This proposal fails on these principles.
I urge Council to reject this rezoning application and instead encourage development that aligns with the existing scale, preserves the tree canopy, protects emission-free bike routes, and respects the character of our neighborhood. We can build housing and still be thoughtful. We can grow without erasing what makes this place worth living in.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you very much for coming in.
Hello, can you hear me?
Hi. Yeah, my name is Bobo Irick. I'm a resident in Mount Pleasant, and I'm speaking in favor of this development. I, like many of my fellow residents, agree that we need more housing. However, I think this is a really good location. It's central, and it's close to all the amenities that people want to go to. Vancouver needs to be more affordable, particularly when it comes to housing. The city is unaffordable because we've restricted the amount of housing within the city despite lots of Canadians, both current and aspiring Canadians, who want to live here.
That has pushed up prices, and so the only path to affordability is to have more housing, including a proposal like this. My fellow residents have raised numerous concerns about how little social infrastructure the city has to accommodate growth, and they are right. but they are wrong to oppose this development as part of their solution. They're asking us to settle for less when we really should be demanding more. We need more housing, we need more schools, we need more public spaces, we need more community centers, we need more libraries, and we need a better public realm that we all pay for. Opponents are insisting that all of these services that I mentioned above come from new housing. And this has been the city's strategy for the last 25 years.
The opponents want less rental housing, which means the project has less revenue. They want more affordability for each of the units, which again reduces the revenue from the building. They want more parking, which is going to cost more. They want more quote-unquote neighborhood benefits to offset the construction of the building that also takes away revenue from the project. Now, this was a viable strategy when condo prices kept going up. Now, this is a rental building, so it doesn't have the same payback. But in the current climate where rents are declining, which is fantastic, all of these asks are going to push this project underwater financially, and we will get no housing, and the outcome will be less affordability in the future. Developers are there to build housing. It is on city council. the residents of the city to insist that we provide public services to the residents and uh that there are houses from 100 plus years ago that are still present on around this area this is part of the problem this neighborhood is a stone's throw away from city hall it's two kilometers away from downtown we have rejected almost every missing middle, moderate increase in density off arterials for decades. And so now we are faced with big changes if we're going to get on top of the affordability crisis, and this is part of the solution. I don't understand why we're kind of sitting through this again.
We sat through 100-plus speakers last year listening to the pre-zoning or the city-led rezoning within the Broadway and the Canby areas. This area is already an R3-2, I think, zone site and so this building fits within the context but for some reason staff thought we needed to have individual public hearings on these lots what are we doing we need to approve this project thank you
Yes, good evening. I'm a resident living in a four family dwelling one block from the proposed building and I oppose this application. I run through these streets almost every day and I know them intimately. I wanna first start by saying something really important here that a lot of people have already said. I fully support the need for more rental housing in Vancouver. We need it, we know that, and density is part of our city's future. But, and this is critical here, we need responsible development. Development that actually serves our community, not just the rezoning applicant's financial interests. That's what tonight's really about. I'll share with you what I witness every single day as I run through this neighborhood. Speeding cars, weaving through side streets to avoid traffic. Frustrated drivers yelling at each other as they navigate narrow roads, sometimes in the early morning, waking up the residents of the neighborhood. There's gridlock, particularly near the overcrowded Simon Fraser School. There's also dangerous conditions for cyclists. The bike thoroughfares are no longer safe, and I ride an e-scooter as well. This isn't about traffic inconvenience. This is about safety. This is about whether our infrastructure can support all of these additional residents in this small neighborhood. Right now we have zoning for two to three story buildings. And as we've heard today, many if not most of the people here are in support of some sort of building that can accommodate more rental residents. The proposed rezoning is for 18-story, an 18-story tower. That's a seven times increase in building size in the middle of an already low-density residential neighborhood on a single site. Look, the neighborhood's already overcrowded. Traffic is already at capacity on local streets with safety concerns near our schools. Our medical services and clinics are already overcrowded, and our schools, as we've also heard tonight, are operating beyond... our comfortable capacity, and our bike infrastructure is no longer safe. The rezoning applicant proposes adding 133 new residential units. So that's potentially 200 to 300 plus new residents without any plans to address the infrastructure deficit. This just isn't sustainable. What troubles me most is that the recommendation also has zero community amenity contributions even with a massive land value increase the rezoning applicant pays nothing back to the community to mitigate any of these impacts no funding for traffic studies school capacity or medical facility improvements this rezoning creates enormous profit for the applicant but transfers all the costs of the current residents so
20% of the units will be below market rentals, but here's the loophole. This only applies to the first tenant. After that lease ends, the owner can rent at full market rates, which does not help our affordability crisis. If the larger units are designated as below market, very few of the 133 units will actually be affordable. This really sounds like marketing and not genuine affordability. One final concern I'll share is that the rezoning applicant has no license residential builder credentials. They've never built an 18-story residential tower, and they're seeking a massive land value increase so that they can sell the site to whoever meets their price, whether a qualified developer or not. This is about building community. This isn't about building community. It's about profit. We're not saying no to development. We're saying send this back with clear conditions. Reconsider the FSR in height. Require proper studies. Demand a community amenity contribution that addresses traffic, schools, and medical services impact. And provide genuine affordability math. Show the council and the public the full financial justification. How is the profit calculated and where does the land lift go?
We understand the need for housing, but this rezoning, as currently proposed, prioritizes the rezoning applicant's financial gain over the community well-being. Please send this back and review and really consider reconsidering the scale, proper studies, and impose real conditions that serve both the future residents and current residents. Responsible development isn't anti-growth. It's pro-community. Thank you.
That's me. Please go ahead. Hello.
So I've seen a lot of the oppositions from the speakers here and in the PDF and the agenda. So I like to try to counter argue those points. So first is that. People think that if you build a lot of condos, there's going to be a lot of traffic and noise coming. But if you build it in the walking distance to an elementary school, two SkyTrain stations, and a lot of stores and restaurants, you wouldn't see that much cars. Case in point, I live... Like a... Case in point, I do live in... near, like, malls and a Skytrain station, and we only drive, like, twice a month. Also, the noise in the city mainly comes from cars, not the buildings themselves. Also, if you have that much traffic in downtown, for example, it's because of people from many different neighborhoods and municipalities all going to the same place. But Mount Pleasant is a neighborhood, so you will mainly see people from said neighborhood being there. You would be very hard-pressed to find an increase of people around, because I... walked around a lot of condos, buildings, and I don't really see that much pedestrians around. They're probably just somewhere else, like going to a mall or something. And I've also heard people say online that Vancouver is a big city with small town vibes. I'm hopeful that even with density in Mount Pleasant, it still retains that village vibe. It's just like a very dense village. The next is when people say single-family homes is what makes this neighborhood appealing, that's not why they built single-family homes to begin with. That was what was in demand back when these buildings were built. But you can't use 1,900 supply to satisfy 2026 demands. You can't just keep building outwards anymore. You have to go back and building upwards because we've been building outwards all this time, and it just doesn't work. It's too far now. A neighborhood character should come from the people living there, not the buildings themselves, because people like to prioritize location. And if development gets pushed further to save a few pretty houses, that's a problem. Because a building being pretty is just an afterthought. But I will get into that later. The West End, for example, was all single-family homes and turned into condos in the 70s. But if you ask someone if the condos are ugly, they might say yes. But would they want the West End turned back into single-family homes? No. The condos are the reason so many people could live a five-minute walk from downtown. So why should they only prioritize the people living there instead of future residents if you can always build a new building in the same style that would satisfy the existing homeowners?
The neighborhood character should focus on something that both the existing and new residents would benefit. Maybe the trees that line up the streets or it's family-friendly. Just things that won't go away when the new building is built. And if you have trees lined up on the street, they can block that high-rise there.
Next is that this neighborhood isn't in downtown, so it shouldn't have high-rises. But it doesn't ignore its location. It's adjacent to downtown. If you build it in places that already have high-rises, it means you're living further from downtown. The Canada line, for example, is cross-loaded end-to-end because of people living in Richmond and work in Vancouver. This clearly means a lot of people can move to these new buildings and skip the long commute. And the people who stay behind would at least get a less cramped train back home. Spending out developments also has the benefit that they won't keep crowding those same places over and over. Speaking of, all the places in Greater Vancouver that have high-rises now didn't before. So how do opponents draw the line of where they should and should not be built? Where should high-rises not be built if they all started somewhere? And if old homes are kept because of their heritage value, does this mean it's too late to demolish them and make new houses? So I have a few suggestions to hopefully get more support. First is just increase the infrastructure around the area, like the capacity of the school, and maybe make the interiors of these homes bigger. But this means you have less total units but better quality of life. And the next is that the architecture should match the building that was there before. So if it was like a 1900s craftsman-style house before, this new build should also have a craftsman-style aesthetic built into it. Secondly, with tall buildings like these, there should be a green space on the top floor that people in the surrounding neighborhoods are welcome to use. This way the existing residents get something out of this, kind of like a conversation. This way, they have a very good view of the city and the mountains from the sky from the top floor. People say mid-rises would work, but this means more existing residents will have to sell to meet the same amount of housing. But I think it will be harder to do that. The city has to build tall on how few land they have, which is why we have this 18-story building. The reality is Vancouver stopped building condos since the 1970s, and this is the consequence of holding back for so long. Growth is literally part of a city's environment. Opposing housing like this disrupts natural growth identification. If they keep pushing housing somewhere else, and you're just pushing that problem somewhere else, and you're just letting someone else deal with it, and now everyone has longer commute times and just worse traffic. I used to hate new condo constructions myself, but as I got older, I got old of the existing buildings and stores. And a lot of people say they do hate change, but for me, I used to hate change. But having something new is a good refreshment after a few decades.
No, I'm done now.
We're out of time. Great. I'm done now. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a great evening. Speaker number 37, Luis Villegas. Villegas?
Is Lewis here?
Good evening, Mayor and Councillor. Can you hear me?
Wonderful. Thank you. My name is Hawken Coyote, and I'm a resident of Vancouver. And I want to speak in strong support of this application. Yeah, just first of all, I think, frankly, it's a little bit ridiculous that as a 28-year-old, I have to call in and ask you to please approve housing. that my generation can afford to have a place in this city. Policies really should have just allowed more housing so long ago and having this be just one application after another that people who care about making sure that You know, we have a future in our city. You have to call in and speak to you again and again and again. It's just a little bit ridiculous. But that aside, this application is for over 150 new units of housing in an incredible place. I ride my bike right past here all the time on 14th.
There is... so much benefit of the neighborhood that's been spoken about by many speakers this evening. And I think the challenge is that many of them are at the same time talking about how great their neighborhood is, but asking you to exclude others from it by stopping new housing development. Building housing here creates new residents in the city, creates new taxpayers in the city. It improves the ability for the city to have revenue over the long term. And that allows the city to invest in all the resources and the community amenities that we need to make because we know we're increasing our tax base. So, you know, there is so many reasons. to do this, but fundamentally adding more housing supply close to public transit, close to... schools, close to shops. It's a walkable neighborhood. And riding by here, I think I encourage many people to keep riding their bike down 14th. And look, once you get closer to Oak and Fairview, there's a lot of towers along 14th Avenue that have trees that are right outside. And it's... a beautiful, walkable neighborhood, and there's plenty of benefit and a place to feel like there's community there. So this is a shame that there's been so many people who are opposed to having new neighbors and new people in their community, and I strongly urge you to support this development. Thank you so much. Have a good night.
Peter here.
Okay.
Just going through this.
Okay. If there are any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the left podium. Clerk, are there any additional speakers online?
No.
Okay, so this is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061445 before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. So we're now going to take, if it's okay, if we can take a five-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in and come forward to the podium, just because it's been a long... almost three-hour thing, and I think some people would appreciate a few extra minutes.
Thank you.
I just want to start by saying I'm clean from meeting you briefly and feeling like...
Yes, we do clerk. Do we have any speakers in the chamber or on the line?
Not seeing anybody come forward in the chamber and Just checking There is one Speaker, there's an anonymous person on the line. Okay.
So you can unmute that person to see if they wish to speak.
Hi, is he speaking? Is that me?
Hi, yeah. If you can please state your first and last name and whether or not you're a resident of Vancouver for the record, please.
Thank you. Sarah McLeod, and I do live in Vancouver.
Okay. Thanks. If this is still about the Yukon and 14th spot, it just doesn't make much sense when you stand there on the corner of Yukon and 14th to propose or just suggest what to put there instead. it seems like a very, just talking to people on the street. You can't go like, I think I've talked to at least two or three people on that street, and they just all bring it up because it's their community and their place, and they can't believe that this magical, beautiful place where the reason you moved to Vancouver is there. The fairy trees and walking around under that canopy is incredible.
Yeah. And to replace it with something so high that in the rezoning, it just mentioned that it will, you know, replace that space, the green natural living things there. It will do that. But in the rendering, you can't really discern that for sure unless you're counting boulevard trees too. And then you think, okay, well, so is there just going to be 20 on the roof? And then that defeats the purpose of that whole tree protection bylaw to protect the already existing living trees. Because 20 trees at the top of a 20-story tower is not going to do what is currently 10 trees right next to the ground, creating the living space that will keep us all cool in the future to come. It just makes no sense to even... do that. But if sure, someone wants to propose to change the value of the property there, that is possible. I don't know. That's what you guys get to decide. But like, just go there and breathe. Just go to the car and breathe there.
Okay. I got to catch the bus. See you guys.
Thank you very much, Sarah. Okay. Clerk, are there any other speakers in the chamber or online?
Not seeing anybody come forward. And none on the line.
Great, thank you. Seeing no further speakers, the speakers list is now closed. Has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item since 5 p.m.?
No, just four.
Okay. Seeing that there are few or no public comments received after 5 p.m., I'm now going to close the receipt of public comments. Does the applicant have any closing comments?
Thank you, Worship and Council Members, for your patience tonight. It's been a long night, so I'll make my closing comments brief.
There's a lot of passionate people speaking tonight, and a lot of what I heard anyways was... not as much an objection to this proposal as the idea of what the Broadway plan envisions for this neighborhood. I'm quite sympathetic to the concerns about fit and density and scale. And we have... worked quite hard to address those through the design of the building. But that being said, as I mentioned earlier, there is still a whole development permit process which also will receive public comments and give us opportunities to continue to refine the design as we work through. There were also some confusion on a few points and some concerns that I was hoping, that I heard from some of the speakers that I was hoping to address. I heard several comments regarding the geotechnical and hydrological state of the site. And the speakers were correct that it is just a preliminary study at this stage. But as I'm sure Council and Your Worship know, that this is just the preliminary stage of the design of these buildings. The City of Vancouver Engineering Department and Building Review Branch require extremely robust... studies and designs for any deep excavation in the city of Vancouver and notwithstanding a few mishaps in other jurisdictions, I'm not aware of any deep excavation that has caused a hazard to or failed in recent years. And the notion that you can't build a building on unstable ground is not really true. I'm doing a tower right now at the corner of number three road in Lansdowne in Richmond, which is pretty much just a swamp. much worse than the soil conditions here, and there's no issues with building a tower in that environment. So if we can build something there on basically mud, I have great confidence that with the proper geotechnical engineers and structural engineers that there will be no issues for this project. There seemed to be a little bit of confusion on the below market component of this project. Some of the speakers seemed to think that the 20% below market was only for the first tenant in there. My understanding of the 20% below market quotient for all of the towers in the Broadway plan requires securing on title in perpetuity for the life of the building, 20% below market. So I think people are conflating the DCL waiver securing for the first tenant with a below-market component on this project, and that's not correct.
I also heard concerns about inadequate or unnecessary interior and exterior amenity areas for children and for the residents of the building. Fortunately the City of Vancouver Planning Department in their wisdom require a certain amount of interior amenity area and exterior play area inclusive of children play area in all large developments including this project. So this application is compliant with what the City of Vancouver Planning Department has required for both indoor and exterior play area, including the children's play area. I like the comment about mass timber. I quite like mass timber. Our firm was actually the first firm to build a mass timber industrial building in the City of Vancouver. The challenge with mass timber, as with all of these projects, is the cost of it. I have not heard, including my project, of a single mass timber project that has been able to be delivered on budget and would pencil for a rental project. It's really unfortunate. I think once the technology has an opportunity to mature more, there will be more opportunity, and we will always be looking for those opportunities. But at this stage right now, unfortunately, just because of the razor-thin margins on these projects, it's not a viable form of construction for taller buildings for rental in the city. The sewer shed question that was brought up, I admit it absolutely is a complex issue, but fortunately we have exceptionally good civil engineers that are required on every project that do these calculations, work with the City of Vancouver Engineering Department to ensure that all sewers don't put unnecessary strain on the system. And as far as the storm system is involved, and somebody spoke about impermeable area in the building, this project does have green roof components in it, and we're required, as we get further into the design of this building, to include stormwater detention tanks to ensure that the city storm system is not taxed beyond its limits. And this involves a very costly study for our clients to ensure that we are not overly pumping storm into the city storm system. There was also comments on sustainability. So this project, like all other rezoning projects in the City of Vancouver, are required to comply with the City of Vancouver green building policy for rezonings, which means that this building is required to be either passive house certified or equivalent passive house performance, meaning near net zero performance. So all rezones in the City of Vancouver are what I would consider a sustainable project once they're built. I heard a lot of concern about the street trees.
I love those street trees. And I think that fortunately, as part of this project, we are required to keep all those street trees and protect them. And Arborist was engaged to ensure that it would be protection. And the Broadway Plan has this built into it. So all buildings in the Broadway Plan are required to provide 12-foot setbacks to city streets to ensure the protection of street trees. That's the minimum requirement. On this project, we are providing 15 foot setbacks to give those mature trees a little bit of extra room beyond what is the minimum required by the city. Parking, I heard a lot of comments about parking. The speakers are right. We are providing 67 vehicle spaces, but we're also providing 317 bicycle spaces. We recognize that this building is located on a major bicycle path for the city of Vancouver, and so it's our thought and our desire to try to encourage people to take bicycle routes in transit as much as possible. It's a more sustainable way to move about the city. So we haven't fully flipped the switch and said no parking, as we would be allowed, but we do provide 317 bicycle spaces for 133 units. I heard concerns about the crane. You just have to drive around to the city and see that it doesn't really matter whether you're doing a tall building over six storeys or six storeys. All even mid-rise buildings typically have cranes, and overswing agreements are challenging, and there are challenges in every project, but I'm confident that we would be able to get something to work on this. Somebody mentioned the DCL waiver. To my understanding, our client has not applied for a DCL waiver. And a rumor that keeps on coming up is the land value increase that people seem to think occur on these lands. I'm not a real estate agent, but in my experience of dealing with our clients, the pre-rezoning and post-rezoning value of these properties are not very different from each other. In fact, I think the city of Vancouver, when they were developing the Broadway plan, were very specific and purposely reverse engineered the numbers to ensure that there would not be a land lift and land bananas on these properties. And I think it's working because every project that I'm involved with is on a razor thin margin and is very challenged to build these buildings with the 20% below market. And I'll just close with, you know, I really was interested to hear the former mayor's descendant talking about layering in the city of Vancouver. And I think that's exactly what the Broadway plan envisions and what this project does. Yes, there are 100-year-old buildings on this street and in this area, but that's what was being built 100 years ago.
And then you've got the layer of the mid-century wood-framed walk-up. And now we're slowly adding in... layer of towers. And as Mr. Grotenberg spoke about earlier, there is a limit on how many towers. So the planning department has been quite purposeful in how they want to layer these things in. And this neighborhood is no exception to that. So I'll just leave you guys with that. But again, I thank you very much for your patience and I hope to get your support for this project. Thank you.
Yes, staff, I have a few closing comments here. Thank you, Mayor and Council.
We're going to start off here with, I'm just going to mention and remind Council about the yellow memo. The yellow memo needs to be moved together with the report. Secondly, I'm going to continue with some comments about the trees here. There were comments about street trees. The street trees will be retained and protected. That's part of the proposal. We have an arborist report confirming that it's feasible. There is an adequate below-grade setback and above-grade setback to retain these trees. There will be some tree removals on site to accommodate the floor plate of the building naturally, and some of those trees will be replaced in planters or as part of the landscape on the site, which is typical for these kind of projects. I'm going to hand over to John to address some other items. And then, yeah, John. Thank you. Yes, so I wanted to expand on a response earlier about the current and future development in the area. So on this block and the surrounding blocks, existing development is predominantly multiplex and multiple conversion dwellings, generally up to about three stories. So off arterial, on the arterial, along Cambie, existing development is up to eight to 18 stories with the taller buildings closer to 12th avenue several months ago as part of the city's pre-zoning efforts for the broadway and canby plan areas this site and the surrounding blocks were rezoned to r3 which permits up to six stories without a rezoning so direct to development permit application. As has been mentioned, there are tower limit policies on this block and the surrounding blocks to moderate the amount of change in the area. And so because of that, we did not pre-zone to the 18-story form to regulate towers per block. We can do that through the rezoning process. So there's a district-to-district rezoning option available here where the tower limits apply. We do not, there are not any existing rezoning applications in the immediate surrounding area. The plan policy does generally step up building heights getting closer towards the transit station at Broadway and Canby. So in this block, up to 18 stories. up to 20 stories in the several blocks north, and then up to 30 stories around Broadway and Canby itself. As we know, there are many rezoning applications approved and underway in other parts of the plan area to the east and to the west.
And with that, I believe I'll be turning it over to Molly in housing.
Good evening, Mayor and Council.
This is Molly with Housing Regulation. I just wanted to confirm that if approved, at minimum, the rents for the below-market units accounting for 20% of the residential floor area... will be secured at 20% discount to citywide average market rents as published by CMHC on a housing agreement registered on title for the greater of 60 years or life of the building. I echo the comments from the applicant. I think that some speakers may have been conflating other policies that don't apply for this project. This is going to be a secured BMR rental project.
Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. Does Council have any final questions for our team members, noting no additional questions to the applicant are permitted? Councillor Kirby-Young.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I'm going to direct my first question to staff about following up on the trees. And I know that you spoke to that in your closing comments, but I just want to review this because these 100-year-old trees are critically important and they're the lungs of our city and community. They're beautiful on the street. So I'm looking at Appendix B. on the conditions 1.7. Is that specifically the condition that would protect from a rock solid perspective, the street trees, or it says no excavation limit or buffer to maintain minimum tree protection zones of C05, C06, and C08. And related to that is like, how can council have rock solid assurance if this project were approved that those trees would not be damaged in construction? appropriate measures are taken and that these conditions are specific enough that there's no question that the trees would be maintained. And I'm talking specifically the boulevard trees. Thank you, Councillor, for the question. The park board condition that we have in the report 1.7 is in relation to the trees. That's one of the measures to ensure safe retention of the trees and make sure that the retention efforts are successful in the end. It's a combined effort between park board condition, the landscape review that we conduct through the DP stage, and... and work with the arborist and the applicant to make sure that they can comply with and that they're able to successfully retain the trees.
I guess my question is, because, you know, we often, many sites deal with trees, but these are, you know, incredibly special and unique. Is there any further language that staff could provide or any further protections that could be incorporated here that would provide further, assurance or anything punitive in terms of consequence to the applicant if these trees were damaged or impacted? We typically don't include conditions that require securities. But my question is, can we?
Yes, we can. Okay. And would staff need some time to help advise council in preparing some language on that? Yes, I think we would, yes. Okay. In hearing that, I'm assuming that given that it's 20 to 10, would it be, would staff sort of suggest that it would probably be better for council to provide that time for staff to work through appropriate language that can also go through legal review and that we potentially defer this decision? I think our reserve date is Thursday afternoon at three o'clock versus trying to get that critically important, in my view, piece right tonight. That would be helpful, yes. It would be. Okay. Okay, that's great. And then with respect, so follow up if I have any time left, and I'll be prepared at the appropriate time or after questions to move to refer a debate decision on this to allow that language to be prepared to Thursday.
But is there any other comments staff would have with respect to the hydrological? Do we feel that the conditions are sufficient there to address concerns we heard from speakers? Yeah, thank you. I'll hand that over to Carol Yee in engineering department.
Yes, this is Kelly, an engineering representative. So it is just a preliminary hydrogeological study that's been provided. And because this is the rezoning stage, it is early in the design stage. So there will be a final hydrogeological study required later in the development permit stage. Okay, and that's already accounted for? Yes. Okay. All right, I see Mayor Simms on the queue for questions and I'm happy to come back and move referral on this to allow further language on strengthening trees. Thank you.
Thank you.
Awesome, thank you. So just to the applicant, thank you very much. You actually answered a lot of the questions, a lot of the concerns I had. To our team members, I still, when I think of the trees, you know, for anyone that's been around there, and we've toured it quite a few times, these are iconic trees. And I know, you know, we're going to have some language in there. So, well, we can't get this one wrong. Because I don't think anyone cares about penalties. If the trees are gone, they're gone if we screw it up. So my question to you is, I know the applicant said that, You know, it's standard to have, what, 12-foot setbacks, and they're actually going to 15-foot setbacks. Based on our experience throughout the city and similar situations, is 15 feet enough?
We rely on arborists, professional arborists to make these assessments. We have standard dimensions surrounding trees that we call critical root zones, which we use template assessments for. Based on the assessment we do as staff and looking at the arborist report, yes, the efforts that we have seen so far and the intentions of the applicant would be adequate to retain these trees successfully.
Yeah, and is there like, are you guys providing for some variability or like some, you know, you know, room for error per se? Like, you know, is it going to work 19 times out of 20 is what I'm asking.
These are, trees are living organisms and there are never any, there are never guarantees, but we do, we do a lot of tree retention in the city and we have a lot of experience doing it. And, and I would say that the success rate is very high when things are done right.
Okay. So I guess my ask would be when you're responding to Councillor Kirby Young's request and you present it on Thursday, if it could, you know, the one thing I'll be looking for is some pretty, you know, like a high standard on the tree protection, specifically when I vote on it. Thank you. We'll look into that. Thank you.
Thank you. Thanks for all the clarifications. Just a couple quick questions. Just because we heard a lot from residents and neighbors about the scale of the proposed development, I just want to clarify my understanding of the TOA legislation, provincial legislation that was imposed is with a Tier 3, it's around minimum eight stories requirement when we're at this proximity to a SkyTrain station. Is that correct? I got that right?
Yes, that's correct, Councillor.
That's the minimum, not maximum, minimum. Minimum, eight stories. And then in the context of the Broadway plan, we have an allowance of up to 18 stories. Is that correct? That's correct. And that was in the Broadway plan approved prior to the TOA legislation. And then in this case, the applicant has, and I'm bringing the question up in the context of one of the other pieces of work that we pushed both last term and this term is around more missing middle row homes, townhomes, that other development. Some of that is included in this proposal. But that the applicant ultimately is the one that came forward and said, I want to do up to 18 stories in a tower form with townhomes at the base. that was the applicant's desire with the this corner site that would be my understanding yes that's correct yeah um and then um sorry it's late so i'm losing the thread of it um maybe i'll just leave it there i'll leave there thank you thank you great thank you counselor maloney Thanks. I must say I'd just like to ask staff through the chair some more questions about the tree issue because everything I've heard so far indicates to me that we have a very robust system of protecting trees. during construction. I'd like to know if there are any major deficiencies or we've had any major problems with trees dying or being damaged in other developments to inform whether we should be deferring this decision on that basis because I haven't seen anything so far.
Thank you for the question, Councillor Templer, Director of Rezoning. So just for clarification as well, and just to reiterate some of the points, the protection of trees by-law is the governing by-law that ensures that we have the protection of these trees. We've got conditions associated with our landscaping provisions and form of development to have plans and information and arborist reports identified through the development permit process to ensure those trees that are identified for protection are protected. We have that condition 1.7 as spoken to as well. And there's also conditions around trenchless technology when it's in the boulevard and right-of-way to ensure that root zones aren't disrupted too. So there are already quite a bit of conditions and or processes and bylaws to ensure the preservation of trees. But if there's certain other aspects that council would like to impose to further emphasize that, we can certainly take that back. And has the enforcement of these requirements been a problem with any other...
Well, I'm not involved in that area of enforcement, but what I can say is that it is a fairly strong bylaw to a certain degree where there are fines that are applicable. I have heard anecdotally of concerns around that too, of paying the fine versus keeping the tree. What I can say is that staff in our licensing department and enforcement department are out enforcing those bylaws and requirements. And again, I'm not aware of a prolific issue, but I have heard of instances where that can be a concern. Thank you. That's very helpful.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. So I heard some concern from the speakers. So my question to our staff is, how do we make sure that the applicant is a serious builder? It's not going to flip the lens after rezoning. Do we have any confidence?
Thanks for the question. Right now, the city does not have any policies or regulations controlling who is the owner of property when they actually apply for an application. The applicant is the architect in this case, and the owner has hired necessary professionals to undertake those studies. Those are the studies that we review, so those are the ones that are more important from a regulatory perspective to us, but we don't regulate who the owner of an application might be. So after this rezoning, basically we have no control over the applicant if they want to resell the land. Correct. Okay. All right. So the other question about the tree canopies. So if we want to protect the tree canopies there, would that change the scale of the development significantly?
In this case, no.
Okay, the measures that are provided here should be satisfactory, and so no further changes would be required. Thank you. So the other speaker is saying that this site is within the Silver Shed, which presents significantly engineering and logistic challenges. Can we comment on that? I think that's the engineering question.
Thank you, Councillor. I'll hand that question over to Caroline, Engineering Department. This site does not require sewer upgrades, so there are requirements for retaining rainwater on site through detention tanks. So the sewer shed is not going to be an issue for this development? No, it won't be. Thank you. My last question is, I think I know the answer, but I want you to see that publicly. Is this project compliant with the Broadway plan?
Thank you, Councillor. Yes, this project is compliant with the project plan. Thank you. That's all my question. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you very much. Councillor Klassen. Thanks very much, Mayor. I'm just wondering with it coming up to 10 minutes too, I just want to make sure that we... Don't go past our 10 o'clock witching hour. Clerk, can you just let me know whether we need to move just to finish? It sounds like we're going to a referred decision and debate to the meeting reserve on Thursday, but again, that's up to the rest of council here.
I'm assuming that we are going to be... We would, have we closed the speaker's list? We have on this item here. Okay, so that means that for now, we're going into debate and decision after questions. Okay. I just have a couple of questions, but I just don't want to go right up to the 10 o'clock hour. That's all. So the answer is we cannot go past 10 to conclude this item unless you extend the meeting with a two-thirds vote.
All right.
So I can move that if that's the easiest thing to do. Okay. Okay, so I'll move that we conclude questions to our team members and then refer to decision debate to the meeting reserve. All right, okay, and now I'm going to get help from Tina.
I'll just jump in due to the time. I think you just want to extend so that you can conclude. I'll tell you what. I'll just quickly ask my questions and I'll let Councillor Kirby-Young wrap that up. Okay. To our staff members, there was a, and I realize that The economics in many ways drives this. The size of the units was raised by at least one or two speakers, namely the 900 square foot to three bedroom townhouses and what have you.
When we're looking at these applications, do we have any discretion with regards to the square footage of some of these units? Just for my own curiosity.
Hi, everyone. Paul Chang, Assistant Director, Development Planning. We often do not exercise discretion unless any unit is actually smaller than 398 square feet. That is the minimum size that is required for any of these kinds of units. Four, three bedrooms, two bedrooms. Staff have thought about having minimum sizes as a future regulation, but currently there is no plan to actually implement those. Okay. And I just, I've, there's a new rental building. I know that within some of the sizes has been a factor in their inability to rent them. And school capacity, I realize the Vancouver School District drives the whole question around school capacity, but that came up repeatedly right here. I guess, are we just, are our hands tied? Obviously, Simon Fraser Elementary is extremely popular and very successful, really busy, but is our school capacity going to be a mitigating factor in how we grow this neighborhood? Thanks for the question, Councillor. So though the report only mentioned the 2021 study, we are aware of and in receipt of and in reviewing the 2025 study as well. We actively engage and consult with the school board as part of our charter requirements, more recently as part of our draft official plan preparation as well. So the school board and the city do collaborate and engage back and forth to ensure that those growth projections are aligned and they understand what the anticipated population direction is. So our role at that point from a legal perspective is completed and it's up to the school board to then be able to deliver the necessary schools to support the growth. So again, our plans are being considered by them as part of the planning work.
Those are my questions, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Kirby-Young.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I'd like to move to refer a debate and decision to the reserve date on Thursday, January 22nd at 3 p.m. as scheduled.
Okay. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Claston, thank you. Any discussion? Seeing no one on the queue, I'm going to call the vote. I can just do a show of hands, right?
All those in favour say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. Great. That will be referred to the council meeting on January the 22nd, 2026 at 3 p.m. And so on that, we're going to recess. And so this meeting is recessed until Thursday, January the 22nd, 2026 at 3 p.m. here in council chamber. and electronically to continue with item number two.
Mayor, I do have a point of procedure quickly, if I might.
Sure.
I don't see everyone's, all the cameras on, so does that mean it's only that not all the councillors are voting on that referral?
It's the clerk here. I'm just thinking about that. Cameras were off when the vote was taken, so I'm just looking for clarification, please. So it was a hand vote, Mayor, if you wish to do it as a formal vote. But, yes, the rule is if cameras are off, the council members are deemed absent.
Okay.
Right, but the vote passed.
Yes, the vote did pass.
Okay. So unless anyone feels strongly about reversing the vote and then voting again with the camera on. No? Okay. So this meeting, I'll repeat, is recessed until Thursday, January 22, 2026 at 3 p.m. here in Council Chamber and electronically. to continue with item number two. Now I will remind council that it is incredibly important that you do not engage in any discussion or correspondence in regard to the remaining applications.
And with that, this meeting is recessed. Thank you very much, everyone.