Public Hearing — February 10, 2026 — Transcript
← Public Hearing February 10, 2026
Okay. Okay, welcome everyone. I'm now going to call the public hearing of Tuesday, February the 10th, 2000 and 26th 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 ex-ad-Ban City Clerk. In the case of an emergency where we have to evacuate, the chamber, please calmly walk through the glass doors and take a left at the post and walk down the stairs. If the glass doors are obstructed for any reason, there are four exits on the side of this chamber here. And if you need mobility assistance, please stay in place. And one of our super friendly team members will come get you to a safe location. Also want to highlight the fact that there is the defibrillator at the end of this hallway, if we so need it. I do want to acknowledge that we're host. in today's public hearing on the traditional territories of the Muscoam-Squim, Squamish, and Swaito-Looth First Nations, and I do want to thank them for their generosity, hospitality, and loving care they show this great land that we get to live, work and play on. I also want to acknowledge all of our team members throughout the city of Vancouver, Hugh, work incredibly hard every single day to make this place a way better place. So thank you. With that, can we please have a roll call?
Yes, Mayor Sim is in the chair, Councillor Kirby Young, Councillor Wynne. Councillor Domenado. Councillor Bly? Councillor Frye? Councillor Montague? Present. Councillor Classen has the leave of absence for personal reasons all day. Councillor Meisner? Councillor Joe? President. Councillor Maloney? Councillor Orr? You have Coram, Mayor Sim.
Great. 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 we'll 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, including themselves, may speak for up to eight minutes. Each person being represented must confirm their name and presence in person or by a phone and may not speak separately. Please follow the live stream or at Van City Clerk 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 forum on the city's website and linked on X. If you pre-registered with a presentation, see next to have the clerk advanced your slides. A reminder, at public hearings, council acts as a quasi-judicial body and must focus solely on the merits of the rezoning or heritage application. Members may ask clarifying questions of our team members or speakers, including the applicant, but should reserve debate until after the speaker's list has. closed. After hearing from speakers, Council may, 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. Please note that a new public speaker podium has been installed on the left side of the public gallery. Team members and public speakers, please adjust the podiums as needed using the controls on your right-hand side. At the public hearing on Tuesday, February the 3rd, 26. Council completed agenda items one through three. Due to time constraints, Council recessed and is reconvening today to complete item number four. There is a separate public hearing beginning at 6 p.m. this evening, and therefore, if we do not complete the remainder of the agenda by 5 p.m., we will set another reconvening date before adjourning. So, item number four, CD-1 rezoning, 1405 Main Street and 1510 Quebec Street. So before we begin, are there any counselors who think they need to declare a conflict of interest? None? The clerk's now going to read the application in the summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by the general manager of real estate services of the city of Vancouver to rezone 1405 Main Street and 1510 Quebec Street from FC-1 Commercial District to CD-1 Comprehensive Development.
District to permit the development of a mixed-use development with 42-story sub-area A and 25-story sub-area B buildings connected by a six-story podium with 780 rental units and commercial space on the ground floor. A floor space ratio FSR of 10.6 and building heights of 129.5 meters,
425 feet and 79.8 meters, 262 feet, are proposed. The general manager of planning, urban design, and sustainability recommends approval, subject to conditions set out in the summary and recommendation. The following correspondence has been received since referral to public hearing. Six pieces of correspondence in support. Six pieces of correspondence. in opposition and zero of correspondence regarding other aspects related to the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 2 p.m. today. Thank you very much. Now, this is the first
call for speakers. If you wish to speak to counsel about this item, please call total free at 1833353-8610, followed by participant code 106-1-445 pound before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on next and displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and miss 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. Thank you. I'll wait for the public feed.
Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Brian Wong, and I'm the rezoning planner for this application under the rental housing on city-owned land, public benefits pilot rezoning policy. The site outlined in red is located on the south side of Terminal Avenue between Quebec and main streets. The site is also located directly across the street, from the Main Street Science World Sky Train Station and is currently being used as a surface parking lot. This proposal is being considered under the rental housing on city-owned land public benefits pilot rezoning policy. Five city-owned sites were identified as opportunities to deliver council's middle-income housing initiative through the Vancouver Housing Development Office. Proposed developments are to be secured as 100% rental tenure, include 35% of all units to contain two or more bedrooms, and to generate ongoing non-tax revenue streams for city priorities. The application was submitted in March of 2025 for a 42-25-story mixed-use residential development, with building heights of 425 and 262 feet, respectively, and a density of 10.6 FSR. 780 rental units and commercial space along the ground floor are also proposed. In an effort to maximize the amount of future non-tax revenue for the city, the applicant's proposed form of development is larger than what existing policies and typical urban design practices would expect. The following chart summarizes the urban design performance and outcomes. Notwithstanding the negative urban design impacts, staff recommend that council approve the application subject to the urban design conditions in Appendix B. During the public engagement period, support was received for adding housing next to a transit hub, encouragement for additional higher buildings to the area, and the opportunity for improved pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure. Concerns were related to the height and towers being inappropriate for the area, disrupted views and view cones, casting of shadows, rental units not being affordable, a lack of amenities, and the increased traffic congestion to the area. In response, for height and neighborhood character, rezoning conditions have been added to achieve a high standard of architectural excellence and skyline expression as a mitigation for the encroachment into the view cone. The area is also undergoing significant change and is characterized by a mix of development, including Pacific Central Station, B.C. Places and Expo District, Olympic Village, and the New St. Paul's Hospital under construction. Regarding affordability, this application would add 780 rental units to the city's inventory of rental housing and will provide options, options which are significantly more affordable than the average cost of home ownership. Lastly, regarding amenities and traffic safety, the proposal includes amenity spaces located on the podium and tower rooftops, and the rezoning conditions will require improvements for all road users, including a new rear lane, sidewalks, curb ramps, protected bike lane, and public bike share station. The expected DCL contribution is approximately $34 million with a public art contribution generating a total public benefit of $35 million. Other benefits are the 780 rental units and the generation of a non-tax revenue stream to fund city priorities. In conclusion, staff support this application, subject to conditions in Appendix B, staff and the applicant team are able to answer questions. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. Please note that the applicant for this item is the GM of real estate services. What that does is, does the applicant or their designate have any additional presentation.
Yes, thank you, Mayor. I'll just load this up real quick. Is that going to work? Great, thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Brad Foster. I'm the director of the Vancouver Housing Development Office. It is my pleasure to bring forward to you today a rezoning application for one of the city's most prominent and underutilized land. assets located at the corner of Main Street and Terminal Avenue. I'd like to thank you for your support to this point and the incredible cooperation we've received throughout the organization to bring this important application forward to you today. I'd also like to thank our top class design team from Enrique's architecture, who are here today to answer any questions you may have on the design approach. Just to remind council that this site is one of six that the VHDO is now working on to optimize value and financial returns for the city within the property endowment fund. This opportunity is very significant for the city of Vancouver in terms of
you as land owners. As I said, this is one of the most prominent transit oriented development sites, probably in the entire lower mainland, located just across street from the Sky train station, the Science World Skytrain Station, sorry, and at the Eastern Edge of Falls Creek. As you can see, the.
The site is currently a parking lot, which we aim to transform into a landmark development that will dramatically improve the public realm at nearly 800 new rental homes and reshape the area into a vibrant part of our growing city. And rather than describe it through words, I thought I'd just play a very brief fly-through of the presentation. You can see our site emerge on the right side of the screen, just at the eastern edge of Falls Creek. All of the buildings in gray are... our development proposals that have either been submitted into rezoning or are currently in the development pipeline.
It's not working. Oh, no. Try that again. There we go. My apologies. Try that again.
This will give you a nice overview of the context, as well as the design aspirations that we have for the buildings architecture and the public realm improvements. We feel that if there is a site to put density in the area, this is the one, given its adjacency to the SkyTrain station. This is a view from Main Street looking west towards Falls Creek. Our landscape architecture team, PWL, has done an exceptional job envisioning, beautiful setbacks at additional park space, lots of pedestrian area,
and much better flow-throughs to and from Falls Creek, the Falls Creek Network. You can see a single lobby linking the two buildings. Lots of commercial and retail space along the bottom. coffee shops or stores or places for people to relax and enjoy. Clearly important to add retail space this close to a SkyTrain station as there's lots of traffic flow. This is along Quebec. You can see the massing of the McDonald's site to the south. This is a view from science world ending with the full massing that we're proposing. And I'm going to leave it at that and open it up for questions for myself or our design team. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there a any questions from council to our team members or the applicant. Peter, or sorry, Councillor Meisner. Thanks, Mary.
Thanks, Brad, for the overview. Do you have the idea that you could share around what the estimated revenue that could be generated from this building over the life of the building in terms of market rents that would flow back to the
city? Yes, so we have a couple different numbers. And please keep in mind, these numbers are always shifted. and we'll do depend on market conditions. So we've done our best with our assumptions. The valuation at occupancy, at full occupancy, would be about $701 million. The forecasted revenue over a 35 to 40-year period would be about $695 million to the city. Okay, that's just from this one development.
Just from this one development. That's correct. Wow, that's a lot of money. Thank you for that. In terms of financing this development, is there a thought around seeking, say, build Canada homes financing or CMHC financing.
Yeah, developments, all the VHTO developments will require significant financing. This one alone is probably in the range of $700 million in financing that would be required to execute. We would tap both our federal and provincial partners when feasible, but we would also look to the private equity markets through a development partner.
Okay. So would we, basically, take whatever approach is, I guess, more advantageous to the city in terms of revenue generation.
That's right. For the financing. Yes, we want to look for the lowest interest rates possible for the financing.
And generally, that's through CMHC. Okay. And with that CMHC financing, would there be any requirements around an affordability component in terms of securing that financing?
Yes, generally, although we've had very productive discussions with them to this point where they're happy to look at our approach from. a portfolio perspective. So as you know, through Vahef, we have very significant non-market and social housing initiatives. And we would look at doing combination deals with CMHC, where they would put in financing for this at full market. And then we would bring in our non-market assets to sort of balance that equation for them. And they've been very receptive to that to this.
Okay. Thanks for that. And then my other question is related to that. The revenue that would be generated, the non-tax revenue, you know, that could be used. There's nothing federal
that from being used for affordable housing, right? No, no. No. And in fact, that's one of the points is that we would generate as much revenue. Maximize the revenue where possible, and then council could reinvest that revenue into housing or other public benefits as they see fit. Okay. And one more question on that.
Would you be able to achieve more affordable housing units saying like a wood frame building in a maybe a different location versus this concrete tower?
Yeah. Affordability is a direct result of, cost. So the lower the cost of the building, generally the lower the rents you can produce. These buildings are very expensive. So they have a higher cost associated with them.
Okay. Great. Thanks very much. Thank you very much. Councillor Kirby Young.
Yeah. Thanks, Mayor. And thanks also for the presentation. Councilor Miser has helpfully asked a couple of my questions. So there's your reflect back. I just want to make sure I heard correctly, $695 million potential revenue once built out to the city over the life of the project. Yeah. Okay. And then following up on the finance question any senior government financing that might be secured might carry affordability requirements with it potentially. But if the project doesn't get approved or doesn't get going, then there is not an opportunity to have a conversation around putting affordability into it. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. I have a question with respects to the tower placement. I'm wondering if why the taller tower is placed on Quebec and the shorter one on May. And does that have anything to do with the view cone or what's the rationale?
Does. And I'll let Sean LaPoint here from Enrique's architecture address that.
Thank you. Mayor Council. Yeah, absolutely. The, uh, we looked at the tower placement, tried to maximize as much as possible to try to get the, the taller tower to not impact the
view cone. The view cones in July of 2024 did shift. If prior to 2024, the western tower wouldn't have any impact on the view cone. They were ratified in 2020.
2024 in July, shifting the western side slightly further to the west. We tried to minimize kind of any impacts to view cone and to place the tower as far to the west as possible. Okay. So in the presentation, it noted partial blockage of views to the North Shore. Can you walk us through how much that is? Because I noticed that you're trying to work around it, but the view cones have already been kind of relaxed, if you will. You've got the larger floor plate. So how much would this potentially be intruding into the North Shore Mountains?
view? In terms of the views that are protected, the view cone protects the Mount Frome view. And in terms of that view, what is protected based on that view, it has no impact on that. In terms of kind of the width of the view that was ratified in 2024, would have a very minor impact on the
western side of that view cone. It has since 2024 also shifted further and narrowed further with the western or the eastern side of that view cone tightened even further. Okay. And then with respects to sort of the longer term view around this being proposed at fully rental housing, and obviously as we talked about, affordability can be increased over time and those are future decisions, obviously, that could be made. But notwithstanding, sort of the challenge
of cost of building and securing a financing in this point, we're still feeling bullish with respects to the rental housing being needed in the city. Like, can you speak to sort of the need overall? I know this would be 780 units. Yes. I mean, these projects take a long time. So, I mean, market conditions do change as we go along here. And market timing would certainly be a major consideration to actually get into development on this project. But as far as I'm aware, we still have that huge gap in our rental housing stock in the city of Vancouver. And this would be a major
contributor to trying to fill that gap. Okay. And obviously with city ownership, city retains ownership of the land. And we are pretty good landlords, right, in terms of security of tenure? Yes. Okay. I'll leave it there for now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Domenado.
Thanks, Mayor. And I'll direct my questions to staff, please. I'm just referring to, I don't see a slide number in here, but the slide at the table with the current existing regulation policy and proposed changes. Could you just address a couple of questions on that?
The solar access guidelines, the shadowing potentially on Creekside and certain parks,
and just to what degree, what impact are we anticipating? And any kind of shadowing studies around that? I don't know who wants to take that question. Tech Park from development planning, the program of planner on file. The solar access guidelines does provide relaxations for public benefits in this case the non-tax revenue for the city,
which this proposal meets the requirement. In terms of shadowing, it does, based on the size of the floor plate and the proposed height, it does impact shadowing on the sorting park as well as the Creekside Park and the Children's Play area. So the urban design has provided a condition 1.1 as included in the Schedule B to improve that by shaping the top or uppermost form of the towers by shaping the encroachment into the view cone as well as minimizing the shadowing and the impact on the public realm surrounding it. Okay, so that's one of the conditions is to look at the shape of the building, the built-forms, to minimize or mitigate potentially shadowing as well as. Yeah. Staff recognizes it's going to shadow the public realm at those heights, but to shape the tower form so that it minimizes that it minimizes that as the best that we can,
noting that there is a significant public benefit included in the project.
Okay. Thank you. I have another question. Obviously, this is. backdrop against the, you know, Trans-orient area's T-O-A legislation. Can you speak a little bit to the Southeast Falls Creek official development plan and contextually of where it deviates from that plan today?
And I can't recall when it was updated in the context of some of the Bank of the Bank of Planning work that we've done and what's permitted and what flexibility or allowances we have within that? I'm not sure when it was. I don't know who wants to speak to that one. So South States Fals Creek ODP was updated 2007. Now, that was previously before the TOA was considered.
In the ODP itself, it considered the form of development in the range of 20 to 25 stories. Being a landmark site, we consider it a little bit higher form than what's surrounding. thing in terms of like looking at the McDonald's site was approved for 22 stories. So in this case, a little bit higher, 25-story was probably considered. That said, with the TOA, considering this is right across the street from a sky train station, as well as in the overall context where across the main street is a lot of industrial land. So to land the residential use and density within the TOA is a lot more difficult to compare to other TOA's. as well. So from just stepping it back from from sort of staffs looking at this, you're looking, setting aside so that you've got that official development plan, but contextually with the TOA legislation that's been introduced, the proximity to this major Sky Train Station, you see that this is a positive trade-off is to go to allow the greater height and density.
Correct. Given some of those dynamics and also some of the, what I heard, in the presentation was improvements that would also be invested in in terms of the pedestrian experience around that area as well as near science world and Falls Creek. Is that a fair assessment of what we're seeing? Yeah. Okay. I'll agree with that. Okay. Thank you. I'll leave my questions there. Thank you very much, Councillor Fry. Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Questions for staff. Ryan, I think at the top in your presentation, you said that this project did have negative urban design impacts and how would we typically mitigate negative urban design impacts on a on a random proposal that came forward?
Do we have a book for something like that? Sorry, G-TAC Park development plan on file. In terms of urban design impact, when a proposal is, you know, twice as high as what the ODP was first contemplated, we have to look at in terms of, you know, when was ODP first
introduced and, you know, the current circumstances that we're considering. But at the same time, the urban design impact in terms of, like, encroachment into the view cones or increase in shadowing, you know, where we can improve that, such as even at 25 stories would shadow the Creekside Park as well as the church and play area, as well as well as certain parks. So it, and but encroaching into the view cone, for instance, we look at improving that by creating architectural excellence by shaping the top of the tower form. But do we typically look for some kind of like concessions, like some kind of, we would ask for more of the developer if they were to compensate for those kind of impacts? We talk in terms of trade-offs in terms of, like, what is the public benefit for those trade-offs, right? That's sort of, yeah.
Now, and I think that the framing was this is more affordable than home ownership. How did, how would these potential rents? stack up to market rents?
Our housing staff will answer that question. Hi. Hi, counsellor. Thank you for the question.
As an 100% market rental project, the rents would be dictated by the applicant, so we couldn't say for sure what the rents would be.
But kind of looking typically at newer rental on the west side, so that's 2015 plus. Rents go from around almost 2000 for a studio up to about 4,400 foot three bed. Okay. So I see we have a number of, thank you for that, we have a number of, obviously, we have lots of rezoning coming to council over the next little while, lots of public hearings, and I see that a number of them have a condition around below market requirements. What is the trigger where we start to ask for, you know, a certain amount of inclusionary zoning on large projects? There's a number of area plans and other rezoning policies that dictate whether it's a requirement mentor and ask for below market rental, depending on the context. In this instance, we are operating under counsel's direction for the pilot program for the five sites under VHDO's control. So the public benefit strategy was geared towards that type of outcome rather than a below market rental in this instance. This is to generate revenues for counsel to use as they see fit for the mandate. Okay. No, I appreciate that. question for the applicant then, Brad, and I know I am limited on time, but I think I heard this is projected to deliver $695 million in revenue for future counsel to use as they see fit. If there was, I'm just trying to back in the napkin math, if there was, say, 20% inclusionary zoning that was like below market out of this, would that basically reduce the revenue that council could use as they see fit to like 80% of that? by my back than at like $556 million in revenue? I don't know, but the biggest issue is that the project would not be able to debt finance through its revenue, given the significant financing that would be required to build this project. So it's less about affordable units and more about the revenues that the project can generate to service that debt. And right now, we're pretty much at, I think our analysis, and I'll defer to Rob here, but the project couldn't financially support BMR, low market rental. So how do other projects make it have? How do commercial projects make it? You would need a lot of public equity to come in. So you would need to have a public equity injection from the federal government or our provincial partners to make up for that shortfall. And right now, those funds are extremely limited. So there's no funding. for this from CMHC or PC housing? We haven't gone down that path yet, but right now I think it's quite evident with the provincial financial situation that no, that equity would not be available. And we would... I'm sorry, we're in time. Thank you.
Councilor Orr. Yeah, happy for you to sort of finish that thought. And if you said somebody else was going to... Yeah, as we said at our last public hearing, we would effectively cannibalize all of the public equity available just for one or two of our large projects, given their scale. Thanks. And then you talked about financing from CMHC and that it's not necessary that they would require affordability because of we have other sites in our portfolio. Was that correct? That's one way we're looking at it, but we would also, I mean, if it's a requirement of financing, we would do it, we could, but it would probably also require not just the financing, but an equity injection from our public sector partners. Okay. And this might be for housing, but It was mentioned by the applicant that there's a huge gap in rental housing. But just in thinking in terms of income band, where are we at? I was under the impression that we're meeting our targets or exceeding our targets of this particular income ban. Would that be accurate for housing? Do that too then. Hi, Councillor. Thank you for your question. We are on track to meet our rental housing targets. specifically in terms of income bans. I don't know which income bank you're kind of talking about, but we are somewhat on track to meet our below market rental targets as well, if that helps. So, okay, so for both below market, we're on track and for market rental, we're on track. What about, I mean, this might be unfair to put you on the spot, but what about, where are we we at, we're sort of achieving housing at hills rates or housing at welfare rates? Right? Yes, I don't have that data immediately in front of me right now, but we are doing less well on those targets. We're a little bit further behind. I could pull up that data if you wanted. Okay, yeah, thank you. That would appreciate that. That's it for me. I can hop back on. Thank you very much. Councillor Maloney. Just a quick question for the architect since or the, well, yes, the architect since I can only ask questions of you now. I'm just curious to know what extra measures are taken to make this kind of development seismically safe, given the land that it's been built on. I would have to ask our structural engineer that are not here today, but it meets the current billing code for sure for this area. We did have a geotactical report and review the land, and we would take that a step further, obviously, through the next phase, through a development permit, and especially through working drawings and building permit application. Great. Thanks. Another question probably for the applicant. So, and these are, this is me just probably repeating earlier questions, but I just want to get it really clear.
So does it help to secure senior government funding for deeper affordability if we approve this rezoning today, whether or not we include whether or not we amended it to include inclusive zoning? As long as it's approved, we can then pursue senior government funding. We, no, well, not to get into this again, I guess, but we would need these structural ability to get into financing discussions, meaning we would have to have a corporate structure surrounding the VHDO projects that would enable it to get into financing that does not roll back to the city's that. Okay. If we do obtain senior government funding and we are required to provide affordability to be eligible for that funding, I heard that you said we could offset it against other projects. Why wouldn't we, what's the disadvantage of including it in this project rather than offsetting with another project? Well, if you look at just the project economics on the Rhone, as I said earlier, if in order, affordability is, there's a direct line between affordability and cost. And right now, the amount of finance are required to do this would require each of the units to generate market returns in order to debt service that. The only way to get around, and we could explore affordability, but it would really depend on our financing relationships with our provincial or federal partners. for them to inject public equity to enable us to do that, to bring down effectively the cost of the financing for the project. And is it more likely that this will be built in the current market conditions if we don't amend this to include inclusive zoning? Yes, it is because it would be more economically viable. And in any event, it's unlikely that this will be built in the current market conditions without senior government funding? As I said earlier, the federal financing is our preferred financing partner, but we would certainly look to private equity markets as well. It would depend on the development partner that we bring to the table because these projects, the goal would be for the city to come in as an equity partner, a joint venture partner, but it would really be delivered through a private sector partner in terms of the construction. They'll have something to say about the financing. Yeah. And so when we're talking about improved market conditions, we're talking about rents increasing again or construction costs decreasing. Is that right? Well, that would be ideal. No. I mean, we would, we want costs to come down. I think the market
rents that we're seeing now are sustainable for the foreseeable future. But we have to remember that this is an absolutely ideal location for rental. This would be a high demand rental location given its proximity to Falls Creek and the Skytrain station and Chinatown and everything else that's around that area. Yeah, I guess what I'm getting at is that, and maybe this is a question for staff. I've only got 30 seconds left. I might save this for after public speakers and ask staff. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councillor Orr? Yeah. Sorry. to the applicant. You mentioned, you know, you would have to bring in a private sector sort of developer to look at this or to work together with. Are you hearing a lot of sort of appetite with that? Or are you having a lot of good discussions around that? Yes. I think I asked this of staff last time, but I didn't get to ask it of you. Is there, have you hearing any negatives? Is you hearing the development community say, why are you sort of, you know, competing with us? And then also sort of not having to, you know, offer 20% BMR. Are you hearing any of that? A little bit at the outset. I just think there was misunderstanding about what we were trying to do. But generally speaking, I think the private sector folks that we want to do business with understand, we're trying to do and do see the opportunity. So, yeah, for the revenue, you said it was around over 30 to 40 years. When would the city start to see that revenue? You would start to see revenue on stabilization of a completed. building. And the revenues would go up as the debt goes down. Yeah, of course. So it's that kind of hockey stick. Yeah, hockey stick graph there. And then how would like if something would happen in the market, like rents plummeting, that would affect that somewhat or drastically or? Very hard to predict. Very hard to predict. Okay, that's all my questions. Thanks. Thank you very much. Okay, so this is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to counsel about this item, please call toll free at 1-833-353-8610. followed by participant code 106-1-4-5 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 is 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 report being considered. So our first registered speakers, speaker number one, Joan Puzzavi. Is Joan present? I am. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, counsel. Yes, Joan Possibly. I am a resident of Vancouver, and I oppose this rezoning. Towards the end of the council meeting last Tuesday night, close to 10 p.m., I heard a comment repeated, which was that the review of this rezoning should be pretty quick, because it's essentially the same as the Barard Street one.
I can assure you that they are not. Perhaps they are in terms of perhaps how the deals are going to be structured and the scope of the projects, but these are two very different neighborhoods. The view scape and topography is completely different. Downtown versus Olympic Village, Mount Pleasant. When I was out for a walk along Quebec Street, and yes, it's my neighborhood. And first saw the development application sign on this site, my jaw dropped. I could not believe that a 42-story tower in the neighborhood was being prepared. posed. Upon reviewing tonight's documents, it's apparent that I'm not the only one who opposes this, and for very similar reasons. The increased congestion on the roads and surrounding area with the addition of 780 rental units, what's that? 1500 people, 2,000 people in that single block is unimaginable. And that's not counting the development right next door in the same block, which will add another 363 market rental unit. That's extreme density. I know. Note that the majority of people who are in favor, based on the documents provided us, do not live in the area, which doesn't surprise me because they're not going to have to deal with the fallout, the reality of this. The tower would, this tower would be significantly taller than surrounding buildings, unlike the Baird Street site, and look completely out of place with nearby structures causing shadows at great wind tunnels. This has already been mentioned. The VYDO's own applicant presentation on page five shows this, as well as the video that we just saw. And I know Brian Wong mentioned that mitigation has been done to address this. However you want to spin this, no amount of shaping or mitigation changes the fact that the proposal is for 42 stories. One of the reasons I chose this neighborhood to call home is that I understood the maximum building heights to be around 20 to 25 stories. Approving this 42-foot tower risks setting a new higher standard that would reshape our neighborhood skyline in a profoundly negative way. We heard that at last Tuesday's meeting with the Broad Street development. A speaker who presented that rezoning application said that one of the reasons that that project should be approved is that there were other buildings in the area of a similar 54-story height. Here, that is not the case. And approving this would be ruining a neighborhood. It's irreversible. Yes, this proposed 425-foot tower would be adding housing, but at what cost? You've already infringed on what was a protected view corridor. And once developed, that's gone forever. Those in favor often cited the current for use of the property. It's a parking lot. I totally agree. It's a perfect location for more housing, but only if it conforms to the existing well-thought-out restrictions like the building height. As mentioned, there is an approved development for the site right next door at 1527 Main Street. It, too, is proposing two towers, but those are 22 and 18-story towers providing commercial use at grade level and 363 market rental units. clearly that developer has found a way to make it financially viable at those heights.
Now, I don't have a profess to have a working knowledge of how the city owns properties with future rental revenues are structured.
So I can't comment, but, and perhaps a portion of this development is going to be below market rental. But if you feel it the only way to make it financially feasible is to build at those heights, then I suggest the program overall needs to be revisited. But after hearing the comments last Tuesday, it appears that maximizing revenue, regardless of the next impact to the neighborhood is by far, if not only, the only consideration. I respectfully urge this application be rejected until the building height conforms to the existing Southeast Falls Creek official development plan that the city and community put into place. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. If there are any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium. Do we have any additional speakers online?
We do not.
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 1-833-3-353-86-106-106-14-5-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. One, two, three, four, okay. Thank you very much. So do we have any additional speakers in the chamber or online?
We do not.
Okay, seeing no further speakers, the speaker's list is now closed. Has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item since 2 p.m.?
There has not been.
Okay, seeing that there are fewer no public comments received after the PM, I'm now closing the receipt of public comments. Does the applicant have any closing comments?
No, Mayor, thank you.
Staff have no closing comments?
Thank you. Does counsel have any final questions for our team members? members noting no additional questions to the applicant are permitted. Councillor Maloney.
Thanks. I'll just, I'm interested in knowing one of the things that I'm taking into account is the increased affordability of living close to transit and active transport links and in a walkable neighborhood. And a bit of extra affordability comes from not necessarily having to own an operating. a private motor vehicle and maybe if someone from transport is on the line, they might know, be able to confirm for me. I read some research a couple of years ago that running a private car costs approximately $10,000 a year once you take into account depreciation and running costs. Can anyone confirm that for me or does that just sound? It might be updates. It might cost more by now.
I don't know. Someone from transportation may want to add, but I'm familiar with that type of research. I don't have, I don't recollect data attached to rental income, but there is data out there that said, you know, basically states, because transportation is typically the second largest household cost after rent or mortgage, the opportunity for every one fewer car that you need to own per home. household that equates generally to a level of affordability that can sustain, you know, an additional $100,000 in mortgage. And if you transpose that to something like a monthly payment, that's significant savings in household costs and, and therefore improves people's ability to afford the housing. And I will say the relationship between transportation and land use is a core principle. to our land use framework. And one of the reasons why in the context of transit-oriented areas or areas like this, an area where we want to focus the sort of highest density amongst our system associated with transportation access that's of the highest order and convenience in the city and that skytrain.
Thanks. And just going back to my discussion of improved market conditions, perhaps you're going to the city. you could because we didn't have time with the applicant to really get into it. So improve market conditions essentially means higher rents or significantly lower holding costs, construction costs. Would that be right?
Yeah, I think every development requires a return that's in the market sphere. And so as prices and rents go down or tail off, We have to have to ensure costs also commensarily drop. Certainly within the sphere of our influence or direct control, we've been taking action to try and alleviate some of those costs in the short term. That's a sustained effort we need to continue. We know that if the reason why something becomes viable again is because there's scarcity and rents have jumped again, then we haven't accomplished much in terms of our housing strategy and affordability. And so that's why we need to continue. as well as other orders of government, Metro Vancouver, the province, federal government to pull the levers they have, as well as things, you know, hopefully, you know, beyond our control help to find a different equilibrium. Costs, hard costs that have risen at unsustainable rates over a number of years start to alleviate as well. And the economics of development can balance in a way that it's not just rent increases that's costing viability in the future.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay. Did we receive any additional public comments since the close of the public comments?
We have not.
Okay, counsel will now make its decision on the application. Do we have a mover of the Councilor Domino, seconded by Councillor Joe? Counselor, is there any discussion? Councillor Fry?
Yeah, I submitted an amendment to the clerks, and this is largely the same amendment that I had submitted on. I had submitted on. I'm just going to meet a few to the clerk.
Yeah, and I've submitted this amendment, and it's basically the same amendment, slightly adjusted as I had submitted in the last public hearing on the similar project, and that's to include 20% inclusionary below market housing in this project. I've certainly heard from the applicant Brad that this would, is not the model that they're seeking to finance, but, I would say that we have an obligation when we are stewards of public land to ensure that public land is used for maximum public benefit. It is the role that we have undertaken as counsel, and I think it's critical. And I would go on to say that, of course, we ask the same very requirement of applicants who come in with similar scale projects to the city of Vancouver. We have an expectation that they deliver some form of below market housing. This is a, as has been pointed out, numerous times. This is a transit-oriented area. This is exactly the kind of place we want to be providing more affordable housing, not high-end market housing. And I think it's important that we hold ourselves to the same standard that we expect from our applicants in the private sector, less this proved to be a race to the bottom, where we are denuding our city of housing that is accessible and affordable to folks earning the median income. And I think it's a matter of principle. And I think it's a practical consideration as well, given that we...
Yeah, similar to what I said the other day, I think this is a compromise. I think I would love to see 100% social housing on this site. This is city-owned land, like Councillor Frye said, and this is one of the few opportunities we have to really leverage city-owned land. and this is, like I said, a compromise, and it's what we expect from developers currently. And I'll be happy to support this. Thanks. Thank you.
Yeah, thanks. Similar to the previous proposal we'd considered last week, which had a similar to a similar a similar amendment, I think that the amendment really misses the point of this initiative, which is to take a small number. of city-owned sites across our vast portfolio of city-owned land to build market rental housing and use those sites to generate non-tax revenue for things like community centers, libraries, as well as new affordable housing on other city-owned land. So I think that this is a approach that's worth taking. We're talking about generating, as we've heard today, $695 million of non-tax revenue for city priorities. And as we've also heard today, those priorities can include affordable housing on other city-owned land. So I don't support this amendment. I think that this is a fantastic idea. I think we have a responsibility to Vancouver taxpayers to maximize our city land, not just to deliver housing for people that need it, but also to generate non-tax revenue. So I can't support this amendment. Thanks.
Yeah, thanks. I really appreciate the intent behind this. And I obviously think that revenues from developing housing on city land should be invested in increasing affordability of housing, whether it's on this site or whether the revenues are taken from one side and invested in another site. I also think that that should be the case instead of the desired approach of some on this council, to substitute for progressive sources of revenue, which require a greater contribution for those with the most capacity to contribute, which I think is a real problem when the amount of revenue from that source is being decreased years and years and years and years ahead of any prospect of these alternative revenues being generated, given the current market conditions, and given and how long it takes to build a project. So there's a pretty unrealistic gap there between also putting figures on potential future revenue depend on so many different variables as I think that it's very optimistic. But that's by the by. So I must say I'm comforted by staff's advice and the advice that. applying for senior government funding does generally require an offset amount of affordability. So and that quite frankly this is unlikely to go ahead without an injection of senior government funds. So I think what I'm trying to do is get to a spot where we're investing a lot more city money and making it easier to get senior government funds. for housing affordability, which is the number one challenge that our city faces. You know, I'm torn on this, but I'm going to support the intent of it. And I definitely want this project to go ahead because this is going to be 780 homes, close to jobs and that our city has to offer instead of 750 households having to travel from long distances to get into the city. So I think that this is a really great project. But yeah, I'm happy to support the intent of this amendment.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I'm just trying to synthesize what I'm hearing. I think. What I heard very clearly from the applicant is that in terms of sequencing, affordability requirements, inclusions at this point, and I'm paraphrasing, I don't think I can say it as eloquently as was stated, impede the ability to secure the financing. To the argument that was stated, will we require this of others so the city should, I think we also have to recognize that this is not apples and oranges in the scale of this project, which is very significant to build and can be quite different than one tower, for example, that might have a couple of hundred units. This is particularly significant in terms of delivering the 750 envisioned rental homes. And I think we also heard clearly in response to questions that I asked that approving this project and enabling it to have a platform, which does require, it was very clearly stated, some type of structural entity to secure the financing does not preclude those rents becoming more affordable over time or affordability inclusions as and when additional financing might be secured, but it would preclude the ability. There are two sort of, I guess, key success factors at this point. One is having the entity, and the other one is the ability to secure the financing. And so in terms of sequencing, I think that this is premature and would be an impediment in addition to the GBE structural impediment for it to move forward. So I'm going to make that pragmatic kind of note based on what we heard and in terms of the realities of working to deliver this. And I think the comment was that it's going to require a pretty heavy lift to secure the financing because this one project alone, given its scale, would eat up a lot of available government financing. And so, again, that's what I think needs to be kind of underlined with respect to council's consideration for this particular project, that there are sort of specific circumstances to this particular piece. And so for that reason, I'm not going to support this, but I would like to see this project get off the ground and us take some of those barriers out of the way because down the road, we would have a lot of ability to potentially with some financing include affordable housing, but also to take that very significant $695 million and invest it back into so many things that would benefit the residents of Vancouver. And they have been noted before, community centres, libraries, rinks, pools, active transportation, affordable housing, all of those things. And this is something that would span over a number of councils and a number of different — a number of council future councils and different political stripes. So it's really about being open to letting a new paradigm move forward. So I won't support this one at this point. And I just want to be clear on the reasons why. Thank you.
Thank you very much. So I'm going to call the vote on Councillor Fry's amendment. Okay. And that fails with myself, Councillor Kirby-Yung, Dominato, Montague, Meiszner, and Zhou in opposition and Maloney abstaining. Okay, so we can go to the main motion. Councillor Orr.
We are. Perfect.
Three on the queue.
Yeah, similar type situation. I submitted this to staff. They've been working very hard on this, to get the language right. I really appreciate that. And, you know, I just would be remiss if, you know, I didn't sort of stick to my values here. And, you know, we heard some, you know, comments where this, there could be potentially affordable housing here, or there could be potentially social housing. Well, this sort of guarantees that there would be at least 20% social housing at this location. So I don't want to belabour the point. You know, I feel, I'm seeing similar comments on the last amendment and feel like we know where this is going to go. but I just would be remiss, you know, to not act on what I feel are my values and what I feel are the values of many Vancouverites that, you know, are wanting social housing on city-owned land. So that's my motivation. Thank you very much.
Yeah, I very much appreciate the intent of this as well. And, but I am very cognizant of the fact that this would make this particular project very unlikely to go ahead. And I don't want to repeat myself, but this is 780 homes, close to jobs and amenities in the middle of the city that will save 780 households from having to travel long distances, not only the cost to them. but also the cost in terms of traffic congestion and cost of transport. So I share the intention of providing as much affordable housing in this city as humanly possible, both by advocating to senior levels of government and by direct investment of city revenues and streamlining approvals processes and approving the social housing initiative at some stage. But I think that this, while well-intended, this amendment, is going to make it even less likely that this project will go ahead. And I think there is value in providing more housing supply. Obviously, I want these revenues to be invested in affordable housing. Thanks.
Yeah. As just to... support this as a statement of my values as well. I am happy to support this. And we know that there are many different ways to make performance work. And we know that we are able to squeeze inclusionary zoning and affordable housing out of for-profit projects that don't come with free land owned by the people. So I am confident that in fact there are ways to make this work. And I wish that that was more the central premise of our mandate here and when we discuss this project. But I'll save that for closing. Thank you.
Okay, I'm going to call the vote on Councillor Orr's amendment. If we can please go to the voting panel. Okay, and that fails with myself. Councillors Kirby-Yung, Dominato, Montague, Meiszner, and Zhou in opposition, and Councillor Maloney abstaining. Okay. Councillor Fry.
Sorry.
We're at the main queue, yeah.
You're on. Two minutes. Two. Oh, it's not working. You're on, Councillor. No, it's not. There you go. All right. Can we reset? Thank you. All right.
Thank you. And we've heard that the premise here is to generate revenue as much as $700 million in revenue for council to use as it sees fit. But this promise has no clear mandate to deliver tangible and equitable public benefits. In fact, as I recall the press conference to announce this pilot policy, this was described as quite unique. And I seem to recall the applicant actually commenting that there was no other city known to have pursued this particular kind of model. That is to say, using the public land to generate profits. And there's a reason that cities around the world use public land for affordable, below-market housing, co-op housing. It's because as the government, we're holding the land in trust for the people. It's the public's land. We exist to manage common resources on behalf of our citizens. It's not our property. It's the public's property. Therefore, as government, we have an obligation to ensure that land is used for public purposes. We are legally and philosophically obliged to uphold that public trust, that public resources are preserved for public use and that the government must protect and manage them for the public's benefit. We're not the owners of these lands. We're the trustees. It's our social contract. And it's our responsibility and legitimacy that depends on safeguarding this basic security and housing is a core need for those needs, those asks of our residents. So, and I have to add that the legitimacy for us to impose below-market housing requirements on private for-profit developments implies a moral responsibility for us to deliver as much as we require if the public sector — I would argue we should be delivering more. But at a bare minimum, we should be upholding the same kind of asks that we demand of the private sector. Now, I appreciate the staff for recommending this in the context of the direction of the mayor's budget task force and the rental housing on city-owned lands pilot policy with the explicit goal to generate revenue that council can use as they see fit. But I do not support the idea that an unfettered future council will use this significant non-tax revenue in a manner that necessarily upholds our social contract. We know that we've seen priorities in this council term. We've seen priorities of council in previous council terms, and I am sure we will see priorities of councils in the future that do not reflect that same moral imperative as stewards of the public land. And I do believe that that should be our guiding North Star when it comes to making land use decisions. And in particular, with the land that we hold in trust for the public taxpayers who have purchased this land in the first place.
Thank you. Yeah, similar sort of comments around that. You know, noting the applicant said that this was a prominent and underused piece of land. One of the most prominent and underused pieces of land. It's near transit, near the seawall, local parks, restaurants. And there was also a comment saying, if there's any site to put density on, it's this one. And I totally agree. It's a perfect site for housing. It's a gateway to Mount Pleasant. You know, and we're relaxing shadow restrictions, view cones for public good. But if we're going to do that, it should be for maximum public good, and that should include social housing. Land is incredibly scarce, and once it's gone, it's gone forever. We heard that there's nothing fettering this from going to affordable housing, but we have no guarantees of that. And we know that future council directions could change drastically, as Councillor Fry just alluded to, you know, veering from our moral imperative. This could be anything from turning Stanley Park into an amusement park or funding a freeway, cutting through Gastown and Chinatown, so we just don't know. There's just too many unknowns. from changing market conditions to the fact that there's questions around financing to not knowing what rents will be set at, to that even that CMHC financing may not require affordability at this site. So with all that, you know, I think also to the fact that, you know, this is only a few sites in a pilot, but that could also change with future councils. And we could use all of our public land for market housing. So I agree. I think this is a perfect place for density, but I think, you know, a Vienna-style social housing complex would be incredible here. Maybe that's still impossible, but again, there's just so many questions. And I just don't think Vancouverites want to see us use city-owned land to build a 500 square foot one-bedroom for people making $90,000 a year. Thanks.
Yeah, I'll be quick. Thanks. I see this as an opportunity to create 780 rental units on what's currently a parking lot with no displacement. And that is something that we hear a lot in council concerns over displacing existing renters when we see redevelopments. This is city-owned land. It's literally right across the street from a SkyTrain station. It's in a fantastic location and there's no displacement. It's also, as stated, one of the city's most prominent and underutilized land assets. And I fully agree with that. But the biggest benefit here is that development of this land will fund ongoing non-tax revenues for the city and city priorities. And as we heard today, up to $696 million. And that will help maximize revenue for things like community centres, like pools, like libraries. And it can also help fund affordable housing elsewhere in the city. And if this project doesn't get approved, we miss the opportunity to advance the project and have discussions with agencies like CMHC around financing and also affordability components that could come into this project as a result of those discussions. And I do agree with Councillor Fry that we are trustees of this land that is owned by all Vancouverites. And we're very fortunate to have these land holdings. Well, now is the time to do something with them for the greater good. And I believe that this initiative is a responsible stewardship of public land. It's going to create hundreds of rental housing units right next to SkyTrain, as I mentioned. And it's also going to create hundreds of millions of dollars of public benefit to fund city priorities that we're struggling to fund right now through property tax. So instead of a parking lot today, we can create a whole community here and also fund other public priorities, as I mentioned. So all that said, I'll be wholeheartedly supporting this project. Thanks.
Thank you. I'm going to talk a little bit about what I think the public does expect of their council. And also note that as a councillor, I do not have an expectation about fettering future councils. I recognize that I'm here for a moment in time and it is my job to try to do the best that I can at that point with the responsibilities entrusted to us to try to steward things and create value and benefits for residents and future generations the best of your ability. There will be future councils. It has always been so. will always be so. As was mentioned, it's a parking lot. I think that residents have an expectation. They want their city council to actively be working to deliver housing — check on this project. They actively want to have rental housing — check on this project. They want secured rental housing — check on this project — 780 units. There has been a lot of attention very recently and over months and years on the city's land base assets and the utilization of those assets. It has been noted, I think, in the mayor's budget task force and in other reports that the city has a lot of underutilized land and sites that has been sitting, quite frankly, dormant for a long period of time, whether those are industrial assets, whether they're assets that can be deployed for housing. And I think that we need to pull our socks up and start actually doing something with these land assets to deliver a public benefit and a public good. And I think that housing definitely fits there — to kind of condemn something to sitting there for an indefinite period of time. And as I said, putting roadblocks in front of a significant initiative like this moving forward is fairly troublesome. It is not accurate. I do not believe that there are not other cities that are not doing housing for public benefits such as rental housing on sites. You look at the Canada Builds program, they're providing rental housing for that. There's a number of cities in BC. Toronto is starting to do that. Some of the financing programs recognize that. We're seeing that with Minister Robertson's initiatives looking and moving forward. So all to the point in saying that our world is changing and people are looking more creatively at all levels of government in terms of how those projects can be delivered. We saw it quite clearly from the provincial government that originally led on that. Now we're seeing the federal government follow suit in delivering market rental units because they see the benefit of it. Surrey City Council approved the construction of rental homes on city-owned land just recently. Canada Lands Company, other examples, and they are responding to the market conditions and figuring out how to move forward on that. Whereas meanwhile, we are debating why Vancouver should be different than that. It's been stated again, but I think it's a pretty compelling number. This is a no to the potential $695 million. I'm not naive that it's going to take an awful lot to pull it off and it's going to be years before that money starts flowing in, but a no is a zero. A no is a zero. It simply is. And so I want to vote in favour of utilizing city-owned land. I want to vote in favour of not having a parking lot. I think that the improvements are going to be fantastic at a very busy SkyTrain station there. And I want to vote in favour of 780 new rental homes that people are going to live in and are going to love being in this highly walkable, high-quality neighbourhood. Thank you.
Thanks. Yeah. I agree that this is the perfect place for density. But for me, I would like to see this built form become real to provide these homes in the centre of Vancouver. And I don't think I'm disagreeing with the sentiments about our obligation to invest in affordable housing because affordable housing is obviously a fundamental human need. Shelter is a fundamental human need and I am troubled by the idea that affordable housing could be viewed as an optional extra if there's enough money left at the end of a long shopping list but that it is absolutely crucial to reduce property taxes no matter what. Even though this council has quite correctly declared housing to be a human right. I am also, you know, this is a difficult one, but 20% or 35% of 0 is still zero affordability. And 780 rental homes are still zero affordability. And 780 rental homes in this position on this land, that's a very valuable contribution to the city. So I'll be voting in favour. Thank you. Councillor Maloney. Councillor Fry. Yeah, I just wanted to offer a helpful
clarification to Councillor Kirby-Yung's comments around the new construction project on Surrey's owned land. That does include 20% below market housing. It is a transit-oriented area development. But just to be clear, it does include 20% below market. And I think that's important to qualify in the context, which is essentially what we've been asking, or at least, Councillor Orr and I have been asking for, and just for clarity.
Thank you, Councillor Fry. Seeing no one else on the queue, we're going to move to the vote. For those of you joining us online, thank you for having your videos on. You can go ahead and vote. Thank you. And clerks, I'll take a vote — assistance in favour, please.
Chair, can I take a vote in favour, please? Is Councillor Bligh? Yes, Councillor Bligh. Noted. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, council.