Public Hearing — January 27, 2026 — Transcript
← Public Hearing January 27, 2026
All right, thanks everyone. We have quorum right now. So I will now call the reconvening public hearing of Tuesday, January 27, 2026 to order. This meeting is held in person and by electronic means. Council members and the public may participate by either method. Any council member joining electronically are reminded to enable their video to confirm quorum. This meeting has been live-streamed on the city's website and YouTube, and the meeting progress will be updated regularly on X Advanced City Clerk. In case of an emergency requiring evacuation, there are two exits located beyond the glass doors to the left. If the glass doors are blocked, please use one of the four additional exits within this console chamber. Do not use elevators, use the stairs instead. If you need mobility assistance, remain at where you are and security staff will get you to the safe location. A defibrillator is available at the end of the hallway outside of this console chamber. We acknowledge that we are on the unceded homelands of Musqueamamamam, Squamish, and the TTTTsleil-Waututh people. We thank them for having care of this land and look forward to working with them in partnership as we continue to build this great city together. And we also recognize the immense contributions of City of Vancouver's team members who work hard every single day to help make our city an incredible place to work, live, and play. Clerk, may we have a roll call, please?
Yes. Mayor Sim has previously declared a conflict of interest for items three and four. Councillor Kerby Young.
Councillor Domenato similarly declared a conflict of interest for items three and four and is not here. Councillor Bly. Do not see Councillor Bly. Councillor Fry.
Councillor Montague. Present. Councillor Klassen also declared a conflict of interest for both items three and four and will not be present for them. He also has a leave of absence for personal reasons. 5 p.m. onward. Councillor Meisner is not here. Councillor Zhou is acting mayor in the chair. Councillor Maloney and Councillor Orr. The hearing has quorum. Acting Mayor.
Thanks, Tina. Before we begin, we have a few announcements. Please note that a new public speaker's podium has been installed on the left side of the public gallery. 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 by phone or by submitting written comments to the Mayor and the 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 are in support or in opposition of the recommendations and if you are a resident of Vancouver, if it is not noted on the speaker's list. 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 or advanced city clerk on X to track the meeting progress and know your turn to speak when your speaking is approaching. Please note that the live stream has a slight delay. Written comments can be submitted through mayors and councils' public hearing feedback. form on the city's website and linked on the X. If you are pre-registered with a presentation, see next to have clerk advance your slides. A reminder, our Public Hearing 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 staff or speakers, including the applicant, but should reserve debate until after the speaker's list has closed. After hearing from the speakers, Council may 1. Approve the application in principle. 2. Approve the application in principle with amendments. 3. Refuse the application. 4. Refer the application to staff for further consideration. Finally, if all speakers are not heard this evening, the public hearing will recess and reconvene at a later date. Okay, so we are on the item three on the agenda today. Citywide rezoning 2260 to 2266 West 2nd Avenue. At the public hearing on January 22, 2026, Council completed Item 2. Before the start of Item 3, Councilor Clausen, Dominado, and Mayor Sim declared conflict of interest. Due to loss of quorum, the meeting recessed and reconvening today to complete the reminder of the agenda. This is a separate public hearing at 6 p.m. today. Therefore, if we do not complete the reminder of the agenda by 5 p.m., we will set another reconvening day before adjourning. All right, so before we begin this agenda item, if any further council members believe they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does any council member have a conflict of interest to disclose? I didn't see any. The clerk will not read applications on the summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by DA Architects and Planners to rezone 2260 to 2266 West 2nd Avenue from R3-3 Residential District to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District to permit the development of a 22-story residential building containing 176 rental units with 20% of the residential floor area or below market rental units. A floor space ratio of 6.5 and a height of 70.8 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 15, 2026, entitled CD-1, rezoning, 2260-2266, West 2nd Avenue, amendments to modify rezoning conditions. The following correspondence has been received since referral to the public hearing. 17 pieces of correspondence in support, 44 pieces of correspondence in opposition, and two pieces of correspondence dealing with other aspects of the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 2 p.m. today.
Thank you. All right, so this is the first call for the speakers. If you wish to speak to counsel about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by the participant code 106-1445 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. We have staff from Planning, Urban Design, and Just Sustainability here to present the application. Please go ahead. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Acting Mayor and Council and members of the public. My name is Lex Domeniak. I'm the rezoning planner for this application, which proposes to rezone under the Broadway plan. Staff note that this application is accompanied by a yellow memo, which will need to be moved with the report. The site, highlighted in red, is located on West 2nd Avenue between Vine and U Streets. It is currently developed with two four-story rental residential buildings, which include a total of 40 units, with existing tenancies eligible under the tenant relocation and protection policy. Staff note that there is an error in the referral report, which states that there is only one building on site. However, the number of existing rental units is correct. The two buildings were constructed in 1959 and 1965. The proposal is being considered under the Broadway plan in the Kitsilano North or KKNB sub-area. For this area, the plan anticipates a mixed-use building up to 20 stories and an FSR of 6.5 for rental or below-market projects. Minor increases in height and density are also considered where there is a delivery of retail, service, or child care uses, or where the added height supports enhanced urban design outcomes.
The application is for a 22-story residential development. The building height is 232 feet with a density of 6.5 FSR and the delivery of 176 rental units with 20% at below market rents. Sorry to interrupt. I'm just wondering, is this just verbal or should there be a presentation on the screen as staff is presenting this? I'm not seeing it. No, there haven't been any slides. There is a presentation. Oh, I see it has dropped out.
Okay, there we go. All right, please go ahead. Thanks, Counselor Karpia.
What is the procedure requirement?
I'm going to double check with Clark. Do we need to?
Thank you for the question, Chair. If council feels they missed visuals and need to start from the beginning, that would be their choice. Otherwise, if the verbal was good for everybody to understand, we can proceed.
If any council member would like to see from the beginning, please let us know. Otherwise, we're just going to keep on going.
Okay, so let's keep on going then. Thanks.
Let's start at this proposal slide. The application is for a 22-story residential development. The building height is 232 feet with a density of 6.5 FSR, delivering 176 rental units with 20% at below market rents. Staff note that in December of 2025, Council approved a two-year time-limited rental development relief program to improve the viability of rental projects. This project is not eligible to apply for the program due to the amount of existing primary rental units.
During the public engagement period, Many participants expressed support for increasing housing supply in the area and felt that the proposal would benefit the community. They also highlighted the site's proximity to transit and amenities as factors that would contribute to creating highly livable housing. Key concerns included building height and tower separation. impacts on neighborhood character, livability, and the environment, stresses on traffic and parking, affordability, and potential tenant displacement, the adequacy of local infrastructure, as well as construction-related impacts. In response, staff note that the proposed building scale and form align with the Broadway plan and do not impact protected views. The proposed parking complies with the city's parking bylaw. Eligible tenants will receive tenant protections, including right of first refusal. Additionally, 20% of the units will be secured at below market rents. With respect to infrastructure, the Broadway plan's public benefit strategy identifies key infrastructure issues and amenities to be expanded in response to development. Noting that the Henry Hudson Elementary School is expected to operate below capacity in the coming years, with Kitsilano Secondary currently slightly over capacity, but enrollment is expected to decline in the coming years. Construction impacts will be managed under the city noise and traffic regulations with active monitoring by the city. Builders will also be required to submit a construction management plan.
At the time the rezoning report was finalized, the expected DCL contribution was approximately $2.2 million, with the public art contribution estimated around 270,000, generating a total public benefit of over $2.4 million. I'll note that the development viability report, which council approved on December 10th, enables a 20% reduction in DCL contributions, which is not factored into these numbers. Other benefits include the 36 below-market units.
In conclusion, the proposal meets the Broadway Plan, and staff support this application subject to conditions. Thank you very much. Staff and the applicant team are here to answer any questions.
Thank you. Are there any questions from Council to staff or the applicant, noting this is the only opportunity for Council to ask questions of applicants?
Oh, okay, so sorry, one more. Would the applicant like to present application if in attendance?
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Acting Mayor and Council. My name is Al Johnson. I'm a principal at DA Architects and Planners. Joining me tonight is Mark Eamon from my office, as well as the development team from Sudu Properties. We would like to thank staff for their presentation and supporting work with us over the numerous months in developing this design. Our team has reviewed the draft bylaw and referral report to Council and are comfortable with the proposed conditions of approval and look forward to the opportunity to provide much needed below market and secured market housing, rental housing in this area. We will not be giving a presentation tonight, however, available to answer any questions you may have. On behalf of our team, we would like to thank you for your time and consideration and respectfully seek your approval of this proposal. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Are there any questions from counsel to staff or the applicant? Noting this is the only opportunity for counsel to ask questions of the applicant. I didn't see anyone from the speakers list. And then this will be the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to counsel about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by the participant code 1061445 before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. We will now hear from the public speakers. Any speakers in council chamber, please come forward to the left podium when your name is called. Phone-in speakers will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Speakers will have five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered.
Our first speaker today is speaker number one, Taylor Westermark Curran. In person?
Didn't see anyone.
Not online either. Okay. All right, so speaker number two is Hakong Coyote.
Not on the line.
Speaker number three is Kaplan Kumanen. Yes.
Hi there.
Hi. Please go ahead. You have five minutes.
Good afternoon. Acting mayor and council, thanks for taking the call. My name, like you said, is Kaplan Kumanen. I am a resident of the city of Vancouver, and I will be speaking in support of item three. I am a local resident, and having worked in residential property management, I've seen firsthand how difficult it has become for people, especially young people, families, and even longtime residents, to find some sort of stable and affordable rental housing. Honestly, I think this proposal is an important step towards addressing that shortage in Vancouver and building more of an inclusive city. I agree with a lot of other residents in the neighborhood. It is a beautiful, vibrant neighborhood, but it has become, honestly, increasingly out of reach for many who want to live there and want to stay there, including people like me who want to build their future in the city and not in another city. This area, I think, is due for a positive change. These new, well-designed new buildings, I think, will refresh the neighborhood while respecting it. But that's what makes it special. I think this proposal does offer one of the first opportunities to modernize the area, kind of improve the streetscape, make it a bit more attractive, if not more than what it is today. I think this could be the first step in implementing positive changing kits. And I think it's been neglected a bit too long and deserves to be better utilized finally. So that's my take on it.
Thank you. Okay, speaker number four is Ian Douglas Paul. On the phone, okay.
Ian? Hello? Yeah, please go ahead.
Okay, thank you. Hi, Acting Mayor and Council. Thank you for taking my call. My name is Ian Paul, and I am speaking today as a Vancouver citizen in strong support of the proposal at 2266 West 2nd. I'm here representing the younger generation of Vancouverites. the future majority taxpayers who are currently being priced out of their own city. I was not born and raised in Vancouver, but I came here to go to UBC and lived in Kitsilano at the time and have since moved outside Kitsilano. But I think this is the type of property that Vancouver and Kitsilano needs. The 2025 Demographic International Housing Affordability Report ranks Vancouver as the fourth least affordable major housing market in the world, placing us in the impossibly unaffordable category. When a city reaches this kind of global crisis, opposing density is no longer a neighborhood debate. It's a choice to effectively evict the next generation. Without policies like this, we're telling young families and people like myself that they have no future here. So this proposal is, in my opinion, a no-brainer for three reasons. First, it delivers the exact type of housing we need. It replaces an aging four-story building with hundreds of units with 20% at cost. below market rates, with the average one-bedroom Vancouver apartment costing in January $2,300 a month, requiring an annual income of over $90,000 just to live comfortably. This supply is not optional. It's a necessity. Second, the location is ideal for this scale. Again, like they already touched upon, this is within the... Broadway plan, or not directly within the Broadway plan, but just outside. And so this 22-storey building, this is exactly what we need to get the most out of the massive public investment in the Broadway subway. And then finally, the density like this provides the scale necessary to fund our city. So high-density housing rezonings are the primary source of tax income. that fund the parks, childcare, and social housing that make Kitsilano livable for everyone, not just the wealthy single-family homes. If we want Vancouver to remain a vibrant, world-class city, we cannot continue to force our workforce and our youth to commute from elsewhere. I urge you to approve this proposal and choose a future where the next generation can actually afford to stay.
Thank you. Thank you. All right, speaker number five is Catherine Iris.
Online? Oh, in person.
Just go ahead, Catherine, you have five minutes, whenever you're ready.
Are we all right? Yeah. Okay.
Hello, Acting Mayor and City Councillors. My name is Catherine Ayers, and I'm a resident of Vancouver. I'm not supportive of the proposed amendments of 2260-66 on 2nd Avenue. I have concerns about this tower and the subsequent towers blocking natural light, especially to the dwellings that are situated at the sides of the many apartment and condo buildings of this area. These apartments get the least natural light and are often housed by one resident. With the proposed towers, the little light they get will be further reduced, leading to a gloomy and unhealthy living environment. The World Health Organization completed the renowned LAYERS study into the effect of natural light in European city dwellings and found that a reduction in natural light contributes to clinical depression and falls. We are speaking today of only two towers, one on second, the other behind it on third, but the problem will be magnified with the construction of any additional high-rises erected in this area of mostly low-rise apartment buildings. Most are two to four stories high, built close together, facing north and south, but with an alley behind. Spatial separation between them is very narrow. Why does this matter, you might ask. Let me explain. When most of the low rise apartments were built back in the 60s through to the 80s, nobody was expecting skyscrapers on the block. It was unthinkable. And so they were built pretty close together. At some time in the day, unless it was cloudy, most residences would get rays of sun in their home. Those living on the side, however, facing the close by neighboring building, had to wait for the light. and it's still that way. There has to be a certain angle by which the sun rays reach the side windows, and that angle is constantly changing depending on season. It may be only for a slice of an hour. The proposed towers may block these rays. Meanwhile, long overhead shadows over the buildings will darken the apartments until the shadows pass, which might not be for an hour. This will be especially hard in the winter when days are short and there's already little light.
Architects' shade studies focus on the overhead, not specifically on oblique rays affecting the side units. With these proposed Broadway plan towers, how will the inevitable reduction of natural light affect the residents? Reduced sun access will reduce the number of flowers and plants on their balconies as well, and in the grassy area between buildings, thus depriving some of the insects and subsequent bird populations relying on them. It's not green. It's bad for the environment. In summary, These Kitsilano towers are planned to stand in the middle of mostly low-rise apartment buildings located between Vine Street and Burrard. Many of these older buildings have side units with reduced light. With the towers, there will be less or even no direct sunlight making it to these units. There are about 700 bachelor and studio apartments in Kitts between Alma and Burrard, many found on the side of the apartment buildings. How many are between Vine and Burrard? Are we looking at hundreds of residents here? This is a problem that will worsen with time and be irreversible once the towers are built. Has the city researched the mental and physical health problems that towers in this area may cause or increase? Can a more detailed shadow study be done, this time taking into account side units and the layering effect of future new builds? Many of the residents fear that the relaxed and cheerful atmosphere of this healthy neighborhood will soon be eroded, but there's still time to make constructive changes that provide more affordable housing without reducing quality of life in the city. I thank you for your time in listening to my concerns. One I know is shared by many residents affected by the amendments to the Broadway Plan.
Thank you so much. Thank you for speaking to council.
All right. So is there any other additional speakers in the council chamber? Please come forward to the podium. Okay. So clerk, are there any additional speakers online or in the chamber?
Yes. The miss speaker of number two. Okay.
Okay. So number two, please go ahead.
Hello, thank you. Sorry, I missed earlier. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Please go ahead.
Wonderful. My name is Hawken Coyote. I'm a local resident in Kitsilano, and I'm calling in support of this proposal. The neighborhood where I live is a fantastic place to live, and the biggest challenge we have here is that there's not enough places for people to live who want to move here. and rents are too high for young people and for all residents in our city and we know that what we need to do in order to lower rents is to increase the supply of housing in neighborhoods where people want to live and this proposal does just that it is replacing aging rental units with new rental units that have more air conditioning and are refreshed and able to have more people, more families living in the neighborhood, which means more customers for local businesses. It means more people able to ride their bike and use public transit to get downtown if that's where they work. So increasing the supply of housing in this location makes a ton of sense. And I strongly support the application and I urge you to do so as well. I'll just leave with what it's frustrating to have to continually to call in to ask you to do things which are already approved in policy when this planning has already been completed and these projects are compliant with existing policy. So thank you very much. All right, thank you. Clerk, are there any additional speakers?
No. Okay, thanks. All right, so this is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to counsel about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by the participant code 106-1445 before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. We will not take two minutes recess for any additional speakers to call in or come forward to the podium.
We will be back at 3.34.
OK, so let's get Councilor Kirby on.
Not seeing anyone come forward.
No one on the line.
Seeing no further speakers, the speaker's list is now closed. Look, has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item since 5 p.m.?
No. Sorry, that was an error in the script. No, there's been no correspondence.
Thank you.
All right, so seeing no additional comments for the public comments, so I will now also close in the receipt of the public comments.
Does the applicant have any closing comments?
Thanks. Any questions, we're welcome. Thank you. Does staff have any closing comments?
No closing comments other than to remind Council of the yellow memo associated with the item.
Thanks. Okay, does Council have any final questions for staff noting no additional comments to the applicant are permitted? Council reply.
Thanks very much, Chair. I just have a question of staff, and that is just on the topic of solar access and some of the comments from the public related to just the broader context in terms of what the Broadway plan allows in terms of other towers that could be developed within a proximity or radius to this tower and how we plan for not limiting solar access to a degree that it's going to Of course, it'll have an impact, this one tower, but can the public expect there to be towers lined up right along the street, or what is that broader context in the Broadway plan that could help provide some context for this particular application?
Thank you for the question. I will pass this to my colleague in urban design to add some color, but I will note that the Broadway plan limits this block to two towers per block in this area. And given the proximity of this particular is right in the middle of the block as far as I can gather, how would that configuration look? Because these blocks are not particularly wide, and in terms of the frontage... And two tower per block. Are we likely to see a second tower on this block?
Acting Mayor and Council, my name is Mehdi Aynafar. I'm the Development Planner. On the file, I can talk to that a little bit. This block can only have two towers, and actually the next application that will be presented is the other tower, and it's to the southeast of this particular tower. These will be the only two towers on this block, if both approved. And the neighboring sites will have opportunities for future development in the form of mid-rises or six stories. In terms of the immediate adjacency with the neighbors, currently the tower proposed has 24 feet setback from the property line, which is more than the existing buildings that are next to each other at the moment. And because the neighboring site, there's been studies to see if there's a site, if the sites to the east combine and become a tower site, if there was in the future any further towers to be allowed, which is not at the moment. There is still the opportunity to provide the 80 feet separation between the proposed tower and that future tower. So there is no concern in terms of legal issues with lights and access and shadowing on this proposal. Okay, that's great. And just to clarify, in the Broadway plan, when we talk about a block, we're not talking about just in this context between you and Vine on 2nd. We're talking about the whole block, which includes 3rd Avenue, which may not be as clear to the public.
Correct. So both sides of the lane. Yes. Thank you for the clarification.
Okay. Thanks, Councillor Bligh. Councillor Fry.
Yeah, thank you. Just riffing off Councillor Bligh's questions about solar access and noting the other tower on the block is the same architect and it appears the same surname on the developer, the seduce. Can we comment on these? projects together, and it would seem on the map that they create kind of a wall effect looking from the south. Would that be an interpretation? I note that the rendering doesn't show the other building, but are these connected projects?
So they are the same applicant team, but we are treating them as independent projects and independent applications. And so as we have reviewed them, we have had to assume that neither of them have been approved or that they're not connected. So we have asked for a block study so as not to hinder the rest of the block's development potential because we can't assume one of them would be approved. Can you speak to the street wall? Sure. In terms of the street wall, the main thing that we look at is that the 80 feet separation between the two towers that are proposed, and we looked at these two towers in that sense, and they comply with that requirement. Okay, and I mean, would it be, I find it odd that we have these two very similar proposals, the same applicant team, and they're essentially scissoring each other as, if I'm looking at the map correctly, between the other side of the alley, it would create something of a wall if I'm looking from the south towards the mountains.
There is some separation between them in terms of just looking north, but we can't be selective in choosing which sites to be developed as towers. The Broadway plan allows for first-come, first-service in that sense. So these two assemblies came in, and we looked at it from the lens of urban... from the lens of what we could assess. And that was making sure that the 80 feet separation is there to ensure that the shadowing, there's no shadowing on public spaces and parks and schools. And also the floor plate size, I want to mention that in this particular application is smaller than the typical 6,500. So it's not a chunky building, let's say. No, and I did note that, and actually I do appreciate the tower in the park model as a better fit on smaller streets like this, so I'm very appreciative of that, and I do note that. Okay, no, I just found it kind of curious that it was the same applicant, same day, different projects, but really the same block and creating kind of a... It's quite a unique... It is very unique.
Now, just on the subject of the tenant relocation policies, and we have, I guess, 32 out of 38... So I'm taking it as a 40-unit building. There's two vacancies, I'm assuming, and then we have 32 tenants who are qualifying. What's the situation with the other six?
Thank you for the question. I'll pass that to my colleague in housing to answer. Hi, Amel Norton here with Housing Regulation. Sorry, I missed the question. Oh, sorry. I was just reviewing this, and I see that there's, I think it's 40 units, 38 units are tenanted, and 32 of them will receive TRPP. What happens with the six remaining?
The six remaining will be covered under the residential tenancy act. Okay. So they're relatively short duration tenancies? They would have been residing in the building for less than one year prior to submission of the bill.
Okay. Thank you. All right, thanks. Okay, so clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the close of the public comments?
No.
Thanks. Okay, so I will remind council that we need to move the recommendations for item three together with the yellow memo dated January 15, 2026. entitled CD1 Rezoning 2260 to 2266 West 2nd Avenue, Amendments to Modify Rezoning Conditions. Council will not make decisions on this application. Do we have a mover for the recommendations? And a yellow memo. Moved by Councilor Bly.
And a seconder. Seconded by Councilor Frey. Council members, is there any discussion?
Seeing no one else on the queue, so I'm going to call the vote. So clerk, please take us to the voting screen.
Okay, the motion passed with Councilor Dominardo, Colas, and Mayor Sim declared conflict of interest, and Councilor Meisner absent. Thanks. That completes item three on the agenda. We will now move on to the item four, CD1 rezoning, 2233 West 3rd Avenue. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it.
Does anyone have a conflict of interest to disclose?
Mayor Sim also I'll always consult them.
Thank you, Chair. At the January 22nd meeting, Councillor Domenato, Councillor Klassen, and Mayor Sim all did declare a conflict of interest. They described it as a perceived conflict due to personal relationships.
All right. Thanks, Clerk. Okay. So, Clerk, we will now read the application and the summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by DA Architects and Planners to rezone 2233 West 3rd Avenue from R3-3 Residential District to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District to permit the development of a 17-story residential rental building containing 131 units with 20% of the residential floor area for below-market rental units. A floor space ratio of 6.5 and a height of 52.5 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 15th, 2026 entitled CD-1 Rezoning, 2233 West 3rd Avenue, Amendments to Modify Rezoning Condition. The following correspondence has been received since referral to the public hearing. Eight pieces of correspondence in support, 35 pieces of correspondence in opposition, and one piece of correspondence dealing with other aspects of the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 2 p.m. today.
Thanks, Julie. All right, so this is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to counsel about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by the 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. We have staff from Planning, Urban Design, and Sustainability here to present the application. Please go ahead. Let's bring the slides.
Thank you very much.
you my name is lex dominiak rezoning planner for this application oh looks like a drop did it drop out again
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS LEX DOMINIAC, REZONING PLANNER.
MY NAME IS REZONING PLANNER UNDER THE BROADWAY PLAN. STAFF NOTE THAT THE APPLICATION IS ACCOMPANIED BY A YELLOW MEMO WHICH WILL NEED TO BE MOVED WITH THE REPORT.
The site, shown in red, is located on West 3rd Avenue between Vine and U Streets. It is currently developed with three 31-story, 31-unit, sorry, the site is currently developed with a three-story, 31-unit rental residential building with existing tenancies eligible under the Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy. The building was constructed in 1968. The proposal is being considered under the Broadway plan in the Kitsilano North, or KKNB, sub-area. For this site, the plan anticipates a mixed-use building up to 20 stories and an FSR of 6.5 for rental and below-market developments. The application is for a 17-storey residential development with a building height of 172 feet and a density of 6.5 FSR. 131 rental units are proposed with 19.8% at below-market rents. Staff note that a provision has been included in the draft CD1 bylaw to ensure compliance with the plan's requirement that 20% of the residential floor area be dedicated to below-market housing.
Also acknowledging that in December of last year, Council approved a two-year time-limited rental development relief program. This project is not eligible to apply for the program because of the amount of existing primary rental units.
During the public engagement period, we heard support from participants who welcomed the addition of new residents, noting that it could bring vibrancy to the neighborhood. Others emphasized the importance of projects like this, increasing affordability to accommodate population growth. Key issues raised included building height and density, impacts on neighborhood character, capacity of local infrastructure and parking, and loss of older, more affordable rental housing to be replaced by less affordable units. In response, staff note that the proposed scale aligns with the intent of the Broadway plan and is not anticipated to affect public views or create shadowing on neighborhood parks. The design meets the plan's urban design conditions, which aim to support contextual fit in the surrounding neighborhood. And the parking provisions comply with the city's parking bylaw. Regarding infrastructure, the Broadway Plan's public benefit strategy identifies key infrastructure and amenities to be expanded in response to development. And finally, eligible existing tenants would receive tenant protections, including right of first refusal. And a housing agreement will secure 20% of units at below-market rents.
At the time the rezoning report was finalized, the expected DCL contribution was approximately $1.5 million, which represents the total financial public benefit. I'll note that the development viability report, which Council approved on December 10th, enables a 20% reduction in DCL contributions, which is not factored into these numbers. Other benefits include the 26 below-market rental units.
In conclusion, the proposal meets the Broadway plan, and staff support this application subject to conditions. Thank you very much. Staff and the applicant team are here to answer any questions.
Thank you. All right, so would the applicant like to present the application?
Good afternoon. Al Johnson, principal at D.A. Architects. planners. As was mentioned before, we were part of the previous application for West Second. We won't be giving a formal presentation this evening. One thing I did want to identify, which was kind of an approach to dealing with shadowing and of potential neighbors kind of being a good neighbor and also livability in both these towers was we have designed them to be a compact floor plate. And if you notice in the plans, they also step towards the north, creating a narrower profile in the east-west direction. So being mindful, again, of its context and its neighbors. So, like I say, I won't be giving a formal presentation tonight, but our team will be available for any questions you might have.
Thank you. Thank you. All right. So are there any questions from council to staff or to the applicant? Noting this is the only opportunity for council to ask questions of the applicant. I did not see anyone on the queue. This is the second call for the speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, you can call toll free. 1-833-353-8610 followed by the participant code 106-1445 before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. We will now hear from the speakers. Any speaker in council chamber, please come forward to the left podium when it is your turn. All speakers will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Speaker will have five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered. Speaker one has withdrawn. Our first speaker, speaker number two, is Allison Moserak.
Hello?
Hi, please go ahead, Allison.
Okay, hi. My name is Allison. I live on 3rd Avenue and U Street, so a block away from this tower, and I'm in opposition to it. I do feel completely powerless against the Broadway plan, but I still wanted to say my piece. I was in City Hall last week listening to all the incredible presentations in opposition to the 14th and Yukon Tower, and they were all so incredible, and I'm not sure my... speech will be as good, but I wanted to say that I live and work in the neighborhood. I have a family with two kids. They are 12 and nine. We live in a low rise in this area. And I feel like what makes us unique is that we actually enjoy small living. And we lived for seven and a half years in a 600 square foot apartment as a family of four. And now we're in 900 square feet for the last four years. And we actually moved from the broadway corridor because a tower went up beside us there and then we carefully chose third avenue so that we could um not live near a tower and i also um talk to hundreds of families that are living small in the city and trying to stay in the city despite a rising cost of living and i help and encourage them to live small comfortably and i can assure you that none of them would choose to live in a 20 story or 17 story tower and it is um There's statistics that show that 12% of families live above the fifth floor. So I wanted to, while I'm in opposition to these towers entirely and the Broadway plan moving away from Broadway corridor at all, I got the impression from last week that no one's really listening to that. I urge councillors to listen to the residents of Vancouver. But if at least the towers are going to happen, I would really urge you please to consider lower story towers, that these 20-story towers are not where families want to live. This is going to drive out long-time residents, which you already know, and there's no way that the lower cost, you know, this lower cost rent, it's not going to equate to what they're paying right now. So people are paying a much lower rent that have lived in these low-rise buildings buildings, and it's also more sustainable to keep these low-rise buildings. I can tell you what families want in Vancouver. We want more shared green spaces. We want walk-up apartments. We want three-bedroom units. We prefer corner units and high ceilings, and we want multi-generational living. We want townhouses. We want more co-ops. These high-rise towers are not what families want. They're not community building. They're not providing amenities. They're not providing shared spaces. And it's actually against so much of what the city of Vancouver used to say that they wanted for families. So I just really don't understand how this development is helping families stay and live in Vancouver.
And that's what my family is trying to do and all the families that I know. And it's already been spoken about that the public infrastructure doesn't support this much development. And we don't see any clear plans on how that's going to improve. And I think it's important to note that we all know that condos are not selling at the moment and condos are sitting empty. And I understand these are rentals and not purchasing. But I think that this plan, this Broadway plan, needs to be tested at the Broadway corridor and not spread into thriving, low-rise, sustainable, lovely neighborhoods like from Forth to Cornwall. So I really beg you to reconsider the height of these towers. They create shadows, they create wind tunnels, they destroy neighborhoods. I've lived through it, and I'm begging you to reconsider the heights of these towers. Thank you for hearing me out. Thank you. All right, speaker number two is Hakon Coyote.
Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Please go ahead. Hey, my name is Hakon Coyote, and once again, I'm a resident of Kitsilano. I live on West 2nd. Pretty close by, and I'm calling in support of this development.
Just a note on the context of where this is. It's between West 2nd and West 3rd. But if you continue going west, you end up in a neighborhood that has a lot of older towers. And the towers were built there. And then Vancouver changed the policy and stopped allowing an increased densification of this neighborhood, despite the fact that there's many, many people that want to live here. And there's an incredible place in Vancouver, the West End. It has a lot of towers in it. And it's also a very quiet, lovely neighborhood with tree-lined streets. And I think that this development uh could support that kind of a neighborhood going forward certainly there's three bedroom units in this development as that's required policy under the broadway plan there's also one bedroom units which provide housing for seniors and for young people and we need all types of housing in the city so this neighborhood can be a neighborhood that has low rise development and has high rise development and has mid-rise development and all of those things can coexist and we can still have a great neighborhood because ultimately it's about the people that live in a neighborhood it's not about necessarily what the built form is in every aspect so i think
We have a housing crisis. We have a housing shortage. It is hard for people to afford rent. If people can afford to move into a new building and pay higher rent, then they free up a place in an older building and they can pay a cheaper rent there because that old building now has to compete with a newer development. So I urge you to approve this. So we can get more housing built in our city and it will allow more people to go to local businesses, support local businesses, be able to use transit to get around, be able to ride their bikes into downtown. So I strongly urge you to support this. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker number four, Serena Bonneville.
Hi there. Mayor and Council, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today. I am in complete favor of this rezoning. I have been a renter in the City of Vancouver for over eight years. I am 29 years old, born and raised in Metro Vancouver, and I know I don't need to convince anyone in this room that Vancouver is unaffordable. It's a concern that has often gone unmentioned from the majority of speakers who oppose these rezoning applications. Maybe not a coincidence, since many of them usually identify as homeowners who seem to have already had the opportunity to live in this beautiful city for decades. But for the majority of Vancouver residents, many from younger generations, this housing crisis means watching friends, siblings, and coworkers leave this city one by one. Not because they want to, but simply because they cannot afford to stay. I've had the privilege of traveling and spending time in cities around the world. Vancouver is consistently ranked among the least affordable out of all of them when incomes are compared to housing costs. And what's always struck me is that despite that reality, neighborhoods like Kitsilano, minutes from the city center, are still made up of some of the smallest apartment buildings and lowest densities you'd find in any major global city. In most places, land that's close to downtown would be treated as precious. Here, we treat it as untouchable. I also want to acknowledge that concerns about projects like this are real and valid. Change is hard. People worry about impacts to their neighborhood, their streets, their sunlight, their sense of safety, their sense of place. And the most legitimate concern I hear is whether added density will outpace infrastructure, things like transit, health care, access to parts, and community services. But the thing is, this growth is not a surprise. It's not speculative. It's something you have been planning for. The City of Vancouver and Metro Vancouver's own projections, outlined in your own reports and updated regularly, show the region growing to roughly 4.1 million people by 2050 and adding over 42,000 residents each year. Your data shows, alongside Surrey, that Vancouver is expected to absorb nearly half of that future population and housing growth. If we plan for growth but don't build for it, we're not protecting our environment or our neighborhoods. We are delaying solutions, wasting public resources, and pushing this housing crisis further down the road. And if young people cannot afford to live here, especially in neighborhoods like Kitsilano, Mount Pleasant, or East Van, we lose the very thing that makes Vancouver feel alive. I'm talking about the public murals that define the streets, the small independent cafes, studios, and shops along West 4th. The artists, designers, musicians, hospitality workers, and entrepreneurs who animate our public space. These are not accidental features of a city. They are created and sustained by people who are early in their careers, willing to take creative risks, and deeply embedded in their communities.
When those people are pushed out by unaffordable housing, the result is not just fewer renters. It's fewer murals, fewer independent businesses, less experimentation, and a gradual hollowing out of the cultural energy that makes neighborhoods worth preserving in the first place. This rezoning and many of the other rezoning applications on the table as part of this Broadway subway plan, especially in Kitsilano, represents thoughtful density, long-term rental housing, and meaningful below-market units in a walkable, transit-rich neighborhood. Approving it is a chance to align our decisions with our own plans and to make sure Vancouver remains a city where people like me not only can grow up, but also can stay. Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you. Speaker number five has withdrawn.
All right. Okay, so this is the end of the speakers list. Is there any additional speaker in the chamber? Please come forward to the podium. Clerk, are there any additional speakers online?
No.
All right, so this is the final, third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to counsel about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by the participant code 106-1445-POUND before the close of the speaker's list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. We will not take two minutes recess for any additional speakers. To call in or come forward to the podium, we will be back at 4-0-9.
Additional speakers in the chamber or on the line?
Please go ahead, Sarah.
I live here in Vancouver, but I don't live here at this address. I just looked at it and... Well, the willow is amazing. Probably something that people like living there. I'm already at 10 seconds, but we'll try.
Just if I had a question to ask the applicant, in figure one on page three, the dotted line area, like were all of those neighbors? just knocked on and tried to express to twice because like one of my jobs that's what we do like we have to do that to be able to get the permit to do what we do did the applicant ever knock on those doors twice and has like a recorded record that about who was there who you should inform about this major project happening down the street Yeah, and then just the willows. Beautiful.
That's the only question I wrote down. I'm sure I had others, but I asked them already.
Thank you, Sarah. Alright, so are there any additional speakers in the chamber or on the line?
I didn't see any.
No. Okay, so 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 2 p.m.?
None.
Okay. Seeing there are few or no public comments received after 5 p.m., after 2 p.m. today, I'm now closing this receipt of the public comments. Okay, so does applicant have any closing comments?
No closing comments. Thank you.
Thanks. Does staff have any closing comments?
No closing comments other than a reminder of the yellow memo.
Okay, thank you. Does counsel have any final questions for staff? Noting no additional questions to the applicant are permitted. Counselor Kirby.
Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Chair. So just following up on the sort of previous questions, and now that the previous application on West 2nd to the north and slightly to the west has been approved, am I correct? I'm looking specifically at exact lot numbers, and it does look like they almost kind of intersect, but one is behind the other, but there might be overlap with one lot. So you could just comment on that, specifically in the context that now we do have a previously approved application prior to this, and... with respects to circulation, setbacks, et cetera. I know there's Elaine.
Miguel Castillo-Ureña, senior development planner. Yeah, like my colleague mentioned earlier, the project meets tower separation, edifice separation, actually more than that. So with regards to that, the project complies with the policy. This is a typical minimum, so it's more than that. We can't control, I guess, the location of the proposal, but it's the policy. But you do also have a lane buffering between the two. Is that correct? Pardon me? There is a laneway between the two? Yeah, there is a lane. But the applicant provided a block study. And even though it doesn't meet, there's a forward setback towards the middle center line of the lane because the other approved tower is further to the west. It meets the 80-foot separation. So that's what we are looking for. So it's the 80-foot separation between towers, but it doesn't meet the 40 feet in the lane? I'm just not... No, it doesn't have to meet the 40 feet to the lane. It meets and beyond the 80-foot separation between towers. That's what we're looking for. So sometimes it means that the 40 feet is met on both sides, but in this case it doesn't have to to meet the 80-foot separation between the two towers.
So does either building meet the 40 feet? I'm not very clear. I have to be honest. I'm not very clear on the explanation. It meets the 80 feet separation between the two towers that I proved earlier because it's kitty corner. If it was just across the lane, it wouldn't. But in this case, because the tower is farther to the northwest, it does meet the 80 feet separation. So 40 feet towards the lane is not a regulation in the policy. So the 40 feet you're saying does not apply, put another way? No, it doesn't apply exactly towards the rear of the lane. Okay. I'm less clear than when I asked the question, to be honest. And maybe it's me. I'm not following it.
I think that what Miguel is trying to say is that our policy requires a total of 80 feet separation between the two projects, and we don't have a policy that requires it must meet it identical, 40 feet, 40 feet.
So in this case, because of the way that they are staggered, the 80 feet separation is met, but it's not divided evenly between the two projects. Okay, so what is it for this one?
How much is attributed to each project? So there's a 26 feet setback from the face of the tower to the center line of the lane. That's the proposed. Okay. And how much from the front of the tower to the street on 3rd? To the other tower? No, from the street on West 3rd. So to the street would be 16 because typically the lane is 20. Okay. towards the PL ultimately PL of this site 16 from the face of the tower 16 feet to the northern PL of this site 16 feet okay and how does 16 feet compare to other projects
Well, in this case, because, again, because the tower is kitty-corner of this one, the other tower approved, that meets the 80-foot separation total. If the tower was to be, like the previous one was to be just across this lane, obviously it wouldn't comply with the 80-foot separation. Right. So these two projects then, maybe I can reflect the question a different way or sort of ask it in a slightly different expansion then. will impact based on what you're saying in terms of first mover advantage. They will impact in terms of what else can and cannot be built on these adjacent, on these remaining blocks. Yeah, noting that should council approve this project, this is the second tower approved on this block, which is the maximum tower per block. So as those other buildings are aging out that are close by, they will be limited to what? To six-story building. Okay. So people can expect to see sort of some relief. You're not going to just see. Yeah. So it'll be limited to six. Okay. Yeah. That's your time, councilor. I'm happy to move the recommendations to the yellow memo chair. Okay. Thank you.
All right. So do we, okay. So let me read this first. So council will not make a decision on this application. And we have a mover from the council of Caribbean and with the yellow memo. Do we have a seconder? Seconded by Councillor Bly. Council members, is there any discussion?
Okay, seeing no one else on the queue, I'm going to call the vote. Clerk, please take us to the voting screen, and Council, please register your vote.
Okay, councilor Wu.
Okay, you want to vote assistant? In favor? Okay, perfect.
All right, so the application passed with councilor Domenato, class and the mayor's team declare conflict of interest and councilor Meisner absent.
All right, that completes item four on the agenda. We need a motion to adjourn by councilor Kerbion. Seconder? Seconded by Councillor Orr. All those in favour say aye. Opposed say nay. Carried.
Thank you. The meeting is now adjourned. Thanks, everyone.