Public Hearing — February 5, 2026 — Transcript
← Public Hearing February 5, 2026
Good evening, everyone. I'm now going to call the public hearing of Thursday, February the 5th, 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 VanCityClerk. So now in case of an emergency where we have to evacuate the building, please direct your attention to the glass doors, walk through them around the pillar, and please walk down the stairs. Don't run and please use the stairs. The elevator may not be the greatest idea. If you do require mobility assistance, please stay where you are. One of our super-friendly security team members will help guide you to a safe location. By the way, if that door is obstructed, there are four doors on the side of this chamber, and we'll get out here safely. Also, there's a defibrillator at the end of the hall. We just pass the glass doors as well if we need it. I do want to acknowledge that we are hosting today's public hearing on the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations, and I want to thank them for their generosity and their hospitality and loving care they show this great land that we get to live, work and play on. I also want to acknowledge all the contributions of all of our people, of all of the people, our teammates that work at the City of Vancouver throughout various departments. They work incredibly hard and they really care about this place. With that, can we please get a roll call?
Mayor Sim, in the chair. Councillor Kirby-Yung is on a leave of absence until 8:30 p.m. Councillor Dominato. Councillor Bligh is on a leave of absence for civic business all day. Councillor Fry is on a leave of absence for personal business from 6 to 10 p.m. Councillor Montague.
Present.
Councillor Klassen.
Present.
Councillor Meiszner.
Present.
Councillor Zhou. Councillor Maloney. Councillor Orr is on a leave of absence for civic business, sorry, civic business from 6 p.m. onwards. This meeting has quorum, Mayor Sim.
Thank you very much. So before we begin, a few announcements. 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 application 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 present in person or by phone and may not speak separately. Please follow the live stream on X or at VanCityClerk on X to track meeting progress and know when your turn to speak is approaching. Please note the live stream does have a slight delay. Written comments can be submitted through the Mayor and Council public hearing feedback form on the city's website and linked on X. If you pre-registered with a presentation, say 'next' to have the clerk advance your slides. A reminder that 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 speakers list has closed. After hearing from speakers, Council may: one, approve the application in principle. Two, approve the application in principle with amendments. Three, refuse the application, or four, refer the application to our team members for further consideration. Finally, if all speakers are not heard this evening, the public hearing will recess and reconvene on Wednesday, February the 11th, 2026 at 3 p.m. Okay. So the first item on the agenda is item number one, CD-1 rezoning, 10 East 11th Avenue. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to disclose it. Does anybody have a conflict? All right, seeing no one's hands up, we're going to now hear from the clerk to read the application in summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by Stuart Howard Architects Incorporated to rezone 10 East 11th Avenue from R-5-3 residential district to CD-1, Comprehensive Development District, to permit the development of a 15-story mixed-use building containing 115 rental units, with 20% of the residential floor area for below-market rental units and commercial space on the ground floor. A floor space ratio of 6.8 and a height of 51 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, February 5th, 2026, entitled CD-1 rezoning 10 East 11th Avenue. The following correspondence has been received since referral to the public hearing. 31 pieces of correspondence in opposition and one piece of correspondence dealing with other aspects of the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today.
Thank you very much. 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, then 6, 1, 4, 45 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. Now, we do have team members from planning, urban design, and sustainability here to present the application.
Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Luke Reynolds, and I am the rezoning planner for this application considered under the Broadway Plan. Council, this application before you is accompanied with a yellow memo that notes an error in Appendix A of the referral report. The memo specifies that condition 5.2 should include added wording relating to family mix requirements for both total number of units and below-market units. The site, shown in red, is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of East 11th Avenue and Ontario Street. The site is zoned R-5-3 and the surrounding area consists of primarily residential uses, including single-attached and low-rise residential. The property is currently occupied by a three-story multifamily residential building with 20 rental units. Eligible tenants are protected under the enhanced tenant relocation and protection policy. The neighbourhood is undergoing significant change with the future Mount Pleasant subway station located a five-minute walk away, which is scheduled to open in 2027. The site is located in the Mount Pleasant Centre Area A, MPCA, sub-area 10.9.1. The plan permits 20-storey market rental buildings with 20% of the residential floor area secured as below-market rental units and a maximum density of 6.8 FSR with the inclusion of commercial. The site is zoned R-5-3, which would allow for this form of development. This application was in-stream when the city-initiated rezoning was approved in late 2025. The applicant opted to continue with their CD-1 rezoning. The applicant is proposing a 15-story residential building with 115 rental units, of which 20 are below-market rental. Commercial space is also provided at grade, a density of 6.8 FSR and a height of 44.9 metres are proposed. To reduce perceived massing of the development, staff have included a 16-storey maximum height, which is one story higher than requested, to allow the applicant to reallocate massing and improve streetscape and pedestrian experience. During the public consultation period and two-week Q&A, which was held from May 7th to May 20, 2025, 69 pieces of feedback were received. Support was expressed for the height, density, and massing, building design and increased housing supply near shops, services, and transit. Concerns were relayed regarding the proposed commercial space, building height, and neighbourhood character fit, and traffic and parking. Regarding the commercial space and building height, the proposal is consistent with the Broadway Plan and existing R-5-3 zoning, which encourages rental housing and local-serving retail off arterials. Regarding traffic and parking concerns, the application would be required to meet the requirements of the parking bylaw, and rezoning conditions require improvements to address safety for all road users, including upgraded sidewalks along Ontario Street and
East 11th Avenue. The public benefits of this application consist of 115 market rental units, of which 20% of the floor area is below-market rental, and DCLs of 1.1 million. In conclusion, this proposal aligns with both the Broadway Plan and the existing R-5-3 zoning. Staff recommend approval of this application subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix A of the report. Staff and the applicant team are able to answer any and all questions. Thank you.
Good evening, Your Worship, and Council. My name is Neil Robertson. I'm managing principal, Stuart Howard Architects. I want to thank you for taking the time to review our proposal today. This, I know you guys have four items, so I'll try to be as brief as I can. This is a challenging project for us, partly because of the topography of the site and also the size of the site being a 100-foot frontage. For us, what really made the project work was that it was a corner site. So, and with the inclusion of the commercial space, we treated the building sort of with two faces, right? So on the north side, we've got the commercial face with small-scale CRUs at grade there. We envisioned something like a neighbourhood coffee shop or corner store going in there. And then the east face is the entry to the building. The parking in particular was challenging for us because the lane is so much higher. So we had to do a little bit of somersaulting to be able to get the parking to work. But working with a traffic consultant, we were able to get all of the turning radiuses to get the required parking in underneath the building. We're actually quite pleased with the result of the project. We think it's a very pleasing building and it doesn't — we've managed to break down the massing of the facade through the use of podiums you've heard me speak about before, but also the articulation of the facade. You know, when you're working with these really tight envelopes and setbacks and tower setbacks it can be quite challenging to create something that doesn't just look like a tombstone sitting there. And we worked really, really hard to articulate and to express different exposures and to create a a bit of variety along the facade. I think staff did a good job presenting it. I don't have much else to say except for the fact when I was reviewing the comments from the public, the written comments, I did notice a concern that came up regarding the number of one-bedroom units that are in the project. This was raised to us by staff when the comments came in and we are well aware of the fact that all the one-bedroom units that are on the site right now have to be replaced one for one with one-bedrooms in the ultimate development. In working with staff and talking with them, we know that we have to do development permits. So the intent is to deal with that at the development permit stage for this project. So I can assure Council and Your Worship that we will be putting one-to-one replacement for all those one-bedroom And we've already actually come up with a plan for that. I don't know if you guys have plans in front of you, but on the east side of the floor plan, there are two what are now labeled as bachelor apartments. And the aspect ratio of the floor layout actually lends itself quite well to a one-bedroom arrangement because it's a very shallow, wide unit. So the big thing with one-bedrooms is you need exterior wall space. So we have two units per floor over 14 floors, which can quite easily, with a bit of moving around of the hallways and shuffling of other units, be converted into one-bedrooms. And that will be our approach to dealing with that problem. So I'll leave it there. And we are available for questions should any of you wish to have them for us. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from Council to our team members or the applicant, noting that this is the only opportunity for Council to ask questions of the applicant. Seeing no one in the queue. 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, then 6-1-4-45 pound. Before the close of the speakers 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 it's your turn. Phone-in speakers will be unmuted when it is 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 application being considered. So our first speaker is speaker number one, Stephen Lurch.
Hi, good evening. My name is Stephen Lurch. I'm a Vancouver resident living directly across Ontario Street from the proposed development. I oppose the proposed recommendations. I'm trying to figure out who wants this building. It certainly isn't the residents of the apartment that will have to be torn down and who will be kicked out of their apartments. Yes, there's some distant promise of providing a space. When the building goes up, but in the meantime, they have to find somewhere else to live in the city that is an extremely low,
vacancy rate and high rents. The Broadway plan states that its goals are to provide people with affordable housing and to deal with the low vacancy rate, but by putting this building here, you're increasing the problem by putting people out. So who wants this? I understand that the developer and the property owner want to make a pile of money. Maybe city council is bound by the Broadway plan, although the optics of having people pushed out of their living homes nine months before elections pretty bad. It's definitely not in any of the interest of any of the residents living in the buildings nearby. We already have to deal with inadequate parking and heavy traffic. If you add 150 new suites to an area already at capacity, how will people be able to get around safely? This area is constantly choked with traffic. Often it is difficult to get onto Ontario from 12th or onto 12th from Ontario. Also, driving along 11th is challenging because 11th is essentially a single-lane road when parking is full, which it always is. Often people have to back their car up the whole length of the block until. allow a car to pass. There's simply no way the area can handle 150 new units worth of people and their cars. Cycling. Ontario is one of the busiest bike routes in Vancouver. Sitting on a porch during busy times, we can watch cyclists constantly streaming up and down the road. As it gets busier during the day, inevitably cars start getting into dangerous conflicts with cyclists. Often stop signs are ignored by cars. Cars stop unexpectedly or are trying to park and people pull out of the alleys without looking. We're using plenty of accidents and close calls. As it stands, there are too many cars. Adding 115 units to the area will make it much more dangerous for cyclists. Parking. If the condo doesn't provide adequate residents and visitor parking, it will spill over to the surrounding streets. I hope they do. But even if they do, very often, there's not enough guest parking parking and then people have to find parking somewhere else. So that ends up being up on the street. There isn't a minute that a parking spot is free on that area. Like, basically, we sit there and we watch. we can time it. We'll see a car pull out and within a minute another car is pulled in. So there's no parking. So I've seen people getting yelling pad matches on the street over parking spots. People have parked in front of my driveway, and then I have to ask the city to tow a car. Good job. City of Vancouver. It takes 35 minutes. So the building plan has room for commercial space on the ground floor, which really surprised me when I read it. Why would you put commercial space in the middle of a neighborhood? It just doesn't fit. And again, this would further compound the above-mentioned traffic and parking issues. Imagine having a Tim Horan's or a Starbucks or a business that attracts people and vehicles. Well, how would they get in safely with their cars and residents? While residents are also trying to drive in. Where would they park? Schools. Our local schools don't have the capacity to handle the influx of people in the area. Simon Fraser, the catchment school, is currently in 179% capacity. having 162 more students than they can handle. And finally, my own concerns about safety. I have a two-year-old daughter and a cat. And we like to walk around the neighborhood and site. We cycle commute to daycare and work. My daughter plays in the front yard. Sometimes she scoots down the sidewalk or alley. We walk down the alley to access our backyard multiple times a day. Many families have children that play in the alley between 11th and 12th. Having those extra units in place will definitely increase traffic everywhere and around, thus the danger. Construction will make living in our area more dangerous with people cutting through the alley between 11th and 12th to get around blocked roads, large semi-trucks, dump trucks, construction workers, and contractors, driving and parking everywhere in an area where the streets are not wide enough to accommodate them. I don't trust that any construction company is going to 100% follow the safety rules. Case and point, just recently, Uridia Flores was a tragically killed by a crane overhead while working at the Oak Ridge Park construction site. I know there would certainly be a crane over our house and the surrounding streets and sidewalks while this unit goes up. The Broadway plan is meant to make the area an attractive place to live and work. How will this improve our neighborhood? It will make the traffic and parking unbearable. The construction phase and increasing traffic will be dangerous for residents and you'll have to displace people, my neighbors, in order to push the project through. Thank you for
listening. Thank you very much for coming in. And speaking, speaker number two, Mike Hanifin.
I just discovered that I have three of my fellow tenants here. I was wondering if I can go a little longer than five minutes because of that. I won't need to go eight, that's for sure. Is that possible?
As long as they're here on these. One, two, three in the corner here. If I can please get you to state your name, record and president. Go ahead. Please. Thank you. Yeah, you do have up to eight minutes.
Okay. I also have a couple of cues for videos and two photos, which all verbally cue. Awesome. Thank you. Four years ago, I appeared on the front page of the province of the province. A headline was, renters on edge. As the previous council was preparing to vote on approving the Broadway plan, including enhanced renter protections. Everything I said in that Danfamano piece came true, unlike the main message from developers and landlord BC, who all warned that enhanced renter protections would mean no one would build a thing. How did that work out? I'm strongly opposed to this rezoning for the potential reneviction of 20 families living in this health. and well-maintained building where I live. At the corner of Ontario and 11th, two narrow residential streets, already stressed by traffic and severely stressed by limited street parking. This is the neighborhood I've lived, volunteered, and worked in for over 20 years. Vancouver citizens and counselors looking at the city's rezoning application website, and please play the video now. See a video rendering of this location that would be laughable if it wasn't so misleading. Depicting the intersection and surrounding blocks is virtually empty and without cars choking residential streets. Now you can show the photos, please. No photos or videos of the reality of the neighborhood. Putting 115 units on a small 100 foot lot on this block does not fit. Everyone I show this to says the building belongs on Broadway, not narrow and already stressed side streets. And you can lose the photos. Thank you. However, that's understandably the primary concern for people in my neighborhood. We tenants have another concern. Why does this proposal with 115 units continue to have zero one bedroom apartments, zero, instead 74 studios? This issue was raised during the question and comments period in May 2025, but curiously, it is not mentioned in the reasons for opposition in the referral report that you are voting on. The applicant now mentions their solutions. Why wasn't this taken care of before it got to a public hearing? We are threatened with rent eviction from our apartment homes. Almost all are one-bedroom apartments between 600 and 700 square feet. Existing tenants, considering their options under the tenant relocation plan, are left to wonder if this is a design strategy to dissuade tenants from returning to the new building if all were being offered is 400 square foot studio apartments. Understanding, I just heard somebody say, there might be a solution, might be. I say a design strategy because if you do the math, relocating tenants, topping up their relocation rents for three years, if they can find a place, and then bringing them back at the same rent is exponentially more costly than handing tenants a buyout check to get rid of us. You can show the email now, please. When I raised the zero one bedroom concern to the city last year, I did receive a thoughtful response from the city. Staff will be reviewing the proposed unit. mix in the new building and unit types in the existing building. If there are potential gaps in the applicant addressing their right of first refusal obligations, staff will work with the applicant to ensure eligible tenants are offered a new below-market rental unit appropriate to their household. Therefore, there will need to be enough one-bedroom units to accommodate returning tenants. Again, I do not see this requirement or the one-bedroom concern specifically noted in the referral report that you are voting on, which doesn't. seem fair to you or us. Another issue I raised almost immediately with the city when we were notified of the rezoning proposal, the city deemed the original proposal non-compliant with the Broadway plan due to a previous application for towers on East 12th. That's the same block. The rules at the time limited the number of towers per block. At the time, neither the applicant nor the city seemed too concerned with this non-compliance aspect, and that was definitely noted by tenants. Subsequent legislation removed that restriction, pretty much all restrictions, and it left a very sour taste in our mouths that the developer possibly had assurances that this non-compliance issue was either a temporary problem or would be waived. In conclusion, many renters feel like disposable ponds in a sweeping wave of rezoning and displacements due to what the Broadway plan has evolved into. We feel like the playing field is tilted in favor of the developers. Existing tenants also noted that the 20% below market rental requirement could potentially just be us returning to the building, meaning in effect there would be potentially no additional affordable housing in this proposal. Renters are indeed voters, making up half of the city's population. Counsel cannot be blind to this growing dissatisfaction of voters becoming collateral damage in the drive for profit. It's not too late to slow this down or cancel this one as the election approaches. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mayor and Council. I want to acknowledge up front that I'm actually a property owner at 47 West 12th, which is just around the corner from this development. But I am actually opposed to this development because of actually in all the points that were just brought up, I've sort of listed the same ones. I'm actually not opposed to development in the city of Vancouver. and there's lots of big buildings going up along Broadway and elsewhere, and I'm okay with that. And I'm not opposed to rental properties especially. But parking is an absolute nightmare in my neighborhood. I have tenants there, and although I have a couple of parking spots, it's impossible for any of them or their friends to find parking. I need my glass to read my own writing. Oh, yeah. We do not need any commercial space in our neighbor. It's just ridiculous to start putting any kind of commercial there. In addition, the fact that we don't need it, there's lots of commercial on Main Street and, of course, Broadway, and it will just add to the parking nightmare. As the previous fellow mentioned, there is not a single spot available any time there. Also, I have a question. On the proposal, I don't see any parking listed in the, in the, uh, information I've been provided with. So is there planning parking stalls planned for this development? And how many? Is anybody, is that reasonable to ask questions at this meeting?
Okay.
Okay. And my last point also mirrors what the previous fellow was saying. I just don't understand why these developers are tearing down the three-story apartment buildings that are all around the Mount Pleasant area. Most of them look like they're in pretty good condition and it's ridiculous. There's lots of places on 12th, Broadway, Main Street, everywhere that they could be building these places. Why tear down three-bedroom apartments and displace people that it's not going to affect me personally, but I just don't understand that. It makes no sense to me. So those are the main points I wanted to make. Thank you.
Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Ruth Cherry, and I'm a longtime resident of Vancouver since 1985. I live in the area, and I am opposed to the amendments to the rezoning application for 10 East 11th Avenue. So the Vancouver real estate market in 2026 is experiencing a significant record high accumulation of unsold, newly completed housing units with estimates suggesting from 5,000 to 5,400 of unsold new units in this region. This figure does not include the shadow inventory, which is an unsold supply held by developers and thus is not listed on the MLS.S. As of early 2026, Metro Vancouver has approximately 12,000 to 15,000 unsold new pre-construction condo units sitting in developer hands, and that is the shadow inventory. The figure is according to Steve Saratsky, who is citing data from the Altus Group and reports from Rennie and Associates Realty Limited. So imagine the number that will be in this category once these buildings along the Broadway corridor in our neighborhoods are most likely approved. In other words, these tall towers do not need to be built, especially not in nature. neighborhoods such as the one in 10 East 11th. And once there is a glut on the market, developers will pressure the various levels of government to open the door up even more to foreign investment and foreign buyers, because frankly, they're the only ones that can afford it. It cannot be seen in any other way, 500 buildings along the Broadway corridor in 30 years.
It's a very unfathomable scenario. So the unique character of this neighborhood is being replaced by huge buildings, that don't contribute anything to the character of this locality, but instead degrade it. The suites in the proposed high rises are cramped. They're expensive, constructed with environmentally unfriendly materials, contributing to additional landfill as demolished buildings will have to be dumped there, and do not, in truth, address the shortage of truly affordable homes. The interests of people who live here are not considered before those of developers, whose mandate it is is to make money. and then disperse, going to their next money-making project. In addition, it is incomprehensible why global developers should have a preference over people who live here. The profits leave the city and go abroad. People who live here want homes, not investment properties, built for living in, and with protective safeguards for truly reasonable rents and livable floor space. Developers and construction companies aim to make money, not enhance the city of Vancouver, nor contribute to making anything nearly livable. They don't care. It's not in their mandate. Vancouver is losing its status as a livable city, and therefore I ask that the council stop this and any other further rezonings. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Ruth. Speaker number five, Louis Villegas.
Okay. Thank you. My name is Louis Villegas. I am a Vancouver resident practicing urbanism in the U.S. and Canada for 40 years. Next slide, please. I oppose this proposal and oppose towers in the neighborhoods generally for the unwanted consequences and the knock-on effects that they bring. Next, why government insists on operating inside the density fallacy is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. The facts show that towers inflate land values perpetuating the government-made housing crisis. Perhaps this is the key. Captured by industry, government is fixated on maximizing private profits in order to direct revenues into the pipeline. Next. I will show 20% below market under these market conditions falls 1,380% short of the affordability target. Next. Housing in 2026 is predicted to rise to levels 14 times over what it was in 1986. That year, the year of Expo, the commissioning of SkyTrain, house prices were at par with affordability. Subtracting the government's 20% from the 1,400% or 14 times over, house price inflation, we arrive at 1,380% house price inflation. Unfortunately, rounding up, we arrive right back at 14 times over affordability, rendering the 20% offer from government virtually irrelevant. Next slide, please. And this is not the only place where government is falling short. This week, we highlighted government's inability to preserve pristine, one of our most revered natural landscapes. Next slide, please. You're throwing it all away just to sell density and height. A good developer, and we have them in Vancouver, can make just as much profit at four stories as they can at 24. It just means that they have to get more sites. which would be fine because they would be bought at stable prices rather than the artificially inflated madness that we confront today. Next slide, please. The staff report sees a significant change in the neighborhoods. Let me tell you, there's nothing significant about selling density and height, displacing renters, shadowing streets, blocking the sky. And yes, we have proof blocking the view of the mountains. Next. Numbers don't lie, but some governments do. Here is irrefutable proof that a government-made crisis that is tearing our community apart for a quarter century has no end in sight. Housing prices up 14 times, median household incomes, dipping slightly since 1986, once they're adjusted to 2025 dollars. Next slide, please. What keeps government from understanding that the zombie SkyTrain and tower plans are gutting the local economy. When housing costs double, money left to circulate is cut in half. Shops close and jobs go begging because in Canada, mom and pop small businesses are the backbone of employment. Just one more thing. We saw earlier that housing costs haven't doubled but rather risen fourfold, leaving just one quarter of household income free to circulate in the local economy. Next slide, please. Then there are the other insults to be found in the SkyTrain and Tower Plans. I already mentioned unit shrinkage. Next. Land lift has triggered land price inflation to levels of 1,400%. Next. The right way to end the housing crisis is to build in four-story vernacular made from value-added forestry products. I've calculated we can double the Vancouver population by building no higher than four stories. That leaves the downtown for the global real estate market to fashion the tower trade. Next. The government keeps permitting towers next to cottages and three-story walk-ups, adding fuel to the crisis rather than taking decisive action to end it. Next, please. Voters face a clear choice in October. Throw bad government out and elect the government that will end the housing crisis. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The next speaker is speaker number six. Samina Toma.
Hello.
Hello, please go ahead.
Hello. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and city councillors. Thank you for your attention and service. My name is Samina Toma and I live at 10 East 11th Avenue. In regards to this development, I am opposed. I have lived in this building for the past 11 years in a one-bedroom apartment and I love it. I want to raise several concerns about about this proposed development, many that have been already spoken to, and specifically around the lack of one-bedroom apartments, affordable housing, parking and traffic, and the inclusion of commercial space in this neighborhood. In regards to the one-bedrooms, as it stood and has been for the last two years since this proposal has been created, the one-bedroom households that currently contain a single single occupant would have been offered a studio. The one-bedroom households, that contain a couple would have been offered a two-bedroom apartment. For the families that are currently residing in two-bedroom apartments, they would have been offered three-bedroom apartments. So that would leave us with the conclusion that without the comment being made today by the architect regarding one-bedroom apartments, single occupants living in one-bedroom apartments would have to downgrade to studios, and let it be noted that these studios are up to 40% smaller than our current unit, and yet those who are living together, as couples or families, would be awarded one extra bedroom than they are currently renting. The CMHC National Occupancy Standard, which is currently referenced in the Broadway Plan, states that it must not be used as a reason to discriminate. However, the planned development, as it currently stands, is being used to discriminate based on marital or family status. This is based on the Canadian Human Rights Act. Secondly, regarding affordable housing. The Broadway Plan requires 20% of residential floor space to be allocated to below-market rental units. This project claims to meet that requirement. However, in reality, 18 of those 20 units in our current building are eligible for the right of first refusal. That means that if all existing tenants return, there are actually only two units available to the broader community as affordable housing. So this project does not meaningfully contribute affordable housing to our neighborhood. It simply maintains, if not worsens what already is happening in our city. On top of that, the numbers don't fully add up. This proposal does not meet the square footage required for 20% below market residential square footage. By looking in their application booklet, it is actually short by 190 square feet. This raises concerns about accountability and adherence to the policy. Next, I would like to talk about parking and traffic. The application proposes 36 off-street parking spaces in total, including visitor parking. That leaves 30 residential parking spaces for 115 units. As has been discussed, this is completely insufficient for this neighborhood. Our streets are narrow, congested, and unlike downtown, it only allows for one car to pass at a time. Parking spillover will be unavoidable, and it will significantly increase frustration, safety risk, and congestion. This is especially concerning because 11th Avenue, is a major bike route, and many of us from our windows have witnessed road rage incidents and bike accidents on a regular basis. Adding more vehicles, loading activity, and traffic from this development will only increase the likelihood of serious incidents. Finally, commercial space. This proposal includes ground floor commercial space for a cafe or shop or a small grocer. This is a quiet residential neighborhood. Main Street, two blocks away. It already offers all these services. And already, already, has many vacant commercial spaces for that. There is no shortage of that. Adding this type of space will only increase traffic, deliveries, noise, congestion, which is no benefit for the small, quiet communities that we have. So when we look at the proposal as a whole, it becomes very clear that this is not a community-focused development. It is a highly profit-driven project that places the burden of its impact on existing residents and the neighborhood. Please consider this in your decision regarding this development. I appreciate your time and consideration.
Great. Thank you, Samina. Speaker number seven, Marchand Lascan.
Good evening, Mayor. Meeting, good evening, councillors. Thank you for your time. It's nice to come back to our wedding venue from a couple of years ago in a different context. My name is Marchand Lascan. I live in Vancouver, and I'm a resident of 10 East 11th Avenue, and I'm speaking in opposition to the report's recommendations. With my time, I'd like to share my wife's and my perspectives as two recent additions to the growing class of renoviction nomads displaced by development around the new SkyTrain line, and I'd like to implore you to reconsider this application. Last year, we were renovicted from our previous home just off Clark Drive. We lived for nearly a decade in a small, run-down but charming three-floor apartment building that had been bought in 2019 by someone keen to capitalize on his investment, before the details of the Broadway Plan had been announced. For several years, we waited for that announcement, hoping that we would get some of the rumored protections that we'd been hearing about. When that day came, we raced to the plan's website, we clicked on the map, and we zoomed into our block, and we found out that the boundary of the Broadway bubble had fallen directly on our street, and we were on the wrong side of it. We knew that the writing was on the wall, and so we immediately set out to find a new home. Within weeks, our building's owner gave notice to the residents that he would be doing just enough renovation to the suites to justify evicting everyone. And rather than wait out the four months that he offered, we paid double rent and moved. We thought that if we could manage to find a place that was up for rezoning within the bubble, because a lot of this was still gray area, we could still find some of those protections and stay in our neighborhood. As luck would have it, we found 10 East 11th Ave. But wouldn't you know it, the day we stopped by to sign the lease and pick up our keys, we were informed that the owners needed us to sign a waiver to waive our rights for protections under the Broadway Plan. And just like that, we fell through the cracks. Well, so be it, we thought at least we had a home until our next renoviction, and then we can start it all over again. We've already fallen through the cracks, but I feel compelled to speak today in opposition to this rezoning, because it seems like whether by accident, by design, or by crafty developer machinations, even those who are lucky enough to live within the Broadway bubble are being deprived of their protections. The proposed redevelopment of our home seeks to increase the unit count from 20 in a nice, well-maintained, three-floor apartment building, to 115. More than five times the amount of suites on an already congested street, one block away from the fire hall, a school, and a couple blocks off of Main Street, full of stores already. Also, the same developer owns the two adjacent buildings on the same block, both very similar buildings. Those are also up for rezoning. So, five times as many suites, with allotted parking for approximately a quarter of them on the property, times three with two additional properties, that already seems like a tall task, but with at least five times as many suites, there should be plenty of room to accommodate the occupying
of the 20 existing mostly one-bedroom units. Until you consider the fact, which we just received some new information, that that might not be the case, that the proposed development doesn't include a single one-bedroom unit, only studios and two bedrooms. Conveniently, the applicant from the architecture firm has kind of, as an afterthought said, oh, no, we'll fix that. Hope so. Now, I hate to be cynical, but it seems to me like this may not be accidental, that it may actually be a tactic to maximize the number of current residents who will not be able to downsize into a studio and take advantage of their right of first refusal. Now, I don't oppose development. I'm an electrician. I work in construction. We need more homes. Maybe that means higher density. And I'm not even against property developers making profit. I was tossing and turning last night at the prospect of speaking against our benevolent developer landlords, not being able to quintuple their investment. But maybe they could settle for only quadrupling their prospective number of rental incomes and include some good faith accommodations for their current protected tenants. Or just leave the building alone. It's fine. The list of developers, their lawyers, their agents, and all of their various representatives that stand against tenants' interests in Vancouver is very long, and a list of people able to uphold the promises of the Broadway Plan to protect tenants may only be as long as the number of councillors present today. I implore you councillors to critically evaluate this rezoning application and to consider the tenants of this building before they fall through the cracks as well. Thank you for your time.
Mayor, can I ask the speaker a question? Yes, you can. Actually, and you, there are a few speakers here or questions. I don't know if those are all questions for this.
Sorry, can we pause one sec? Because there's four people now in the speaking queue. So is there one in the queue or not? Okay.
So I was seeing everyone else here on this list is, thank you very much. Okay, Councillor Meiszner, can just go ahead?
Thank you. That's what I— I thought, which was why I spoke up, so appreciate that. Thanks for coming in. I wanted to ask you about the waiver that you were, you mentioned that you were asked to sign. How many years ago did you move into the building?
Last year.
Last year, okay. And what was the context of the waiver? What was the explanation as to why they were asking you to sign that?
Well, it was very last minute. We had talked to the property manager in conversation before, I believe that we had mentioned wanting to move into the bubble. to get protections because we had been renoviction evicted. Nothing was brought up then. It was only the context was I showed up to sign the papers, pick up her keys, and then it was just like, oh, if you want it, sorry, the owners need you to sign this.
And this is for this current place that you're in right now.
Okay.
They didn't explain as to why they were asking you to sign that.
I mean, we understood. And then we found out a couple months later through the news. Other people with similar plans moving into the bubble didn't have protections anyway, so we didn't really question it.
Just one more question on that. Did they mention to you that they were planning to redevelop the property, and that's why they were...
We were well aware of that already.
Yeah.
Okay. Yeah, the placards were out front, I believe.
Okay. Okay, thanks. Appreciate you coming in.
Yeah. Okay. Sorry, I'm going to have a question for the speaker. Yeah. Oh, Morrison's still there. Actually, I think you were one of the representative speakers as well, but no. No, that's okay because it didn't matter. The last, that representative speaker finished right on five minutes. I remember that, so that was pretty impressive.
Yeah, no, I just had one question for you. It was kind of gnawing at me when you were talking about it. And I'm glad Councillor Meiszner asked the question. Did you speak with anyone at the city? Like, I'm sure we have some resources here to make sure that any agreement you did sign made sense and was appropriate. And if you haven't, like, I guess this would be a question to our team members. Are there vehicles at the city where a tenant can actually ask that question?
If I can.
So, yes, the question is to you, have you reached out to anyone at the city to see if that was appropriate?
So we did call City Hall, like immediately, I think it was the same day or the day after that the plan had been announced and we actually saw that we were outside the bubble. And when we called City Hall, you know, eventually got somebody on the phone and we were just really hoping, like, is that line a firm line or is there a little fuzzy boundary? And they said, well, it's got to end somewhere.
Oh, and then after that, we just kind of, yeah, no, that's the only time we spoke to City Hall. After that, yeah, we just kind of resigned ourselves to our fate there.
Okay. And I would assume that if a tenant had entered into an agreement like that, there would be avenues at City Hall to, you know, provide guidance.
Yes.
It's noted.
Yep, that's right. Yeah, okay.
So, sorry, I have, I'm chairing the meeting. I'm going to have to wait for that question when the time's right, but I will be asking that question. So, okay. Thank you very much for coming and sharing your story with us.
Thank you.
Okay. Clerk, I think we have one speaker, an additional speaker. Yep, please come up. And ma'am, if I can please get you to state your name and whether or not you're a resident for the record, please.
Okay, sure. My name's Carrie Ann Wood, and I live next door. And I actually campaigned for you. And I was asked by one of my Chinese friends, and I said, oh, what does he stand for? And he said, housing and making sure that Vancouver stays the same, but develops also in a positive way. So I know that you are also making sure that nurses, mental health nurses and different, people and the police were protected. So, pardon me. Never done this before. So I did campaign for you, and I was happy about that, and I have my little notes here for me. All right. Sorry, I just have to grab one thing. Can we pause the timer, please? I wrote this earlier. So I think that the city should focus on redeveloping vacant commercial or industrial places first and not displacing residents from older apartment buildings that made the city what it is. There's thousands of people that come to the street to take pictures of the trees. And it really, I mean, what is more Canadian than red maple leaves? The area is already congested due to traffic from private schools, churches, and bike lanes. Parking is already very limited. Just coming here, there was basically a fight on the street with people trying to go, you know, both directions when they can't. The site is home to returning birds and local wildlife that need protection. Older architecture incorporated more green space, helping to prevent the concrete jungle look that we're now risking creating. And the Canadian red maple leaf trees on site are a local landmark, and like I said, people come from all over to go to that street. Many shift workers live in this area, so construction noise and disruption will seriously affect their sleep and quality of life. There's lots of hospitals in the area. The diverse eclectic community in the neighborhood is what makes Vancouver world-renowned. And this proposal threatens to erase that and the unique character of this neighborhood. So I urge the city to reject this proposal and support responsible development that protects housing, nature, and communities that make Vancouver livable. So I also had some other people text in. Okay. Pardon me, some people sounded angry. The low-income rental market in Vancouver is characterized by extreme demand and limited supply, with options largely relying on subsidized housing and below-market rentals, rent tied to income, maximum 30% of income. Based upon the CMHC current data, the better part of lower income housing is at 96% capacity or better. What is the data supporting increased population density in our neighborhood, which cannot even meet parking needs for the local, cannot be outweighed with forcing a better use of other areas. Can this be outweighed with better use of other areas? areas. How many people are you trying to fit into our finite space called our neighborhood? Who decided this? The people inhabiting the homes and the apartments refuse to let, refuse to let this go ahead. Perhaps the system should stop serving those that want to want to be here and start serving those that are already here. For it is those that we are not the majority, we are the majority here, not your planned future. Perhaps the system should stop serving those that want to be here and start serving those that are living here. We are the neighborhood, we are the majority. Cut and splice. Okay, wait, anyway. Vancouver faces an acute, long-term, affordable housing crisis with the median income families requiring over 100% of their income to cover homeownership costs, making it Canada's least affordable city. Massive supply demand gap requires 29,000. Done? Yeah, I'm sorry. Many people are texting to me. So thank you very much. I'd really like to support you. Thank you.
Thank you for coming in and sharing your story. Sorry, clerk, are there any additional speakers in the chamber? or sorry, if there are any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium.
Clerk, are there any additional speakers online? No additional speakers are on the line.
This is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll free at 1-833-353-8608, followed by participant code 10161-445 pound 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.
Have any speakers in the chamber or online?
There's no further speakers online.
Okay, 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.
Okay. Seeing that there are 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, Your Worship and Council again. I was just taking some notes during the speakers, and I think I have some information that might help address some of their concerns. So I heard a lot from the speakers regarding their concerns around parking for this project. The current building that's on the site doesn't actually have any underground parking. It's just got a few parking spaces back on the lane. And so, as one of the speakers did mention, this project does have 36 parking spaces below grade. So we are improving the parking situation in our view relative to what's already there. And I will note that this is 30, we're providing 36 spaces, six of which are visitor spaces, which are required by the parking bylaw. But that is all, only six spaces are actually required by the parking bylaw for this project. So we're actually providing 30 more parking spaces than would actually be required by the Vancouver parking bylaw. I also heard some comments regarding that the density should be on arterials. And that was a little bit challenging for me. For several years, we were doing projects under the affordable housing rezoning policies on arterials policy. And all I heard during those projects is that we need to provide more family housing, multi-family in neighbourhoods and not on arterials. And I think that that was sort of the approach that staff came up with during the development of the community plan — to let's move some of that density off the arterials and into the neighbourhoods. And so I think that that's what this project provides. I heard again the concerns around the one bedrooms. And that is in the conditions of enactment for this project. So I know it might appear to some of the speakers that this is something that's a last-minute addition. But in fact, this was written in the conditions of enactment. We did speak about this with staff, and it will be dealt with during the development permit. We don't have a choice. It's in the conditions of enactment. And one of the speakers, I believe she may be conflating strata development with purpose-built rental. So I think she's right. There is a lot of strata product on the market right now, at least so I've heard. That's a different animal from what this is. This is purpose-built, secured on title for 60 years or the life of the building, whichever is longer, rental building with below-market, also secured on title for the same period of time. So I think that the city does need more purpose-built rental, and that's what this project addresses. And finally, from my perspective, I keep on hearing a lot of people talking about these huge land lifts that this plan is creating. And, you know, I'm just an architect, but I do anecdotally hear about this from a lot of my clients. And from my understanding, the land lift that's afforded by these rezonings because of the below-market component on these is negligible. In fact, from my understanding, property values for development lots have significantly dropped in the last two years because of the cost of construction and just market pressures. So I know that it's easy to sort of say that, oh, well, these fat cat developers are making tons of money, but from my experience anyways. These projects — every single one of my projects is on a knife's edge financially. And we struggle quite a bit. Also we have our housing consultant that I believe wanted to make a couple of comments regarding the housing agreements. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thanks for having us here tonight. Generally, we always really appreciate — there's always important work to do supporting tenants. That work at 10 East 11th is alongside the owner. We work very closely with them, and we look forward to doing that further. This is really ensuring that assistance and engagement is in place. And, you know, we can talk about a policy, but we can also see how it works. And I can say as a TRC, we know there's nuances when that's getting delivered. Sometimes it's repeating messages or taking extra calls or working through questions, maybe even some tears sometime when there's relocation that we're working on. Pretty rare, but it can happen. And it's a lot of emotions that can come up. So really, it includes leveraging a robust Broadway Plan tenant ops work. We've seen it in Burnaby. We've walked through it in Burnaby. We've done it here in Vancouver. We have one project and a few on the way. One's actively working. And a lot of the feedback's great. We empathize with the concerns. And our team's always going to be here to focus on helping tenants find a great place. And we know that right of first refusal is in place when they want to come back to the building. And the owner supports that too. Thank you.
No, just in general. Thank you, by the way. Just in general, just the yellow memo is there in place just to highlight the fact that there are requirements for below-market units to have also a family mix, and also total units themselves have to have family mix requirements. So, yeah, that's probably the gist of it. Thank you.
Thank you. Does Council have any final questions for staff, noting no additional questions to the applicant are permitted. Councillor Meiszner.
Yeah, thanks. A few questions here. I want to follow up on the waivers discussion. One of the speakers mentioned they were asked to sign a waiver. Can you explain to me when that's permitted and what the purpose is?
I'll pass that to Sarah Robin, who is from housing. Hello, Sarah Robin, Housing. Thank you very much for the question. I'm not familiar exactly with what was provided to the tenant in terms of a waiver form. There are letters that do go to all tenants after the application is submitted. That does give tenants all the information in terms of what our tenant relocation protection policies are. That's a template provided by staff and then it's distributed by the applicant. And then it gives further information for all the eligible tenants at a tenant meeting, which then goes into detail in terms of what all the requirements are under the tenant relocation policy.
Just because I'm tight for time. It didn't sound like that's what the resident received. It sounded like they were being asked to sign a waiver given the pending sale of the building.
Yes. So I'm not sure again what the exact situation was with the tenant. If it's a tenant that's eligible and a tenant is given further information from an applicant, you know, the tenant is encouraged, of course, to contact staff for further information in terms of what their protections are.
Okay.
So I'm not sure in that
situation, what it was. But let's say, like, hypothetically, you know, somebody received a waiver saying that they, you know, they had to agree that they weren't going to be eligible for TRP. Is that allowed?
So if it's a mutual agreement and tenancy that's under the Residential Tenancy Act, a landlord can provide that to a tenant, but they are required under the tenant relocation policy to provide that alongside the tenant relocation policy that the city has in place to make sure that they're providing the minimum of what's required under our policy. Okay. But is there any ability for a developer or a building owner to —
let's say a person moved in 364 days — you know, it hadn't been a full year or something before the redevelopment. Like, can they be asked to sign a waiver? I guess is my question.
Yeah, I don't — if a tenant is not, it depends, I guess, if the tenant is eligible under the tenant relocation and protection policy. So what's the eligibility for the timeline? Yeah, they need to live there one year before the application is submitted.
Okay. Okay, thank you. Other question was around — oh, the unit mix. So I understand that that is supposed to be addressed at development permit stage or will be. But under TRP, people who currently live in a one-bedroom apartment would not be able to be placed in a studio unit, for example, correct? They have to be placed in a one-bedroom.
They are required to be in a one-bedroom.
Okay. Thank you. And then my other question was around — there was a comment from one of the speakers around the total amount of below-market rental space in the new building being 190 square feet less than it's supposed to be. Do staff have any response to that comment from one of the speakers, or are they aware of any reduction or, you know, missing space?
Yeah. Oh, sorry. Awesome. Thank you, Sarah. Go ahead. Yeah. Certainly at the development permit stage, the plans would be looked at in detail to make sure that it does meet the 20% below-market requirement. So that will be something that, again, will be reviewed in detail. And it's certainly an absolute requirement.
Okay. Okay, so that's all looked at at the DP stage.
Yes.
Okay, great. Thank you.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Following on Councillor Meiszner's questions, I just wanted to clarify, and I can't ask the applicant now, but staff maybe could address it. Just put the conditions of enactment around the one-bedroom units. Would there be sufficient one-bedroom units to meet the needs of existing tenants if they wish to come back to the new building? That came up in one of the comments from one of the speakers.
Thank you for the question. I will pass that again back to Sarah. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, thank you very much for the question. Yes, there will be a requirement. It is included in one of the conditions for approval that the applicant does address the right of first refusal requirements for unit size or unit type. So they will need to make adjustments considering there are significant numbers of one-bedroom existing units. They would need to provide that to meet the needs of tenants returning to units. Okay. Thank you. And then one more question. The last speaker, and this actually
has come up in a couple of different recent public hearings, particularly where we have older-growth — not old-growth, older-growth trees and tree canopy in the neighbourhoods — was referenced, the maple trees. Is there any loss of any of the street trees in the context of this proposal. If you could comment on that.
Thank you for the question. As it stands, there are no proposed trees to be removed on the city streetscape. So everything is on-site as proposed.
Okay. Thank you. Thanks.
Thanks very much, Mayor. First of all, I just want to thank all the speakers who came in today and expressed their feelings and thoughts about this project. Just going to address some of the comments that I heard. And first of all, I just want to also express, I don't live in this immediate neighbourhood, but I see the impact that is now happening. It's always busy, but it is unbelievably busy now because of the Broadway closure at Broadway and Main with the bridge decking removal. So I can empathize with probably the amount of people that are sort of cutting through the neighbourhood right now. There was a question around the tenant relocation, and so I'll probably go back to our housing person, just with regards to the vacancy rate and the rents — I presume that people that are displaced during the construction phase of this project — the TRP, the tenant relocation policy does try to help with — requires the rents are maintained and perhaps relocation is helped in terms of finding other places to stay. Is that generally the approach?
Yes. Thank you for the question. Yes, under the tenant relocation policy, there is support to all eligible tenants to find alternative accommodation. And there is an option for rent top-up as well, so either financial compensation or a top-up to bridge that gap and make sure the rent is maintained at the same level.
Okay. Thanks very much. That's what I thought, but I just wanted to sort of clear that up. With regards to parking in the area, quite a few of these streets do have permit parking, I believe. Is that correct? And I know that, you know, so a lot of the areas have permit parking. Is that correct?
Thank you for the question. I'll pass that on to Neil Peacock. Thank you.
Hi there, Neil Peacock, Associate Director within Engineering Services. Yes, I can confirm that we do have permit parking programs within those areas and that those can be reviewed based on, you know, we're constantly making adjustments to those areas in response to those areas in response to feedback from the public and other demands.
I might keep you on the line there because my next question is regarding the cycling route. I know that this Ontario Street is an incredibly popular cycling route. I've been on it many times myself. It's a bit of a super highway for cycling in our residential streets. And I just want to make sure that during the construction phase, that there are having the ability to mitigate some of the concerns around the impact of construction to the cycling in that area. Do we have ways of being able to address that?
Yeah, absolutely. So through the development permit and into the building permit process, we work with the applicant team on detailed traffic management plans. So we take special focus for very busy local routes like this. So yes, that's incorporated closer to the construction date.
Thanks. I know for a fact that, you know, it's used throughout the day, but certainly when people are commuting to and from work, it is really busy. So we have additional flag people or other ways of making sure that that's taken care of. I just want to finally just want to address the questions around the commercial space at the bottom. I know just about a block away at the corner of 10th and Quebec is the Federal Store, which is a fantastic coffee shop, always full of people. With staff and taking into consideration, the presence of a commercial space for a cafe or for quick daily needs. Is this likely to be an imposition to the area in terms of busyness, or would it potentially provide the kind of services that people on a busy bike route would like to have?
About 20 seconds.
So the question, John Grottenberg, with the Broadway Plan team. So the intent, the Broadway Plan intent is to enable small local-serving businesses in these offices and these off-arterial locations. So in terms of loading and deliveries, it would be much less than larger businesses on Main Street, for example.
Okay, that's my time. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Sorry, clerk, do you have to seat the chair? No, that's right. Just the last part. This has sort of been asked a couple of different ways, but I just, it's still gnawing at me here. Can you, so when I think of agreements, signing an agreement that waived your rights, I don't know if we can have a, like, a legal opinion here. Actually, probably not. It just sounds kind of weird. Like, I think of, like, let's say, employment law and sort of waiving your right to overtime. You can't do that. And you shouldn't be able to do that. And if that happens, it doesn't matter what you sign. You're still paying overtime, and rightfully so. So is there, like, an opportunity for any renter in the city who's signed an agreement like that to, you know, have a conversation with a department at the City of Vancouver. Or am I missing something here? Thank you for the question. I will pass on to Sarah for now. Thank you. Thank you very much for the question. Certainly, if a tenant is signing anything or has any concerns when they're approached by their landlord, they can absolutely reach out to city staff to explain what that waiver is, and we can support them to understand what the agreement is that they're looking to sign. So staff is available for that. Great. Thank you very much.
Thank you. I'm interested in just asking about the traffic and parking concerns that were raised. Are there any, is there any, traffic calming or modal filters proposed or is there a delivery zone proposed anywhere close or more accessible parking spaces on the streets adjacent to this development?
Thank you for the question again. I'll pass it on to Neil Peacock.
Thanks, Councillor. If I'm understanding your questions correctly, you're asking about access to on-street parking facilities for residents who did not support this development.
I'll just repeat my question to help you out. The speakers raised concerns about traffic safety in the neighbourhood, and I'm wondering if there are any traffic calming measures or modal filters proposed or a delivery zone. I know that sometimes when we have larger buildings, there are more frequent deliveries and it's helpful to have allocated space for trucks to stop. Is any of that proposed in the street adjacent to this development?
So really requests like that would typically fall under our existing programs. So, I mean, we have access through 311 and other services to get that type of feedback from residents. And, I mean, we constantly have to manage our streets in such a way. So we kind of deal with those on a request basis. In the case of this site, we look at what's required and, of course, we're not providing that all on site so that the site mitigates any impacts more broadly up to the street. So I tend to separate those. But I would just highlight that this, again, because Ontario Street and 10th Avenue are such critical active corridors, we use existing modal filters and we look at those, again, as part of ongoing programs. So if residents have particular concerns about traffic safety, the best course of action would be for them to contact 311 or send an email to the city? Yes, absolutely. I think it's important to track those and get them documented. Then we have staff who look at those types of requests regularly.
All right. Now, let me see if I've got anything else. Also on another issue with parking. Is there, are there any measures being undertaken? I don't know, to try and address the parking issue. I know we've got some spaces being built, 36 spaces within the development. Is there any change to the residential parking permit system proposed or in the works or a review of it? Is that something that's being undertaken in this area?
I'm not aware of any active work for this area, nor would this development necessarily trigger that, but similar to either safety concerns. Those can be managed through our parking management team at the city. So we tend to, of course, rely on kind of occupancy targets for on-street parking, both on arterials and local streets. And so we look at this from time to time based on demands, typically generated by the residents of that community.
All right. Well, it does sound as though a review might be useful. So perhaps I'll bring that up in another forum. That's all my questions. Thanks.
Thank you very much, Councillor. Okay, clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the close of the public comments? Just checking with the team in the back. I know we did not. Great. Thank you. Okay, so I'm going to remind council that we need to move the recommendation for item number one together with the yellow memo dated February 5th, 2026 entitled CD-1 Rezoning 10 East 11th Avenue. Council will now make its decision on the application. Do we have a mover? Great, thank you. So, Councillor Dominato, seconded by Councillor Meiszner. And I just want to say it again, mover of the recommendations and the yellow memo. Okay, great. Thank you. Council, is there any discussion? Councillor Meiszner.
Thanks. I want to thank all the speakers for coming in today. Obviously, it's going to be disruptive if you live in a building and it's going to be redeveloped. I mean, there's just no getting around that. I appreciated the discussion today and I appreciated all the responses from staff to clarify some concerns that I heard from speakers and also questions I had as well around the replacement of the units in terms of assuring that people that are currently in one bedrooms can move back into a new one bedroom when the building is completed. So again, I totally can imagine and understand how this is disruptive. But this will allow us to add a significant number of new rental units to this neighbourhood. And it is a very central location. I know it's a bit of a quieter street, but it is very close to Main Street and all the great things in Mount Pleasant. It's close to transit. It's going to be close to the Broadway line. It's going to have a cafe, which I personally think is a positive thing. And people are going to be able to move back in in a few years into brand new units that are, you know, have air conditioning, have, you know, great windows, have all the modern things about a modern building that make living there amazing. So I know it's going to be some short-term pain, but I think in the end it'll be a benefit for the people that are currently living there to move back into these new units and also to have that additional housing stock in such a central location. So I just want everyone to know I'm listening to your concerns and feedback tonight, but I think on balance that this is a worthwhile project and I'm going to vote in support of it. Thanks.
Can I please see the chair? Thank you. Yeah, I listen, I want to thank all the speakers as well. First of all, I want to address that. Sorry, was it Marchant? Sorry, Marchant. Your story really resonated with me. I learned this later on when I was older. We're living on McSpadden Street, and my mom was the primary, primary breadwinner in the family. She was a typist at BC Packers, and she supported five kids. My dad, my dad worked as well, but he was an entrepreneur. We really struggled. Struggled is the answer. And we would miss rent. And Joe, the landlord, would tell my mom, you know what, you can pay me next week, but pay us an extra 10 bucks. Back in the mid-70s, 10 bucks was a lot of money. And my mom lived in fear of my dad because she didn't want to make my dad upset. And so this went on for a while and just it, it, I heard that story. And I know the effect that it had on my mom. And I just, sorry, I'm going to be honest about it, it pisses me off to hear stories like that. And so I just wanted to share that with you. And I know we have resources here. And, no, I don't like seeing people being taken care of or taking advantage of if that's the case. Look, we have to make hard decisions in this council. I know there's a lot of emotion here. And, uh, your comments aren't wrong. They're absolutely right. We're talking about something that's deeply personal. We're talking about your home. Everyone's home is deeply personal. And we get it. Um, and what we're going to say next, you know, while sitting on the other side, I'd get why it wouldn't resonate either. Um, um, as a, but what I, what I do believe is we get elected here to be clear. And so at least you know, um, where we stand. And, you know, we do have to make decisions. And in my opinion, we have to make decisions that serve, uh, the broader community over the longer term, which is, I define it as 30 years. And what's best, uh, for the majority of the residents and, uh, the community and the businesses and the organizations that call Vancouver home. And so I'm not going to get into a lot of, uh, Councillor Meiszner's comments that talked about the merits of why this overall will be net net good to the community. The one thing that was, that came up was the one bedroom units that they will be in place and residents will have a right of first refusal to return. When I think long term, we have an affordability crisis here. We have a housing crisis here. We really do. Like when I look at the numbers and In 2021, there were 662,000 people in the city of Vancouver. By 2024, there were 756,000. In three years, it went up 94,000 people and more people are coming. And if we don't create an environment where we can build more homes, rents will go up, and a lot of people are going to get displaced. And it's not going to be the wealthy. It's going to be the server that works at the Cactus Club. It's going to be that single parent that's struggling to make ends meet. It's going to be that nurse that works at St. Paul's Hospital. It's going to be a firefighter that keeps, you know, our family safe. The list goes on and on. And when I think of where the city's going and the kids, when I see, like, we had a, I think she was seven years old, London, who came and she spoke to council at our last public hearing. If we don't create more housing, London probably doesn't live in this city. And her parents, they were fortunate enough to have a house. And let's say it works out for them. At some point, they'll probably downsize because as you age, and you want to age in place with dignity in your own community where health outcomes will be better. Even if they have the financial means to do it, there may not be the house to move to, and they will move as well. And so for that reason, I know it's hard. These are choices that, you know, frankly, aren't the most pleasing to make, but I will be supporting this project. Great. So thank you. Councillor Maloney?
Yeah, I am not currently licensed to practice law in British Columbia, I have to say that, but if a tenant who would otherwise be eligible for tenant protections under the Broadway Plan is asked to sign a waiver of those rights in return for being allowed to rent. I would strongly hope that that agreement would be invalid if they were otherwise eligible. And I'd really encourage staff to try and incorporate this situation into the review of the TRPP that I believe is currently underway, and I'd probably encourage you to seek some of your own legal advice with a copy of the agreement. In terms of school capacity, I know that there is some debate. There are financial pressures in the province and there is debate as to the accuracy of population projections that are provided to the province. I know that's a huge issue — school capacity. My own kids couldn't get into Elsie Roy Elementary School when we were renovicted from the West End and had to move into that catchment, because that school was already oversubscribed the day it opened. So we clearly have some issues with school capacity throughout the city. I would echo the applicant's comments about the change of thinking that once saw residential building concentrated on arterial roads. And I know that we really do need accessible affordable housing options in every neighbourhood of our city. And renters also do want to live on quiet streets just like everybody. So I think that is a positive part of this project. But you're absolutely right. There are other places that we should be building more low-rise apartment buildings that we have restrictions on and I'm certainly committed to making that happen. I'll also be voting in favour of this proposal. Thank you.
Okay. Seeing no one else 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 14.1 through the of the procedure bylaw. I'm now going to call the vote. Clerk, can you please take us to the voting screen?
Mayor, can I have a vote in favour, please?
There is on the wrong screen there.
Okay. That passes unanimously. That completes item number one. Thank you, everyone for coming in. We have quorum.
Still.
This is an application by JTA Development Consultants to rezone 1613 to 1625 Nanaimo Street from C-1, commercial district to CD-1, Comprehensive Development District, to permit the development of a five-storey mixed-use building containing 23 rental units and commercial space on the ground floor. A floor space ratio of 2.8 and a height of 19 meters are proposed. The general manager of planning, urban design and sustainability recommends approval subject to conditions set out in the summary and recommendation. The following correspondence has been received since referral to the public hearing. Two pieces of correspondence in support, four pieces of correspondence dealing with other aspects of the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today.
Thank you very much. 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, then press 3, then pound, before the close of the speakers list. The full number will be posted on screen 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.
Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Austin Norrie and I'm the rezoning planner for this application coming in under the Grandview-Woodland Community Plan. The site at 1613–1625 Nanaimo Street, identified in red on the map, is located at the corner of Nanaimo and Graveley Street, which is one block north of East First Avenue. The site is currently zoned C-1 and is developed with a two-storey mixed-use building. The buildings around the site are mainly single-family homes at three stories in height, except for a handful of four-storey apartments along Nanaimo and East First Avenue. There are no rental tenants living on the property, as the site is owner-occupied. The site is located within the Nanaimo area of the Grandview-Woodland Community Plan. At this location, the plan supports mixed-use residential buildings with retail, service, and/or community- serving uses at grade. The plan supports up to six stories in height and an FSR up to 3.2. Projects here require a minimum frontage of 120 feet. The proposal was submitted on March 25th, 2024. The applicant is proposing a five-storey mixed-use residential building containing 23 market rental units. The proposal includes a maximum FSR of 2.8 and a height of 62 feet. Two commercial retail spaces are proposed at grade, and one level of underground parking is proposed, which is accessible through the lane. A virtual Q&A period was held from July 2nd to July 15th, 2025. 22 pieces of correspondence were received. Respondents were supportive of the proposal, given that there's a need for more rental housing in the city, that the proposal would bring retail vibrancy to Nanaimo Street, and that the proposal is an appropriate height, scale and massing for an arterial street. Respondents with concerns were related to that the height and density would impact the neighbourhood's character. In response, staff can confirm that the proposed height, density and scale are consistent with the intent of the Grandview-Woodland Community Plan. Another concern was that there isn't enough parking to support the building, as well as the project would create pedestrian safety, automobile traffic, as well as access concerns. Staff can confirm that the proposal will be required to meet the parking bylaw. And engineering staff have conditioned the proposal to include street improvements, such as new sidewalks, a new paved alleyway, and improved lane crossing, as well as new street lighting. In addition, respondents expressed the need to preserve local-serving retail, as they indicated a fondness for the existing Vietnamese restaurant on the site. The applicant has indicated that they intend to have the existing restaurant return to the site after project completion. Staff have conditioned the building to require a minimum of 139 square meters of commercial use. The public benefits associated with this proposal includes the development cost levies, which will contribute to just under $700,000. Real estate services staff reviewed this proposal and found that due to the limited land lift, no community amenity contribution payment would be required or necessary. In addition, the site is anticipated to deliver 23 secured market rental housing units, of which delivering secured market rental units is a goal outlined within the Grandview-Woodland Public Benefits Strategy. To conclude, this proposal aligns with the Grandview-Woodland Community Plan and advances the city's housing targets. Staff recommend approval of this application, subject to the conditions of approval in Appendix B of the report. Staff and the applicant team are available for questions. Thank you.
Just some comments, if that's okay. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is James Todd, principal of JTA Development Consultants, and I'm speaking on behalf of the property owner as applicant for the rezoning application at 1613 Nanaimo Street. Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal and for the time staff and council have spent reviewing it. This application is for a five-storey mixed-use rental housing proposal with a commercial space at grade. The property is owned by the family behind the existing Song Huang restaurant, currently on site, a longstanding local business offering a variety of dishes but are known in particular for the beef seven ways. Importantly, the owners intend to return to the site with a new restaurant as part of the redevelopment, continuing their contribution to the neighbourhood's commercial and cultural fabric. The residential component is entirely rental housing, helping to add much-needed long-term housing supply in a location well serviced by transit, amenities, and services. I would also like to clarify that there are no tenants currently living on site. The existing residential space is owner-occupied, so there is no rental displacement associated with this application. From a policy perspective, the proposal aligns with the city's objectives around gentle density, mixed-use development, and rental housing, particularly along arterial streets like Nanaimo, and within the preliminary boundary of the Nanaimo Street and East First Avenue Village within the Vancouver Plan. The building scale has been carefully considered to fit the context of the area while making efficient use of the site.
The project has been thoughtfully designed by Hex City Studio Architecture, who are here virtually this evening and available to answer any questions, architectural or technical. In response to one public comment, the project has been designed with the intent to offer an easement with the adjacent neighbour for a shared parking ramp and underground knockout panel so that in the future, if they wish to redevelop and require access through the parking ramp from this proposal, they are able to use it. Also noting the proposal will follow all requirements for acoustical separation, noise during construction, and the parking bylaw. In closing, this is a locally owned project, reinvesting in the neighbourhood, delivering secured rental housing and supporting a small business that plans to return and thrive on the site. We respectfully ask for council's support of the rezoning application. Thank you for your time, and we're happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from council to our team members or the applicant, noting that this is the only opportunity for council to ask questions of the applicant. Councillor Dominato.
Yeah, thanks. I just have a couple of quick questions. It was a clarifying question around the parking and meeting the parking minimums with our bylaw. So how many spaces will that end up being for the residents, future residents, as well as because there's already that surface lot as well for people coming to visit the restaurant. So does the parking accommodate both people who want to come and dine potentially and as well as what would the total number be?
I'll defer the question to our architects who I think are on.
Yeah, that would be helpful.
Hi. Yes. Hi, I'm Travis Hanks, principal architect at Hex City Studio Architecture, so I can address the question about parking. So we do comply currently with the Vancouver Zoning and Development By-law and the parking bylaw. We chose to limit to one to one level of underground parking to increase affordability of the units, as you may be aware, excavating down and creating concrete parkades below ground is a great expense and also increases the carbon footprint of the building. So it was a choice to limit the parking to minimums, but we are slightly over the minimum required by the bylaw right now.
Okay, thank you. And does any of that accommodate extra parking for visitors for the restaurant and other?
Yes, there are dedicated commercial spaces, accessible spaces, and visitor spaces, I believe, is what was required through the bylaw.
Okay. Thank you. And then I just have a question to our staff. Presumably, I'm just making an assumption there was no mention — the alley will be maintained, that there's no transfer of land around the alley — laneway, sorry. Thank you for your question. No, there's no transfer of land in
the alleyway. There's just going to be some upgrades. Okay. Accordingly. Thank you. That's all my
questions. Thank you very much, Councillor. 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 106-1-4-4-5 pound before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. We'll now hear from the public. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the left podium when it's your turn. Phone-in 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 application being considered. So our first speaker is Shana Yasama Nidza. Is Shana present? The speaker is not on the line. Okay. If there are any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium. Clerk, are there additional speakers on the line? No, there are not. 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 106-1-44-5 pound before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. We're now going to take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in or come forward to the podium.
In the chamber or online? No speakers present and there are no speakers on the line.
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, there is not.
Seeing that there are few or no public comments received after 5 p.m., I'm now closing the receipt of public comments. Does the applicant have any closing comments?
Thank you.
Staff have no closing comments. Staff have no closing comments.
comments thank you. Does council have any final questions for our team members, noting that no additional questions of the applicant are permitted. Clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the close of public comments? No, we have not. Okay, thank you. Council will now make its decision on the application. Do we have a mover? Councillor Dominato, seconded by Councillor Zhou. Council is in discussion. Okay, a reminder that any council member participating virtually, whose video is disabled will be marked absent for the vote pursuant to Section 14. 14.13.13 of the procedure bylaw. I'm now going to call the vote. Barring. Can I get a vote in favour, please? Sure. And also a vote in favour, please, Mayor, for Councillor Kirby-Yung. Thank you. Councillor Meiszner. Great. Thank you. And that passes unanimously with Councillors Bligh, Fry, and Orr absent. That completes item number two. Item number three, CD-1 rezoning.
Thank you very much.
4967 through 5017 Main Street. Before we begin, are there any conflicts to disclose? Great. The clerk is now going to read the application and summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by Matthew Chang Architect to rezone 4967 to 5017 Main Street from RM-3A Residential District to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District. To permit the development of a five-storey residential building containing 31 strata units and 24 rental units. A floor space ratio of 2.3 and a height of 18.3 metres are proposed. General Manager of Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability recommends approval, subject to conditions set out in the summary and recommendation. The following correspondence has been received since referral to the public hearing. Four pieces of correspondence in opposition. This references all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today.
Thank you very much. Okay. 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 106-1-44-5 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. Now, we do have team members from Planning, Urban Design and Sustainability here to present the application. Now, there are no registered speakers for this item, so council may waive the presentation unless any members wish to see it. Councillor Montague.
I was just going to make a motion to waive the presentation.
Okay, great. Councillor Meiszner, thank you very much. Any discussion? All in favour of waiving the presentation? See aye. All opposed say nay. The presentation, which we know, would have been incredible, has been waived. So thank you very much. Would the applicant like to present the application if in attendance, or is that waived as well?
Hello. Hi. My name is Matthew Chang. I'm an architect and applicant. And I don't have any presentation, but I'm willing to answer any questions. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from council — sorry, are there any questions from council to our team members or the applicant? Noting this is the only opportunity for council to ask questions of the applicant. Seeing no one in the queue, 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 106-1-44-5 pound, before the close of the speakers 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 it's your turn. Phone-in 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 application being considered. So, Clerk, do we have any speakers in the chamber or online? No, we do not. Great. 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 106-1-445 pound before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. So we're going to take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in or come forward to the podium. That's on the clock. So, Clerk, do we have any speakers in the chamber or online? There are no speakers. Thank you. Seeing no further speakers, the speakers' list is now closed. Has there been a large volume of public comments received on the site up since 5 p.m.? No, there is not. Okay. Seeing that there are no public comments received after five, I'm now closing receipt of public comments. Does the applicant have any closing comments? I'm the applicant and I have no comment. Thank you. Thank you. Do our team members have any closing comments? No closing comments. Thank you. Thank you. Does council have any final questions for team members noting no additional questions of the applicant are permitted? Seeing no one in the queue, Clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the close of public comments? No, we did not. So thank you. So, council, we're going to now make our decision on the application. Do we have a mover. Councillor Dominato, thank you, seconded by Councillor Maloney. Thank you very much. Council, is there any discussion? Okay. A reminder that any council — oh, sorry, Councillor Maloney.
Sorry, no discussion. I just wanted to note that the heading is still on number two.
Thank you very much. Are we good now? Great. Great. So a reminder, thank you for that catch. 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. Mayor. Can I have the vote in favour, please? Sure. Councillor Kirby-Yung, noted. Mayor Sim, it's Councillor Klassen. Can I have a vote assist in favour, please? You sure can. Thank you very much. Noted. And that passes unanimously with Councillors Bligh, Fry, and Orr absent. And that completes item number three. Okay. Item number four. Thank you very much.
Item number four, CD-1 rezoning, 1550 West 11th Avenue.
So before we begin this item, does anybody wish to declare a conflict of interest? Seeing none, the Clerk is now going to read the application and summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by JTA Development Consultants to rezone 1550 West 11th Avenue from RS-3 residential district to CD-1 comprehensive development district. To permit the development of a 17-storey mixed-use building containing 160 rental units with 20% of the residential floor area as below-market rental units and commercial space on the ground floor. A floor space ratio of 6.8 and a height of 60.2 meters are proposed. The general manager of planning, urban design, and sustainability recommends approval subject to conditions set out in the summary and recommendation. The following correspondence has been received since referral to the public hearing. Five pieces of correspondence in support and six pieces of correspondence in opposition. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today.
Thank you very much. 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 106-1-445 pound. Before the close of the speakers' list, the phone number will be posted on screen 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. Okay. Good evening,
Mayor and Council and members of the public. My name is Ricardo Pedgey. I'm the planner assigned to this rezoning application at 1550 West 11th Avenue. The subject site is located mid-block on the south side of West 11th Avenue between Granville Street and Fir Street in the Fairview neighbourhood. The site is currently developed with a three-storey rental building with 27 units. The surrounding area consists of low and mid-rise apartments and the Granville High Street is located to the east of the subject site. The site is located in Fairview South Area A in the Broadway Plan. The FSA designation allows for mixed-use rental, residential tower forms with ground floor commercial, with a maximum height of 20 storeys, and a maximum density of 6.8 FSR. A minimum of 20% of the residential floor area must be secured as below-market rental units. The proposal is to rezone the site to a comprehensive development district to enable the development of a mixed-use residential building with ground floor commercial uses. The maximum height is 17 storeys or 60.2 meters, and the maximum density is 6.8 FSR. The development will contain 160 rental units, and 20% of the residential floor area will be secured for 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 not eligible to apply for the program because the site currently contains over 10 primary rental units. Please also note, this site is zoned RS-3, which would allow this form of development. This application was in stream when the city-initiated rezoning was approved in late 2025. The applicant opted to continue with the CD-1 rezoning. 71 pieces of correspondence have been received during public consultation. Public feedback in support of the rezoning found the development will help contribute to the rental housing supply. The location is suitable for additional density, given the proximity of the site to transit, and some noted the building's attractive design and massing. Some concerns were also expressed. The first was related to displacement of existing tenants and concerns the proposed housing would not be affordable for current or lower income residents. In response, staff confirmed the proposal is subject to the Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy and the enhanced tenant protections for renters in the Broadway Plan area. The project is also required to provide below-market rental units at 20% below citywide average rents. Some commenters raised concerns about the lack of existing community infrastructure and amenities to support the added density in the Fairview neighbourhood. Staff point to the public benefit strategy within the Broadway Plan, which is a strategy for developing public amenities and infrastructure to address the renewal and growth needs in the plan area. Amenities are funded in part by development contributions such as development cost levies or DCLs. Lastly, there were concerns about the height, massing and neighbourhood fit of the proposed development and staff confirm that the proposed height, scale and uses are all consistent with the policies that apply to the Fairview South Area A in the Broadway Plan. Public benefits from this application consist of DCLs and a public art contribution with the total value of $1.6 million. Other benefits from the development include 160 secured rental housing units and 20% of the floor area to be rented at below-market rates. In summary, staff recommends approval of this application subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix B, as it is consistent with the Broadway Plan. This concludes my presentation. Both staff and the applicant team are available to answer questions. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to present the application if in attendance?
Good evening. My name is Andrew Methodius Harlick, associate with JTA Development Consultants, an applicant for the proposal on behalf of the owner. 1550 West 11th Avenue. We are also here with our architect, to answer any of your questions. Firstly, thank you for the opportunity to speak and considering this proposal for rental housing in South Granville. And I'd also like to thank our planners, not only Ricardo, who's new into the project, but Sarah Cranston, of course, before, who worked with us quite extensively. And of course, all staff members on their team for their hard work during the application's review process, and through, I would like to stress, a tower redesign process, as we were better trying to address future tower separation. So that's the design that you see today. So this is a rework that we had worked through with staff, and that's the application that's before you. I would also like to quickly highlight just a few quick reasons why this project will be a community-supporting addition to the city and the neighbourhood, achieving the overall goals of the Broadway Plan. This proposal is very close to the new and soon to be opening Granville SkyTrain Station, of course, the grocery store that will go above that. It's very welcoming for not only future housing options, but to future tenants in this neighbourhood as well as it has a high level of employment. Maintaining solar access, which is a part of our redesign process as well, this is solar access to Granville Street and providing a local, quiet side street retail CRU unit, which comes with a renewed, wide pedestrian boulevard. So that comes to the setback and wider pedestrian realm on our side of the property as well as what we will have in our conditions for renewal of the public realm as well. We believe that this application will help address our presently low purpose-built rental vacancy rates. Yes, they're still quite low and to keep that momentum going, especially as our rental homes continue to age, as most were built over 45 years ago. Mine is built in 19 67, so I highly encourage to keep the momentum going for secured market rental. And this secures much-needed housing in a central area of, as we've mentioned before, high transit and employment density. This project will deliver, as mentioned, 160 rental units, 20% of those for below-market, a floor area for below-market. In our time of a housing shortage, which is, as I mentioned, still present, delivering purpose-built rental, especially with a significant portion of below-market rental, is very very much very important for supporting future affordability and, of course, rental stability for us renters. We believe this long-term rental housing contributes to our future of resilience in a growing city, as we will keep growing, for new and familiar neighbours. As well, the at-grade commercial space is integral to this proposal, intended for local serving retail, as many of JTA's projects have across the Broadway area. Of course, mainly being on a quiet side street, not on a heavy arterial traffic-ridden street. It includes pedestrian-oriented landscaping treatment that will help this future human-scale commercial space. This will also range from everything that will range under what the bylaw would permit. So as far as a use, we've yet to determine that use for that commercial space. The proposal will also adhere to the TRPP rules. Tenants have had at least over 10 touch points since the application, which was quite a while ago. This included the initial notification of the rezoning itself. The all-tenant meeting, which of course hosted numerous updates as the application was in review over that period of time, the issuance of the city's eligibility letter and needs assessment survey, as well as notifications for this public hearing. As with all of our other projects, in the plan area. I will restate that tenants will also be offered during the interim housing options within the owner's existing portfolio with the same landlord within the same neighbourhood at the tenant's choice, meaning tenants will be able to remain in the same neighbourhood in interim housing before being welcomed back into the new building within a new unit. I'd also like to stress from the first application today, we do have a mix of the 20% below-market designated areas, which is in the application itself. So designating studios, one beds, two beds, and threes. We feel that this proposal represents a responsible response to the city's current and future needs. That housing supports availability and affordability. It creates quiet spaces for local serving services, protects sunlight in the public realm. And we feel this would be a welcome addition with your...
Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from council to our team members or the applicant, noting this is the only opportunity for council to ask questions of the applicant. Seeing no one in the queue, 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 106-1-445 pound. Before the close of the speakers' list, the phone number will be posted on screen 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 it's your turn. phone and speakers will be unmuted when it's your turn to speak. Speakers will have five minutes 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 is speaker number one, Louis Villegas. Screen is blank behind you. It's coming up. Okay. My clock is running. We'll restart it. No worry. Okay. We need a couple of minute recess.
Yes.
Counselors, Claston and Kirby Young, if you can turn on your cameras, we have quorum. Counselor Meisner.
Maybe he's going through the other door. There we go. Perfect. Magic. Okay.
First slide. We go. My name is Louis Villegis. I am a resident of Vancouver and have worked as an urban design specialist for 40 years in the U.S. and Canada. I oppose this tower and towers in the neighborhoods generally for the consequence. and knock-on effects that they will bring. Let's advance one slide and another one. Thank you. But government continues down the path of the density fallacy is hard to explain. The fact showed towers, inflating land values perpetuating the government-made housing crisis. And perhaps that is the key. Captured by industry, government is fixated on maximizing private profits in order to generate revenues. Next slide, please. I would show 12. 20% below market under these market conditions, badly falls short of the affordability threshold. Next slide. Housing in 2026 is predicted to rise to levels 14 times over at 1986. The year of Expo, the commissioning of Skytrain, a year when house prices were still at par with affordability. Subtracting the government's 20% offer from the 14,400% house price inflation, we're left at 1,380. distance away from affordability. And once we round up, we're really right back at 14 times more. Next slide, please. And that's not the only place government is failing. People are being evicted from their homes. Those who elect to return are housed in arbitrarily downgraded units. They may be a one-bedroom unit, but the size in today's market is equal to what a studio used to be 20 years ago. Next slide, please. In the staff report, the neighborhood is undergoing. significant change. I see government biting its nose to bite its face here. Next slide. Government prefers no solution for ending the housing crisis. Given that it is a government-made condition, it comes as little surprise. Next. We can use the sky train to gauge the government's incapacity and planning for good urbanism. Due to exorbitant cost over the last four decades, only 80 kilometers of SkyTrain route have been. built. A rate of delivery of just two kilometers per year qualifies the sky train as a primary cause of the housing crisis. Next place. The sky train loop measures just 8.5 miles across. European LRT streetcar systems travel for 150 miles. Next. For the same cost as 80 kilometers of sky train, we can build 560 kilometers of modern LRT street car. While the sky train's blight in places they cross, hence Vancouver's requirements that sky trains must be built in tunnels. Modern LRT streetcars revitalize the streets that they use. Next. It's a win-win for Vancouver because all lines intersect at the hub. Next. But there is a rub. Compare the footprint of the two systems. LRT is shown in a orange circle, the sky train in a yellow circle. Next. In Vancouver, the cost difference between SkyT and LRT is 11 times and growing. The Broadway tunnel is one year delayed and incurring more cost overruns by the day. Elevated SkyT is seven times more expensive than LRT streetcar. Even at the lower figure seven times, 80 kilometers delivers 860 kilometers of modern transit. Next. Here we gauge the government's miscalculation. Four orders of magnitude separate the amount of LRT street. car that can be built for the same price as 80 kilometers of SkyTrain. Next, voters face a primary choice. Vote at the gang that can't shoot straight and elect an outfit that will end
the housing crisis. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker number two, Ruth Cherry. Ruth here. Speaker two is withdrawn. Speaker number three, Stephen Boas. I'm on the line. Can you hear me? We can hear you. please go ahead. Okay, I have a presentation, but I can start. Thank you, Mayor and Council,
for giving me the opportunity to speak. The first slide shows a building that's in very good condition, and it's well kept, and really we shouldn't be tearing down buildings like this. I am a Vancouver resident and a renter, and I'm opposed to the rezoning in question. Next slide, please. I'm also looking at the context and Fairview is traditionally not having too many high rises or some lower density towers on large lots with gardens and next slide. Here's a computer model just like looking down the street with a little bit of vegetation to give you an idea of the massing and the massing of some recently approved building. So there's a really big change in terms of urban scale. Next slide. On this fourth slide, you'll see a view down the block. from Pine, looking towards the building being discussed. And this is a very major change for the area in terms of parking, in terms of sun, light access, construction, and so forth. Next slide. The shadow impacts are big. They won't quite reach Granville Street on the equinoxes, but, you know, if you look at March the first, there are impacts throughout later in the year. And later times, next slide. Here's the other view of you. of the shadow coming across Gravel Street on March 1st, which is outside of the window, but it is a consideration that it is adding to issues on that front. Next slide. The City of Toronto releases their models for the entire city and resoning applications online. So that makes this kind of analysis very easy. Next slide. Now I want to talk about JTA development consultants and they are about there are about eight different towers throughout the Broadway plan that have been approved in the recent years by this council. And the common thing about them, other than the fact that they're all sites that have rental buildings, is not a single site has gone to development permit. No development permit application on your permit site for any of them, starting from 1190 West 10th, all the way to 25, West 8, all the other JT development sites. So I'm really going to ask this question. Like I hear staff talks about. about making these approvals for housing, but with JTA development consultants and the common ownership of the shell companies that are owning these various properties, they're not going ahead. They're not building housing. Like they haven't put in a single development application proposal, and the staff can correct me if I'm wrong. And, you know, ever since they started their first rezoning. So this isn't about rezoning for housing. It's about creating an insecurity for rent through, then it's actually creating a situation where, you know, We don't know what's going to happen for years. And there's no time limit on the rezoning. You can't say, if you want this rezoning, you have to have at least a development permit or enactment within 24 months. Otherwise, it's not all in void. And some of these rezoning are essentially not for housing, and it's not even for real estate. It seems to be using the idea of putting a tower on a site as a financial instrument. And I would really caution against that, especially if you're trying to build housing and also provide security of tenure for the tenants here. Promise is made by an applicant regarding how people would be rehabs and so on. That's meaningless if it's not in writing, and it's really not in the CD-1 conditions. So I would really urge counsel to look at that. There are also issues with the two towers per block limits in certain blocks where you're giving out approvals and not actual development. permits or building permits for housing. And I will mention that I think the tenants really deserve a lot better. I heard that some of the units are being used as short-term rentals in this building and some of the other buildings, like 1865 West Second, also JTA. As tenants move out, the vacated units are not rented out, but they are turned into STRs, which reduces, of course, any impact of the TRPP if it were to come. But as I said, I don't see the approvals coming for this site. So, you know, please consider that. Counsel, put in a time limit for an enactment that would become null and void if there is no action because JTA has not been advancing their projects, and it creates a lot of uncertainty for attendance. So thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Speaking number four, John Carruits. Hopefully I pronounced that correctly. You did. Can you hear me?
We can hear you. Great. Please go ahead.
Awesome. So, yeah, I live in a building 1550 West 11th, been here for 12 years as of this year. First thing, I can confirm what the last speaker said. There are Airbnbs in this building. They have been reported to the city. What has happened as a result? I'm not sure. I'm opposed to this application, and I'm speaking in the context of those who may want to return to the building or opts for the right of first refusal option. This is what. I'm contemplating. That being said, I echo entirely what the first speaker said with respect to unit sizes. The floor plan for this new building is obscene. Not a single one bedroom in the entire building would be over 500 square feet and no storage lockers are being provided. I question how a planner or a councillor can look at a couple or a retired senior who currently has 650 square feet, a storage locker, and a parking space, and then say to them that returning to 380 on the low end or 490 on the high end is any way okay. Like, this is entirely divorced from reality. I would suggest that whoever came up with these floor plans has not rented in the city in a very long time, if at all. And to that point, I wonder if any of you councillors or staff have had to deal with the loss of 30 to 50% of your living footprint. Like, regardless if you have or haven't, do you have any advice on how my neighbors and I can make this work? Like, how do we pivot? How do we absorb this loss of living space? Like, on all ears, let me know after I'm done speaking, my neighbors and I would love to hear any tips you may have. As for this situation within the context for me, this quote, unquote, extra space that's I'll be losing 100 to 250 square feet. It represents everything that keeps me interested in life beyond the nine to five workday reality or having a place to simply sleep and eat. I'm an avid outdoorsman. I camp. I fish. I play hockey. I have hockey gear. I'm a musician. I've played thousands of gigs in the city over the last 25 years. Like I have a dedicated rehearsal space here in town for my instruments, but oftentimes they have to come home with me. So what does the loss of even just 100 to 200 square feet look like? I've looked at storage space prices in town and in Burnaby, $4 to $5,000 per year for a 100 to 200 square foot storage space. That's insane. Beyond that, consider the environmental aspect. Like I said, if I go play hockey twice a week but I don't have space for my gear at home, picture this scenario. I drive from my apartment. Go to the storage space. Go to the rink. Play the game. Drive back to the storage space to drop my gear off, drive home. Hundreds of annual trips per year that I don't want to do, whether it's fishing, playing hockey, doing whatever I want. Greenhouse gas emissions, fuel costs on my end. I don't want that. And beyond those points, like, I'd ask you to consider the condo crash in the last few years in Vancouver and in Toronto. I'm sure you've seen this in the news. You've heard what real estate types are. saying people don't want to pay $600, $700, $800K plus for 500 to 600 square feet. They are by and large rejecting the floor plans of today and you know this. But they have choice because of their income levels and their buying power. Whereas we are mostly all lifelong renters and the chances that any of us will be able to buy in Vancouver at any time, slim to none. It feels like there are two groups in play here. those with money and then us, the second class citizens. Like this reduction in space, it benefits no one here. The only winner here is the developer and the proponent who can pack people in at their discretion. And you can't use the argument that these concerns can be mitigated because we're coming back at the same level of rent that we paid upon leaving. Like, I applaud some of the safeguards in the Broadway Plan, but this is an apples to oranges scenario. because we're not coming back to the same type of living arrangements that we left. Now, I'd like to draw your attention to the accompanying staff report dated January 6th, page 28, 54 submissions, 14 responses in support, 34 against. That's more than a two to one ratio who don't want this. This is exactly from the people in this neighborhood, not the accompanying submissions that are on the website today. I think there's a realtor from Kerrisdale, who says, yeah, let's do this. Someone else from Grandview-Woodland who's in favor of this? Fantastic. But the feedback from the neighborhood.
John, I apologize. You're at time.
Okay.
Yeah, John, thank you for speaking today. I'm sorry, you're in time.
Okay.
If there are any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium. Clerk. Are there any additional speakers online? No. Okay. 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, then 6-1-4-5 pound. Before the close of the speakers list, the phone number will be posted on screen and displayed during the recess. We're now going to take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in and come forward to the podium. No additional speakers. 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.?
There's been no correspondence. Okay. Seeing fewer, no public comments received after 5 p.m., I'm now going to close received public comments. Does the applicant have any closing comments?
Just wanted to address, Stephen Bowhouse had an excellent comment. While it seems like there are, of course, as he pointed out, many OCP signs throughout the neighborhood, it seems like things are moving both very fast, but as he pointed out, also very slowly where it looks like an action to maybe himself or the public may be taking place. To give this project as an example, we applied many months ago, so that sign has been up for quite some, quite some time. And I guess that level of acceptance through our redesign, I believe that happened some time with staff when our redesign was, you know, formally kind of submitted and accepted some time, and I believe in, you know, between August and October, pardon me for the exact date. But we're here today in February. public hearing. We've been issued our conditions letter, which council might be familiar with, is our kind of marching orders. So then we have to go through a process of addressing those before the formal enactment goes into place and that the development permit process can start. So it is a lengthy process. This project, I would like to stress that it is, I know you've heard the term non-viable. This project is viable for the client and our team, and we are very eager to go ahead. We didn't want to be here at a public hearing in February. We wanted to be here much earlier and to get this building going and to have these rental units on market much sooner. But we are proceeding as quickly as we can. And staff is helping us do that as well to the best of their abilities. And just the amount of work in the Broadway Plan for staff's capabilities as well. So we would just like to address that. And again, just thank staff for getting us here today and, of course, working with us in the next couple steps, which is addressing those conditions and getting to formal enactment, passing through the public hearing. isn't the last step. It's only one of many steps. So I'd just like to address that. And thank you, Stephen, for that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do our team members have any closing comments? Thank you. No closing comments.
Thank you very much. Does council have any final questions for our team members, noting that no additional questions of the applicant are permitted. Councillor Meiszner.
Yeah, thanks. I wish I had noted what I wanted to ask about when the applicant was still available, but I'll see if I can ask staff. I'm just looking at the application booklet, and I'm a little confused. And I know this is kind of a detail question, but on page 31, it shows quite a few studio suites in a layout of the below market units. And then on page 44, it shows, it has a table of different like unit sizes. Actually, sorry, it's page 42. And it shows one bedroom. It says 381 square feet. And I just, I'm wondering, do we have a minimum size for one bedrooms? Because that strikes me as very small for one bedroom. Hi, thanks for the question, Councillor. Paul Chang,
assistant director, development planning. There are no minimum sizes for one, two, or three, or four bedrooms. We only have one minimum size for all units. And that is, generally 398 square feet for any dwelling unit. We let the, staff have thought about having minimum sizes for one, two, three bedroom units. But at this point right now, there are no plans on bringing those forward for council as a new regulation or anything like that.
Okay. But you, did you just say that there's a minimum size for any dwelling unit? And it's 300 and...
It's 398 square feet, relaxable down to 320 square feet. We sometimes relax it down. We sometimes relax it down. for market rental units. Never, almost never for condo units. But, you know, through our analysis, sometimes market rentals need a little bit of actual help. And so we do consider units that are less than 398 square feet for market rental units. And you might see some in this particular plan.
Yeah, the units are small. So, but you're saying like there's no minimum for, say, one bedroom.
There's no minimum for one bedroom.
Okay. The other question I had for staff, I mean, it's actually really more for the applicant, but I missed that opportunity, unfortunately. When I was looking at the floor plans for the below market, it looks like there's a lot of studio units. And do staff know if the existing building is mostly studio units? Because, you know, if people are going to move back as a result of the tenant relocation policy, presumably they would go back into the same type of unit.
Thank you for the question. I will pass it off to my colleague in housing, but I will note that there is a condition of approval to ensure enough family-sized units for the below market units. But I'll pass it off to my colleague in housing. Hi, yes, thank you, Councillor for your question. Leanna Fabro from housing. There are currently nine studio units and 14 one-bedroom units in the existing rental building. And it's proposed that there will be 10 studio units and nine one-bedroom units for the below-market rentals to be built back.
Sorry, I just missed the end of what you said. There are how many one-bedroom below market?
Nine.
Nine. Okay. But there's currently 14.
Correct. So we would condition that at development permit that all one-bedrooms should be built back for the below-market rentals in line with the current one-bedroom unit mix.
Okay. So that'll be, that'll come back in the DP stage, essentially. There'll be 14 one-bedrooms. Okay. Okay. Thanks very much.
Thank you. Councillor Kirby-Yung.
Thanks, Mayor. I had a similar question following up on Councillor Meiszner with respect to minimum sizing. So you're saying this meets policy. How are you functionally, from a design perspective, achieving a one-bedroom with 398 square feet? Are we looking at? in-board bedrooms or some other design strategy? I'm trying to visualize this.
I think one way of answering this is we do not allow in-board bedrooms in-board bedrooms in general right now unless they are not required bedrooms. So required two bedrooms, required three bedrooms, all those bedrooms and the living room are required to have a window. In a studio apartment or a one-bedroom, a proposed one-bedroom, the living room, The living room would have to have a window. However, that proposed one-bedroom is not a required bedroom under our policies. So it might be an in-board bedroom for that one-bedroom typeology.
So, okay, so let me see if I understand this correctly. So you're saying the bedrooms are not required, but they might be being positioned or marketed as one-bedrooms, but they may not actually be one-bedrooms. They may be in board or studio. Do we have any different? checks and balances on this or we don't have any policy levers? It's not very clear to me.
We had a policy changed very recently whereby, as part of the development viability kind of package, we started considering allowing rooms that did not have windows as long as they were not a living room or one of the required bedrooms under the required family size units, two and three bedroom units. Aside from that, the development industry now is able to design rooms that are not required bedrooms to be windowless if they want to do that. And they may do something like that here. We don't see the plans right now at the rezoning stage, but we'll be checking those at the development permit stage. So I guess following up in that, do we have any concerns about livability? Or we just sort of leaving this to the market aside if people don't want to be. to rent them because they're small and not necessarily providing the functionality that people want? Yes, we do have concerns about livability. Primarily, our concerns probably, I would say stop at the level of living rooms, making sure that living rooms, all living rooms have windows, and that the required bedrooms have windows. After that, we have the policy now that allows the market to decide. Okay, can I ask another question? And that is,
does is this application an anomaly? Are we seeing in terms of the sizes that are coming in? Are we actually seeing more of these?
I think I'm going to speak anecdotally from my experience, looking at lots of plans, counselor, that some of the sizes of these proposed units do seem a little bit smaller than average from what we usually see in applications.
Okay. So I'm just going to reflect back. They seem small and average, but you're saying the policy doesn't require that many one bedroom, so they can essentially build a living room with a window?
They can build a unit that has a living room with a window, and behind the living room, there might be a room that doesn't have an exterior window. Maybe it's been designed so that there are movable partitions, so that they can open up to the living room. It's a design kind of question.
And do staff have any concerns about this at this point? Or are you just saying that this meets, this meets policy?
This meets policy. This would meet policy. It would meet regulations as we have right now. Not all designs usually typically resort to that, but we do see them from time to time.
Okay. And just to be clear, it's coveted as rental of the life of the building. It cannot be, can they suddenly flip this to extended stay or something else if they're building, any smaller units? Or because it has the BMR, is it covenant, is the covenant as market rental and including the BMR?
I will, thank you for the question. I will pass it off to my colleague in housing, as I believe this would be covered under the housing agreement. Thank you, Ricardo. Yes, counselor, the market rental units and the below market rental units in the building would all be secured under a housing agreement, which secures all of the rental units, uh, for the life of the building.
Okay. Sadly, I'm at time. Thanks.
Thank you very much. Okay. Clerk, do we receive any additional public comments since the close of public comments?
We're just checking with the team in the back. No, we did not. Thank you.
Council will now make a decision on this application. Do we have a mover? Councillor Joe, seconded by Councillor Meisner. Thank you very much. Council, is there any discussion? Seeing no one in the queue, Councillor Meisner. Go ahead.
Yeah, thanks. So we see a lot of Broadway plan redevelopment proposals come forward, and I think that this is an attractive design from the outside. But I am concerned about the size of the size of these units. extremely small. I have some discomfort around one bedrooms at 381 feet feet. I think that is below what I would expect for one bedroom. And that's a concern for me. I understand that, you know, these are new and they're going to be, you know, efficient and well designed. But that is a, that is quite a small living space. And these are rental units. And, you know, people will be living in these for many years, I'm sure. So I remain concerned about the size of the units in this proposal. And I would really encourage the architect to take a look at the livability of these small units. They almost seem like hotel rooms to me. and that is, that's concerning. So I'll leave it there.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Also echoing similar concerns to Councillor Meisner, unless these are intended to be shorter term rental, and I don't mean as in STR, I mean as in people sort of not planning to live there for longer periods of time or potentially student housing. But to me, these are sizes that are more comparable even with today's construction prices and in the heart of the city with studios. So the council's job is sort of to look at something and see whether it meets policy. I think this is an interesting policy question for us to take away from this public hearing. But, yeah, I struggle with this a little bit. I'm not sure that if they were potentially marketed as studios, but positioning something as a one-bedroom, that 380 square feet or 330 is pretty concerning. So I know that our job tonight is to make a decision whether or not it meets policy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think it's meeting livability goals. So, yeah, I struggle with this one. Thanks.
Thank you. Okay. 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. Council, can you please go to the voting screen and register your vote? And that passes with Councillor Meisner in opposition and counselors Bly, Frye, and or absent. Okay, that completes item number four. Thank you very much. Item number five, CD-1 rezoning, 80-80-Ucon Street. Before we begin this item, does anybody wish or believe they need to declare a conflict of interest? Thank you, everyone. 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 purpose-driven development to rezone 8080-Ucon Street from CD-1 comprehensive development district to a new CD-1 comprehensive development district to permit the development of four residential buildings containing 903 social housing units, including a six-story building for seniors and three other buildings of 26, 28, and 32 stories, a maximum floor area of 50,190 square meters, and a maximum building height of 97 meters are proposed. The general manager of planning urban design sustainability recommends approval, subject to conditions set out in the summary and recommendation. The following correspondence has been received since referral to the public hearing. Thirty-nine pieces of correspondence in support 10 pieces of correspondence in opposition, and one piece of correspondence dealing with other aspects of the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today.
Thank you very much. This is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 18333, 353-86106-14-5-pound before the close of the speakers list. The full number will be posted on X in display during the recess. There will be an opportunity for new speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. Now, we do have our team members from planning, urban design, and sustainability here to present the application. Thank you. I'm just waiting for the presentation to appear. Thank you. So good evening,
Mayor and Council. My name is Helen Chan. I'm the rezoning planner for this application at 8080 Yukon Street. This is a property owned by the Kiwanis Seroptimist Senior Citizens Housing Society. Sorry, I'm just having my mic. We can advance the slides up here. Okay, if you don't mind, next.
Okay, I'm going to give control to you. Does that work? Okay, thank you. The site shown in red is
located at the northeast corner of Yukon Street and Marine Drive, one block east of Camby and the Canada Line Station. The site comprises one property with an existing three-story social housing apartment for seniors. Eighty-one of the current 86 residential tenancies are eligible for protections under the tenant relocation and protection policy. The neighborhood is undergoing change with residential towers constructed across on Yukon Street and employment towers approved south of Marine Drive. Next slide, please. Oh, sorry, mine is working now. Thank you. Sorry about that. So I'm going back to the Thank you. This application is being considered under the Marlboro Community Plan and the Marine sorry, I'm on the pre-policy slide. I do apologize. Oh, it's all good, you're doing great. Okay. Once again, the application is being considered in the Marple community plan and the Marine Landing Policy Update. So under these policies, the sites shown in pink are identified as existing social housing sites where rezoning may be considered in order to renew and increase the stock of social housing. The site itself is shown by the Red Circle. The marine landing updates permits increased heights in densities for developments that deliver additional affordable housing. The marine landing updates also provide for public realm improvements, including frontage improvements and a pedestrian muse for the site. Okay. This application proposes four buildings with a six-story building for seniors at the northeast portion of the site. Three towers of 26, 28, and 32 stories are also proposed. Consistent with the Marine Landing Public Realm Plan to break down long frontages,
a publicly accessible north-south pedestrian muse shown in the yellow is proposed through the site. A total of 903 social housing units are proposed. The public provided 37 submissions through a consultation process that included an online question-and-answer period and an in-person open house. The Q&A and open house were held in April of last year. Support was expressed for what was regarded as urgently required social housing and its suitable location near the Canada line, Blasloop, and shopping. However, there were public concerns about the height and scale of the development. The staff note the proposal is consistent with city policies for social access and the Marpole and marine landing areas. The public had concerns about increased traffic and pressure on transit services. However, staff note that the location encourages reduced vehicle use and parking, given its proximity to the Canada line, frequent bus transit, and bikeways. The public also expressed concerns about the loss of mature trees, but staff note that tree retention has been considered, and 22 mature trees will be retained on site. For this application, no division. cost levies, community amenity contributions, or public art are due because social housing is exempt from these requirements. The public benefit is the 903 social housing units that will be secured for the greater of 60 years in the life of the building. The applicant will also provide a statutory right-of-way for public use of the muse. So in conclusion, this proposal aligns with the Marple Community, and the marine landing policy updates. It advances the city's social housing targets by delivering 903 social housing units, including one building for seniors. Staff recommend approval subject to conditions outlined in Appendix B of the report. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer questions. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. It's nice seeing Winoa Park in there at the top of the screen. grew up by the park. Would the applicant like to present the application if in attendance?
Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name's Carla Guerrera, and I'm here as the project delivery lead of the Southwinds Place redevelopment. Today, you are being asked to approve a landmark affordable housing project, not just for Vancouver, but nationally. Southwind's Place represents the largest nonprofit-led affordable housing development in the history of Vancouver and also most significant in Canada. This project is being advanced by our clients, Sir Optimist, Kewanis Suroptimist Housing Society, a partnership of two long-standing non-profits that have been serving the city for over 100 years. As a volunteer board, Kwanis Suroptimist Society has demonstrated exceptional vision and stewardship, and they are choosing to use their land to help address the Vancouver housing crisis at a scale never before undertaken by a nonprofit. Our team at Purpose Driven Development is honored to serve as their project delivery partner, leading development and financing of this critical housing project.
My name is Janet Law, and I am speaking on behalf of the Kowanis Suroptimist Society. Our mandate has always been to serve Vancouver's most vulnerable residents by providing stable, affordable housing for seniors, working families, and supportive community spaces focused on well-being and social inclusion. For over a century, our organization has been deeply rooted in this city, responding to evolving community needs while remaining committed to service, dignity, and long-term impact that affordable housing can provide. This project represents a huge expansion and continuation of that legacy, dedicating our land to be used responsibly to provide significant housing that will serve current and future generations of the entire city. We see this redevelopment as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a meaningful contribution from our society and our board members to the city's housing, housing supply while remaining true to our mission and values. Thank you for listening.
Southwind's Place is a mixed-income intergenerational rental community that's delivering over 903 homes, over two phases, and that is retained in nonprofit ownership. It's crucial to highlight that this single project is delivering close to 10% of the city of Vancouver's 10-year affordable housing target, all at a transit node with amenities for daily life in walking distance. And it's a critical housing project at the right location and the right time. The project is intentionally designed to support a diverse mix of residents across generations, ages, stages of life, and income levels. So that includes seniors and the 90 seniors who will be relocated back to the new project, young families and working households. The project is also delivering public benefits in terms of an accessible courtyard and wellness path, intergenerational gathering spaces, seniors, outdoor amenities, and family spaces as well. With over 900 new mixed income homes, 30% of those will be below the housing income limit, advancing council's housing objectives. We want to express our success a sincere appreciation to staff, particularly the senior leadership team that was established to work with our team and for their collaboration. We also want to acknowledge the innovation and leadership of this council and previous councils. I mean this when I say you are delivering some of the most progressive affordable housing policies in Canada, and it is those policies that enable Southwinds to come before you for considerations. Without the most progressive, the DCL waivers, the short program, and the CHIP program, projects like this are simply not possible with nonprofit delivery. We acknowledge and support the Director of Planning's discretion and flexibility to resolve certain technical matters at the development permit stage, as this flexibility is essential to secure financing that this project is actively seeking with Build Canada Homes. So, counselors, over to you and Mayor, over to you. With your approval today, you have the opportunity to deliver this legacy project and demonstrate how our city delivers affordable housing at scale. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from
council to our team members or the applicant, noting that this is the only opportunity for council to ask questions of the applicant. Councillor Domino. Yes, thank you. And thank you for the presentations.
I'll start with the applicants. This is the best opportunity. I'm curious. I'm curious. You mentioned that the social housing really targets a continuum of ages and demographics. And I'm just noting in the staff report that with the housing mix, it typically requires a minimum of 35% family units. But it's been, there's a relaxation to allow 30% family units. So I think it's just under that 27.5%. Was there, from your perspective, as an applicant or rationale for that, was you're anticipating fewer families or there might be more seniors being accommodated and others. Can you just speak to that relaxation that's been afforded through staff? Yes, thank you, counselor. So there's two reasons for that. And they were analyzed very closely, and there's a lot of discussion with staff on this issue. The first is that our client is focused on the delivery of housing for seniors.
That is who they currently house. They have 90 seniors currently housed at the site who are being relocated and moving back. So with the focus on seniors, that reduction of the family unit count was a key driver. And then I'd say the second key driver is that this project requires financing and funding from all three levels of government. And each unit comes, to keep the affordability low, each unit comes with a certain level of subsidy per door. And so when we look at the difference between a 30% family units versus 35% of family units, we calculated that as a loss of over $3 million to the project, which creates an equity gap, which directly impacts the viability of the project, because somebody has to fill that equity gap. So when we made that assessment, the equity gap was so significant that we made that assessment, we worked really hard with staff to come up with where we landed. Thank you. That's helpful. I just to ask you. It's a perfect segue to another question I had. As you noted, it's pretty substantive. I don't know if we've had a project this term with proposed almost a thousand social housing units. Could you just speak to the approach to financing around this?
You mentioned Build Canada Homes. You mentioned the chip grants. I don't know if an application is made there, but maybe high level, I'm not sure what you're able to share in a public hearing about that approach. So part of why a project of this skill has never been done before is because of the level of complexity of the financing that is required to enable a project like this to be delivered exclusively by a nonprofit under nonprofit ownership.
Our client has, you know, used their land and is leveraging their land to secure, to date about $12 million in pre-construction financing. that's all risk they are taking with their land to deliver this project. And with all of the changes in government and financing that has happened over the last few years, you know, it's incredibly difficult to secure construction financing. CMHC's programs have closed, build Canada home, or sorry, B.C. Housing's programs are, you know, very tentative right now. And so, you know, projects like this are incredibly complex from a financing. landscape and require all three levels of government and a lot of flexibility from the city on on making the project viable from a financing lens. At this point, we are in active discussions with the federal government through Build Canada homes, and we are hopeful that Build Canada homes will come to the table with construction financing. But it's definitely one of the most complex projects in the country from a financing landscape because of the scale and the changing landscape in Canada for financing affordable housing in the last few years. Thank you. Appreciate the thorough answers. Thank you, Mayor. Councillor Meisner. Yeah, thanks. Councillor Dominao asked my question around the financing, so that's great. I'm just curious when you do, you know, when you're able to proceed, where will the existing residents be moved to? Do you have capacity within some of your other holdings to relocate them to,
or are you looking at a different solution? Yes, great. Thank you. So we,
We do have a tenant relocation team who's been actively on a weekly basis working with the tenants for, you know, at least the last six, eight months, one year, actually. So we, you know, the tenants, some of them have already been relocated. We have 10 of them of the 90 going to be relocated in the next couple of months.
So where they're being relocated to, luckily, with the partnership of the two nonprofits, both Surrogates, or Optimist House, they have a project that is completing at Cambian 13th. The council has approved. Thank you for that. So some of the tenants will be moving to that project when it's complete in August or September. And then the Kwanis Club have a number of other holdings that some of these tenants will be moved back to as well, or moved into. And through the partnerships with other nonprofits across the city, we're very confident that we will be able to relocate all of the tenants.
That's great. Okay, thanks. Appreciate the answer. Thank you very much. Councillor Maloney.
Yeah, I would just like to know a little bit more about the financing. I know you've already answered a question about that, but I'm just trying to understand what will be required to secure federal government funding for this. What are the kind of risks and what might improve your chances?
Thank you for the question. and certainly support from this council would actually really help given the scale of this project. The we were told we met with the minister's office last week and we were told, you know, a BC project has not yet been announced and this one is on their radar for that. There's no commitments, but it is on their radar. And certainly any support that our mayor and council could offer to the federal government. for this project I think would really help actually. But, you know, what I can say, we have submitted the application to build Canada homes. In December, we got in very early the same month the portal was open. I can also say that this project really does, you know, meet a lot of their
criteria in terms of who's being housed here. The type of housing, the location, your transit, the scale of the project really does meet a lot of their criteria. And then I can also add that, you know, our team, the architects and our development team have been working very hard to look at modular construction and innovative construction methods, which we know is a key priority for build Canada homes. So we are meeting many, many of their priorities. And we think that is why this project is high on their radar right now. Thank you.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. And question to the applicant. I'm familiar with you, because I'd like that. pleasure of voting for the Sir Optimus project off Gamby last term. My question that is really around sort of the mixed use in the proposed development, you've got the lower-rise seniors, the rental tower, and then the other two with sort of mix of office commercial industrial space. Is that helpful in terms of the financing with the mixed use? Does it help support revenue coming into the project? Or how did that factor in? with respect to the intersection of policy and the actual practicality around financing?
Yeah, just to clarify this project is exclusively housing. It doesn't have a mixed use component at this time.
Okay. I'm looking at the referral report that references the other two buildings have commercial and industrial use, including office. It's in the referral report.
Or it's, oh, it's referencing the area adjacent building.
So yours, that's not part of your site.
No. That's what I wanted to clarify. Okay. So you just have the two buildings? No, we do have four buildings, but it is all mixed income housing.
Okay. That's what I want to clarify. And then the breakdown in terms of the income mix for the four buildings. Can you walk us through any sort of distinct differences? Or are you looking at this as an overall project?
Yeah. At this point, so so much of the affordability levels is driven by the finance. that will be secured that is not yet secured for construction. So right now the project is 70% market and 30% the housing below housing income limits. I will say that, you know, if we are successful in securing a higher amount of grant from any of the lenders, that, you know, as this is a nonprofit, any of that grant will go directly into deeper affordability. to the project. That's the intent of the owner.
Okay. But starting off with a minimum of 30% and then ability to grow that, either with financing or overtime, as debt as repaid.
Correct. Correct. Okay. Great. Thank you. Appreciate it.
I, what did I want to ask? I'm sorry. I'm so tired. No, I can't remember. Thank you.
Okay. Okay. Thank you. This is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about the item, please call toll free at 1-833-353-86-10, followed by participant code 106-1-44-5 pound before the close of the speakers 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 it's your turn. Phone in, 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 registered speaker is speaker number one, Joshua Tion.
Is Joshua present? All right. Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Joshua Tiong, and I serve as a volunteer board member for the Kwanasaroptimist Senior Citizens Housing Society. And I've lived in Vancouver my entire life. Born and raised East Van and very, very privileged to be able to volunteer for projects, including this one. And that long-term connection to the city has strongly informed how I approach all of my community service. And I wanted to stress specifically the Kwanis' perspective in this project and how we've thought about it, conceptualized it, worked with our partners, our development manager, and our architects. So as a board, first and foremost, we see ourselves as stewards. And I know that we've talked about deep affordability and long-term generational social housing. So the land and housing that we see are held in trust, and we see it as our responsibility to ensure that they continue to serve the public good. And that means not only for today, but over the long term. That responsibility includes the senior citizen residents who currently call the property home. I know that there were a lot of questions around relocation, and so we have made it a priority to reach out to our sister chapters in Kowanis across British Columbia all the way through to the island and the interior for those residents who might want to move there. And as part of our governance role, the board has been deeply engaged in ensuring that the tenants are treated fairly with respect all throughout this process, and we have made significant investments of our resources, our time, and being there present to talk to the tenants throughout this process. And so what we wanted to make sure is that this proposal is the result of a careful and disciplined process. As a volunteer board, we took our time to understand the scale of this project. We have looked through the finances infinitely. We have looked at the risks involved. We've looked at the long-term obligations that it will create. And we've asked really hard questions and tested assumptions and worked really closely with our experienced professional partners and the city staff throughout this process. So while this is a very significant undertaking we believe the project is well considered it is well supported and it is ready to move forward so any remaining details can be appropriately addressed through the city's review process and we are committed to having those conversations including from those who might be opposed to the project so that we can make sure we are continuing to be great stewards of this neighborhood so on behalf of the board I respectfully ask council to support this rezoning so the project can proceed to its next phase and that we can continue delivering on social housing. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Speaker number two, Janet Law. You've already, yep, she already spoken. Thank you very much. Speaker number three, David Olson. Hello, my name is David Olson. I'm a long-term 30-year-plus
member of the Kiwanis Club of Vancouver and that has included the positions of President, pressure, which I currently am, as well as the director for the club. I've also been, I was born and raised in Vancouver. I was born at Grace Hospital many years ago. I'm now living in the North Shore, but I fully support this project. I'd love to see it move ahead. In fact, I'm very proud that our club, which was chartered in 1919, has been supporting the senior housing for well over 50 years. And we're pleased and very, very happy to be able to provide and move ahead with the redevelopment project on this location and very supportive with it. I respectfully encourage council to support the rezoning application for our project. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. If there are any of the... additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium. Clerk, are there any additional speakers on the line?
No, there are not. Okay, this is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call to toll of free at 1-833-3-35-106, 1445 pound. Before the close of the speakers list, the phone number would be posted on X and display during the recess. So we're going to take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in or come forward to the podium.
No speakers on the line.
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. Great.
Seeing that there are fewer 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 very much. Do our team members have any closing comments? No, thank you.
Great. Does counsel have any final questions for the team, noting that no additional questions of the applicant are permitted? Councillor Dominato.
I don't. I was prepared to move the recommendation, but if others have questions, I'll wait.
Yeah, thank you.
No, I don't have questions. I can wait. I'm happy to go after.
I remember my question. I just wanted a brief description of if there are any public amenities planned for the blocks around. this development?
No. So for this application, the public amenity is the social housing itself. So as part of the public realm, they have to...
Sorry, I do understand that. I was just wondering in general if there are any new amenities planned around.
Oh. Not funded by this.
Right. Sorry.
The Marple community plan had a public benefit strategy, and the Marine Plan, landing plan updated. So you can see. some of these changes around. At Oak Ridge is the community center that's being rebuilt. There are discussions underway of expanding the library in Marple.
Yeah. Okay. Thanks very much.
So just give me two socks.
I'm just going to pause your timer. Okay. Did we receive any additional public comments since the closed public comments?
No, we did not.
Council will now make its decision on the application. Do we have a mover? for the recommendations. Thank you very much. Second.
Counselor Meisner.
Yes. Maybe the clerks can just reset my timer, please.
That would be fantastic. Or go to, okay, you want me to... Go to the main queue. Okay. Counselor Domino, go ahead.
Thanks, Mayor, and thank you to staff and also the applicant and also to Sir Optimus for presenting this evening. I have to say I was noting off the top that I don't think in the time I've served on council that we've seen a social housing proposal of such a scale. And maybe I'm mistaken, but almost 1,000 units is quite significant. And I was, maybe I've had a bit of a smile on my face throughout this because in another lifetime I was vice president of the Kiwanis Club of Victoria. And we were also, we were also stewards of, of a variety of social housing, including seniors' housing, housing for young moms with babies, and it was a great joy being part of that Kwanis family. And really to the point, I think, I think, Joshua, you were making around really holding the land and trust, but really thinking about the broader public good. And why I really love this proposal and project is because it is really leveraging partnership. So as a not-for-profit, Suropdis-a-a-Wanah. you're partnering as nonprofits, you're leveraging land that's in your trust to better the lives of both the existing seniors there, but also to provide housing for more seniors in the future. And as we've noted many times in this chamber, we have a need for more affordable housing for seniors, especially with an aging population in the city of Vancouver. But we also have a need for, as you mentioned, Carla, for young families, for people working in our city, delivering the frontline services. And that area is changing — the proximity to transit. My mom lived right at the bottom of Cambie and Marine there in one of the buildings right near the SkyTrain station up until the end of her life. And so there is a lot of change. And so I think it's a really good fit. And also appreciated your comments about trying to accommodate — making sure you're accommodating existing seniors on site. But overall, really just pleased to see this come forward and also wish you well in your ongoing endeavors around the financing with the different levels of government. But it's just a real win-win-win, and a real positive. And I think it'll be a great legacy piece for the not-for-profits, for Kiwanis, and for the city as well. So thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Meiszner. Thanks so much. Thank you. I think I got dropped off the queue. It's Councillor Kirby-Yung. Can you please put me back on? I actually think that's right. And you're — I think it.
I can come back on if you want Kirby-Yung to...
I'm happy to go after.
I just asking if somebody can put me back on.
We're going to put you back on. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor. Please go ahead and we'll...
Yeah, I'll be quick. Thanks so much for bringing this very ambitious project forward. There's a huge need for this, as you know. And I'm very appreciative of all the work that both Kiwanis Club and Sir Optimist International do in our community to house people, particularly seniors in our community. So I'm very encouraged by what you've shared on your discussions with, you know, different levels of government on financing. And I'm really excited to vote in favour of this tonight. And this is exactly the type of housing that we need in Vancouver. And thanks for all of your work on this. Thanks. And please see the chair.
Thank you, Councillor. Look, I'm going to keep my comments brief. I just want to thank everyone for the incredible work they've done on this. Yeah, getting three levels of government together. It's hard enough to get one level of government together. So... very challenging financing environment as well. Well done. Also, you know, spent a lot of time of my life growing up in that neighborhood right on 62nd, kitty-corner to Winona Park. So I know that area very well and grew up in that area. And, you know, it's good to see that there's going to be housing where regular folk can live there. It's a great community. So thank you. That — I'll take the chair back. Councillor Maloney.
Thanks very much. On my very first evening on council, I had the honour of voting in favour of the Jericho Lands project. And really, this is up there in terms of what an honour it is. I'm really thrilled to vote in support of this largest non-profit-led housing project in the history of Vancouver with 903 affordable homes. And I very much appreciate staff and the applicant and especially the Kiwanis Optimist Society, who really are demonstrating a passionate commitment to their mandate to serve Vancouver's most vulnerable residents. This beautiful, thoughtful project — it's quite stunning that it's delivering 10% of Vancouver's 10-year social housing target. What a great project. And, you know, as we've heard, this project will require financing from all three levels of government. And I very much hope that that extremely enthusiastic approval will help you secure senior government funding. What an honour. Thank you.
Thank you. Yeah, I think I mentioned earlier that I had the pleasure of voting previously on the Sir Optimist project off of Cambie — and I want to say 10th. I can't remember if it was 10th or 11th. But it was a fantastic project at the time. And I had people messaging me saying, how do I apply for or get into that housing, because people loved not only affordability, but the vision for it. There's a lot of heart behind it. And I see the same qualities being played out here tonight. So I just wanted to express gratitude. It takes a lot of expertise, but also a lot of heart and quite often a lot of just commitment and hard work to pull something like this off. And so there's obviously clearly some passionate folks behind it that have put their shoulder to the wheel to do something for community. and I'm grateful and appreciative of it. I do think we've had some large social housing projects before. I can recall a couple of them that have been zoned, but not brought forward, I think, by a nonprofit group like this. They typically have sometimes been driven more by BC Housing or government. And so I think that is particularly noteworthy. And I'm really grateful for your tenacity and heart, but your commitment to see this through. So hopefully this approval tonight is going to be another positive piece of momentum and some wind beneath the wings to help you get the rest of that funding over the finish line. And so thanks very much.
Thank you very much, Councillor. Okay. 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. Council, if you can please register your vote. And that passes unanimously with Councillors Bligh, Fry, and Orr absent. Okay, that completes item number five. Congratulations. We need a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Dominato, thank you. Seconded by Councillor Meiszner. All in favour say aye. All opposed say nay. Motion is carried. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much, everyone.