Public Hearing — February 12, 2026 — Transcript
← Public Hearing February 12, 2026
Canber, can you hear us? Okay. Yes, lastly, I can hear you. Okay, perfect. We can hear you as well. Thanks. Yes, we do. Okay, I'll call this public hearing of Thursday, February 12th, 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 their video to confirm quorum, and this will also be required to vote.
The meeting is being live streamed on the city's website and YouTube, and meeting progress will be updated regularly on X at Van City Clerk. In case of an emergency requiring evacuation, there's two exits located beyond the glass doors and to the left. If the glass doors are blocked, please use one of the four additional exits within the chamber. Do not use the elevator. Use the stairs instead. If you need mobility assistance, remain where you are, and security staff will guide you to a safe location. A defibrillator is available at the very end of the hallway outside chambers.
We acknowledge that we are on the unseated homelands of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Slaiwetooth people. We thank them for having cared for this land and look forward to working with them in partnership as we continue to build this great city together. I'd also like to recognize the immense contributions of our city of Vancouver team members who work hard every day to help make our city an incredible place to live, work, and play. Just before we begin this evening's business, I would like to acknowledge the provincial day of morning to honor the victims of the Tumblr Ridge mass shooting. I know many of us are still reeling from this week's violence and tragic events in Trembler Ridge. For this community, these families, the unthinkable took place, and it has shaken our province and our nation. The city of Vancouver offers its deep condolences to the grieving parents, families, and friends who lost loved ones, and gratitude to the first responders and health care providers who were helped. There is a candlelight vigil taking place downtown at this time. While we can't attend, I ask that you join me in a moment of silence to honor the victims, their families, and to send little Maya strength for her recovery that beats each other hospital. Thank you, counsel and staff and members of the public. Clerk, may we get the roll call, please.
Acting Mayor Domino in the chair, Mayor Sim is on a leave of absence for civic business all day. Young. Councillor Lye, not here. Counselor Frye. Counselor Montague.
Present.
Counselor Classen is on a leave of absence for personal reasons all day. Councillor Meisner is on a leave of absence for personal reasons.
For personal reasons.
Counselor Joe.
Present.
Counselor Orr. Councillor Maloney. This meeting has quorum acting mayor, Domino.
Thank you, clerks. Before we begin, few announcements and reminders, 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 Vancouver resident. Those representing four or more individuals or groups, including themselves, may speak up to eight minutes. Each person being represented must confirm their name and presence in person or by phone and may not speak separately. Please follow the live stream or the at Van City Clerk on X to track meeting progress and know when your turn to speak is approaching. Please note the live stream has a slight delay. Written comments can be submitted through the mayor and council public hearing feedback 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. The procedure bylaw prohibits council members from the use of words, tone, or gestures that express negative views of individuals or groups. Members of the public are expected to not engage in improper conduct such as hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory language. Council members may raise a point of order if language is not respectful, as chair and may ask speakers to adjust the remarks accordingly. A reminder, at public hearings, council acts as a quasi-judicial body and must focus solely on the merits of the rezoning or herage application. Members may ask clarifying questions of staff or speakers, including the applicant, but should reserve debate until after the speaker's speech. list has closed. After hearing from speakers, council may approve the application in principle, approve the application in principle with amendments, refuse the application, or refer the application to staff for further consideration. Finally, if all speakers are not heard this evening, the public hearing will recess and reconvene on Thursday, February 26th, 26th at 3 p.m. So our first item on this evening's agenda is CD1 rezoning 324 West 10th Avenue. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a lot of the first time, a conflict of interest. Now is the time to declare it. Are there any conflicts? Hearing is seeing none. The clerk will now read the application and summary of correspondence received to date.
This is an application by Third Space Properties, Incorporated, to rezone 324 West 10th Avenue from R5-3 residential district to CD-1, Comprehensive Development District, District, to permit. the development of an 18-story mixed-use building containing 181 rental units with 20% of the residential floor area for below market rental units and commercial space on the ground floor. A floor space f-sr of 6.8 and a height of 58.0 meters, 190 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. Eight pieces of correspondence in support, 13 pieces of correspondence in opposition, and five pieces of correspondence dealing with other aspects of the application. This represents all
correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today. Thank you, clerks. This is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council this evening, please call 1833353-86-86-86-4-5-pound before the close of the list. Number will be posted on X 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. We have staff from planning urban design sustainability here to present the
application. Good evening acting mayor, council, and members of the public. My name is Hannah Jarrett, rezoning planner for this application being considered under the Broadway plan. The site
outlined in red is located on the south side of West 10th Avenue between Yukon and Alberta Street
in Mount Pleasant. The surrounding context consists of low-rise apartment buildings and single-detached houses, as well as commercial buildings on West Broadway and Main Street. There's an issue with the... Just pause. We don't have your presentation showing. Can we just get the, just give us one minute? Yeah. There we go. Should I restart?
Do you want staff to restart or keep going? Yes. Yeah, okay.
That'd be great. Thank you.
Good evening, acting mayor, council, and members of the public. My name is Hannah Jarrett, rezoning planner for this application being considered under the Broadway plan. The site outlined in red is located on the south side of West 10th Avenue between Yukon and Alberta Street in Mount Pleasant. The surrounding context consists of low-rise apartment buildings and single detached houses, as well as commercial buildings on West Broadway and and Camby Street. Currently, there is a three-story apartment building on site with 35 units of primary rental housing. There are tenants eligible for protections under the tenant relocation and protection policy. This application is under the Broadway plan, a 30-year plan that focuses on integrating new housing, jobs, and amenities around the new Broadway subway line. The site is located in the Mount Pleasant South apartment area A, which allows for consider of rezoning for 100% rental housing with 20% at below market rents. Buildings up to 20 stories and 6.5 FSR can be considered at this location, with minor increases in height and density considered for ground-level retail and service uses. The application proposes an 18-story rental tower with a height of 58 meters, density of 6.8 FSR, and commercial units on the ground floor. 181 rental units are proposed with 20% of the residential floor area secured for below market rents. To accommodate eligible tenants in one-bedroom units returning to the new building, we have allowed a phased approach to the number of family units, allowing for more below-market one-bedrooms at initial occupancy. The below-market family units would then increase over time as units turn over. The conditions in by-law reflect this phased approach. Please note, in December 2015, Council approved a two-year time-limited rental development relief program to improve the viability of rental projects. This application is not eligible to apply for the program because there are more than 10 existing rental units on site. Virtual Q&A period was held in May 2025 and 85 pieces of correspondence were received. Support was expressed for adding much-needed housing units, transit-oriented development close to the Broadway subway, design and form, and the local serving retail and amenities. Concerns related to building height and the tower dominating the streetscape, impact of the development on the neighborhood aesthetics and community feel, and affordability and displacement. In response to the concerns, the proposed height is consistent with the Broadway plan, and the project does not impact a protected public view. The proposal is consistent with the plan's expectations and conditions are included to further enhance the design. Regarding affordability and displacement, tenants meeting the requirement of the tenant relocation and protection policy will be eligible for the right of first refusal to return to the new building at either 20% below market rents or at the tenant's current rent, whichever is less. In addition to the 181 rental units with 20% of below market rents,
the public benefits occurring from this application include the development cost levy and public art contribution estimated to be approximately $1.8 million in total. The applicant is seeking a citywide development cost-leavy waiver for the residential floor area, which is valued at $2.5 million. Real estate services staff reviewed the application and the cost of securing the rental housing units, including 20% at below market rents, and have determined no community amenity contribution is expected. In conclusion, this proposal aligns with the Broadway plan and advances the city's rental housing targets by delivering 181 rental units with 20% at below market rents. Staff recommend approval, subject to conditions, Independence B of the report. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer questions. Thank you.
Thank you for the presentation. Would the applicant like to make the presentation?
Good evening, acting mayor and council. Thank you for your time and consideration of our application tonight. My name is Nathan Shuttleworth with Third Space Properties. I'm joined by Peter Otergaard of MCMP Architects and Shaughnessy Luke, our tenant relations consultant who is joining us virtually. We're excited to bring this application before you tonight, having submitted our rezoning inquiry in July of 2023 and then working with staff through the official rezoning application process to bring this in December of 2024. Through this proposal, we are increasing rental homes on the site fivefold, contributing both market and below market homes. You feel the proposal sensitively balances increased homes in local contexts, the scaled podium design, and streetfront retail. It leverages its unique context to improve the delivery of homes while simultaneously reducing carbon emissions compared to a typically sized Broadway area plan tower. The existing building, built in 1968, contains 35 units, and the proposed development secures 35 below market homes, with unit types that accommodate all eligible tenants. In addition to securing below market homes, it adds 146 homes to the Mount Pleasant area. These homes are a short walk to numerous grocery stores, shops, restaurants, and employers, not to mention both the Canada line and Broadway line. Tenants have had numerous touchpoints and not. updates since the rezoning application with the tenant relocation consultant actively engaging early in the process to ensure tenant needs are known and support is immediately available. Tenant relations is an aspect we take extra care in at third space as we are both long-term owners and operators of our buildings. We are confident in the long-term benefit this development will bring to the city and are happy to answer any questions. Thank you again.
Thanks. Clark, I'm checking. We have a presentation up. Does that just be connected to this or no?
I don't think so. This one right now. The applicant. Okay. I don't think, it has sponsored properties on there. I don't think.
Okay, I think we'll just, you didn't have a presentation, though, just to be clear.
Okay. We'll just take that down. I was just a little.
I know it's been a long day, but it's getting a little confused.
It's all good. All good. All good.
Okay, so counsel, we're all good there. This is time to ask questions of staff, but it's also your only time to ask questions of applicant. So please put yourselves on the queue if you have any questions. Okay, I'm not seeing any. Okay. Well, in that case, we're going to do a second call for speakers. Oh, okay, I don't, can we, sorry, Councillor Kerb Young. Can we put her on the
queue? I can. Sort of looking through, I was just, thanks. Thanks, Chair. I was just looking through some of the feedback that has been received and we've had a few projects coming in in and around this area and people are asking questions with respects to traffic. flow, the intersection on 10th Avenue with the bike lane, if people are exiting off the lane. So just wonder if the applicant can sort of speak to what that flow is going to look like. Any related supporter improvements with respects to how people are going to enter and exit?
Yeah, right now, all of the traffic is off of the lane, as opposed to the current building, which actually comes in off of the bike route. So I think we feel that's an important improvement overall. There are improvements at the intercourse. section as well as improved street lighting along 10th Avenue. And that's about the extensive the traffic improvements on site. We are expecting certainly a large contingent of bike users given the active transport location. But that's about it in terms of improvements
are how we expect traffic being moved through site. Okay. With respects to the trees and can you talk about tree preservation retention? That's also something we've heard about in this area because some of them, there's some
mature trees and not all trees are created equal and they're quite beloved. So can you can speak about tree protection plans? Yeah. Yeah. For sure. Our design actually accommodates that specifically and you'd notice that in the below grade parking. We've had our arborists out on site to develop the report. And we've shaped our parkade to pull back around where the larger tree and the critical root zone is that we expect. So we've shaped the design specifically to try to accommodate those trees as best we can through the rezoning conditions. There will be further development in terms of pruning of trees and making sure that we're complying with proper standards. And of course we'll have our arborists out on site as we
construct the building as well. Okay. So particular attention was paid to the larger more mature.
That's right. Yeah. Yeah. The design actually accommodates that in the below grade setbacks.
Okay. That's great. That's all the questions I have at this time, Chair. Thanks.
Thanks for those questions. Seeing no one else on the queue, we'll do our second call for, or first call for speakers. If you wish to Speak to Council 1833353-8610 followed by the participant code, 106-1445 pound. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. There'll be an opportunity for new speakers and miss speakers to be heard at the end. We'll now hear from members of the public. Any speakers in council chambers, please come forward to the left podium when it is your turn. Phone and speakers will be unmuted when it's your turn as well. Speakers have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the application being considered. Our first speaker, registered speaker, is Brian Gregg, and Brian should be in person. Welcome, Brian. Yeah, you have five minutes to address counsel. Perfect. Thank you, Acting Mayor Domino and Counselors. So my name is Brian Gregg, and I live at 2528 Alberta Street. I would say about 20 to 30 meters away from this subject rezoning. So I can see it
right off my front porch. In fact, it's so close that my neighbor was asked to consider a crane swing agreement because the crane is going to be that close that it'll swing over his roof. So just to provide context, I'm very close. With that, I do want to say I am a supporter of this project, subject to some traffic management considerations being taken into account. I won't delve deeply into my ideas that I've written down here at length. I think what I'll rather do is submit those subsequent to this meeting to third space and to the proponent and through to the proponent and through to the city. But I do want to touch on the fact that I have been finding that due to not only the subway construction, but also to some of the construction activities in the area in general, as well as what's now planned here, as well as at the MEC site and beyond. Alberta Street has become, I would say, the path of least resistance. And the reason being, all of the other adjacent side streets have some form of traffic calming. So if you go to Columbia, it's an exit only near the lane at Broadway. If you go to Yukon, it's been blocked off for effectively the entire duration of the subway construction for staging of equipment and building of the subway station there. If you go to Quebec and Ontario, there's portions where it's completely blocked or one way, there's the park at, for example, at Quebec and 11th. At Yukon, not too far from this proposed project, you can exit in a vehicle, but you can't, you know, drive into the neighborhood. So that's numerous examples that I've just listed, and that's not all of them. However, Alberta Street has no such traffic calming measures. And so what I've been finding, having lived there for 10 years, with my family is that people have caught onto this, and increasingly it's become a cut-through for people that are trying to get from Broadway through to 12th or vice versa. We've also become the key corridor for service vehicles, construction vehicles, and so on and so forth. And I think this is going to be increasingly the case with not only this project if it moves forward, but also the MEC site and others. So I think there's a couple of ways that this could be dealt with. I would actually favor getting rid of all of the. the traffic calming measures in the entire neighborhoods so that the burdens can be shared equally. Or all the streets should have the same traffic calming measures in place so that no one street is bearing the burdens sort of unequivalently. So those are my ideas in a nutshell. It's become a substantial safety issue not only from my family and my neighbors, but also cyclists. And I think when this project hopefully moves forward, some deep thought needs to go into how to make this safe and tenable for the neighbors that have lived there for a long time and will hopefully remain in place. So with that, I want to offer if the proponent would like to reach out to me or vice versa, I will even write them a letter of support subject to some of these traffic solutions being considered. Thank you. Thank you, Brian, and thanks for those comments for coming in this evening. If there's any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium. I'm not seeing anyone. Are there any additional speakers online clerks? Any online speakers, clerks? Okay, checking. Thanks. There are no speakers on the line. Okay, thank you. I think we're just, are we having a difficulty with the door at the back?
Okay, we'll get someone to look into that for you as well. I'm going to do our third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free 1-3-353-860 followed by the participant code. Oh, we did? Okay, that's fine. You know what? We're having some technical litters of the door. So if you could come up to the podium over here, to my right, and to state your name if you live in
the city of Vancouver and whether you're speaking in favor or opposition to this application.
My name is Phoenix Winter, and I'm grateful to be on the territories of the Musque, Williams, Guamish, and Slaway-tooth people. I am a Vancouver resident, and I live in the neighborhood on the safe. block that's going to be rezoned and I'm against the rezoning. I believe it'll disturb the neighborhood. It's a bike path. It's got the beautiful old oak trees. People come to the neighborhood that are tourists to walk through the neighborhood and especially with the Broadway construction going on. People are using the path along 10th and having construction come into that and disrupt. The lanes aren't very big as it is. I don't know how they're going to construct an 18-story.
tower on the land that's there. And what's going to happen to the bike path? What's going to happen to the people that are walking there? And I'm also concerned about the trees. And the trees are very, very old, mature trees. And it would be a real shame to see them cut down and I understand there's a tree management plan, but I don't know what that plan is. And it's not very clear to the neighbors. And if you take those trees down, you're just going to create a desert. And if you're just going to create a desert. And if you're you stand right at the corner of Yukon and 10th. You can see the trees coming up above people. And people come and take pictures. And if this rezoning goes ahead, it's going to destroy a very, very special part of Vancouver that's accessible to everyone. So that's what I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and for coming in this evening. Just triple check. Any other speakers in chambers? Okay. Go ahead. Again, state your name. you live in the city and whether you're in favor or opposition to the application. Thank you. My name is Julian Hills. Can you hear me okay? Yeah. I live immediately adjacent to the property in question on the east side. So we face Alberta and our suite looks out at the laneway. I have submitted I am opposed to this project. I submitted about 10 points of concern to council, but I would like to highlight a couple in particular. And it's to do with, first of all, parking. There's already heavy congestion and limited parking in this neighborhood, even for those who own parking permits. I do not believe that the number of lots that has been allocated in this building is sufficient. The reality is that many families and
couples have more than one car and there will be extra cars. There is no doubt. So my question is, Where are these people going to park even if they have a parking permit?
My second concern is around traffic and safety. So I have a front row seat to Alberta and to the laneway. And this neighborhood has definitely traffic control issues. I concur with the earlier speaker that with the Canada line construction, Alberta has become a very noisy street and a spot to avoid Yukon off 12th between. Broadway and 12th. So we're getting a little bit of a taste of what it might be like. My concern is, first of all, the proponent is incorrect and stating that there are cars merging out
into that block on 10th and that moving the parking to be, excuse me, to put underneath and behind through laneway access will improve the situation. There are no cars merging in because there are no driveways or parking in front of any of those buildings. So I just wanted to address that. Excuse me. But Alberta Street is not a wide street. It has parking on both sides, which is often at full capacity. And then you have people coming up off of Broadway up to Alberta Street, and they're getting stuck in traffic with people coming out of the No Frills parking lot, other cars coming out of the laneway on the opposite side. And I see a congestion there, I would say daily. What I'm concerned about is you're adding 200 plus cars to this area that's already a problem for traffic, safety, and parking. And from my own experience, I know that when I come out of the laneway and I want to turn left or right onto Alberta Street, I have a blind spot depending on how tall the cars are that are parked along the west side of Alberta Street. There's a blind spot. And so now we're adding 200 cars. they're not all going to be leaving at the same time and some of them may be taking Yukon Street, but it's a problem because sometimes you can't see what car is coming on Alberta Street until you're on Alberta Street and right in front of another car. And I've seen, I hear a lot of honking, I've seen a lot of near accidents. I also would concern that in the winter months, when it's very snowy and icy, we have a constant background of whirring spinning tires with people who don't have sufficient winter tires. and people get stuck. The cars slide. I've reported this to the police a few times requesting that the street be closed during that period because I've seen so many cars lose control. And what happens then is the car is stuck and everyone has to back out either up and down the street. This is a safety issue and while it only happens in a short amount of time in the winter, it's still, to me, too risky. Add to that, a laneway that's not particularly wide. And you have already homes. There are some houses and some laneway houses whose garages are right on the laneway. So they're going to be merging in and out to get into their properties. Then you have one set of garbage trucks, recycling trucks coming on the north side of the street one day. Another day of the week, there's another fleet of recycling and garbage trucks servicing the other side of the laneway. You have food delivery trucks. You have other delivery trucks. You have other delivery trucks. trucks and it only takes one van or one truck to block the entire laneway access. And so if you add to this, any number of cars up to 200, and not to mention during what will be a very lengthy construction period, there will be large trucks coming in out of there. And it's going to be a log jam. I sit at a desk right at that window and I see it every day and it's already not ideal. Excuse me. And I see, I have a real concern around safety. And speaking of safety, I think about how is a paramedic or an emergency response person going to be able to access our building or other buildings in the area with all of that happening.
Thank you. Thank you for those comments. That is your time, though. Thank you very much. I'm just going to do a final check. If there's anyone out in the hall there or in chambers who wanted to speak to the siting. Okay, going once, going twice. Okay, gone. We checked online. We have no one online. So I will do that final call for speakers. 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 106-144. Okay. We'll do this final call. And then just give us one second. So this is participant code 106-1445 pound. The phone number is on screen. It'll be displayed during the recess. We're going to take a two-minute recess. And if there are other individuals who are wishing to speak to this item, we'll circle back with you in two minutes. Okay. Thank you. So we can, we're just going to take a five-minute recess to sort out some technical issues. So hang tight. So you have time for a walkabout, washroom, snack. But yeah, five minutes and we'll be back. So it's 4:43. Thanks. Okay. Welcome back, Council. We have quorum. So I'm going to check with clerks. I understand we have a couple of people in chambers who want to speak. Do we have? We'll start there and then we'll see if there's anyone else online.
Anyone here who's in person and wants to speak to this application, please come up to the podium, the one on my right. And just a reminder to state your name if you're a resident of Vancouver and whether you oppose or support the application.
Hi.
You have five minutes.
Okay.
And five minutes to speak. Oh, five minutes to speak. Oh, five minutes to speak. Yeah, so go ahead.
Okay. Hi, my name's Melissa Salfi. I live in Vancouver. I'm at 309 West 11th Avenue. It's the alley house that faces that proposed building, rezoning, and I'm opposed to the application. I have two children. One's aged eight. The other one's age three. It was extremely difficult to get our daughter into our neighboring school. Currently, there's only one catchment school for, both Mount Pleasant West and all of Olympic Village, even though Olympic Village is 25 minutes walking away. This is the only catchment school. I believe that the proposal to build the Olympic Village School is not until 2029. Simon Fraser Elementary has one of the longest waiting waitlists in all of Vancouver. My understanding is that in most years, there are about 40 kindergarten spots and there's over 120 children applying. This means that most of these children in our neighborhood are going to overflow schools. They're going to schools as far away as General Wolfe,
which is located around 27th and Quebec or Ontario, Ontario around there. And in order to get there, of course the parents will need a car. So more traffic is added. Simon Fraser is complete, I've seen this, it's a capacity. It's built portables. It's done everything it could to accommodate as many kids as possible. If this goes ahead, more children will be in our neighborhood. More children will be going to overflow schools. And as a result, I'm opposed to the application because there's not enough information. structure to accommodate more children. They're also not daycares, enough daycares in the neighborhood. Many individuals are needing to turn to nanny sharing or grandparents or are unable to return to work because they are not able to get their children into daycares in our neighborhood or they have to drive to other neighborhoods in order to. accommodate their work and be able to return to work, essentially. Another concern that I did want to raise is also the traffic situation. I live in the alley, and so I also see, I agree with previous speakers about Alberta being a very dangerous zone of seen accidents. I've had trucks almost hit our garage a few times because the alley is very narrow, So I can imagine that this is going to be a hazard during the construction. I've received already a proposal in my mailbox about a crane company is wanting to negotiate with us because in order to complete this project, they will need to swing a crane over our home. Of course, this is something that I'm concerned about for the safety of my own children. And so that's something that I'm not wanting to agree. to and I think at this point it's we're not ready for a project of this scale until there's these concerns are addressed in terms of traffic, safety, parking and schooling. We're not ready for a project of the scale. Another, just going back to the parking, I know I only have a minute left. So for the parking situation, right now, we park on the streets. We have a permit. We park on the street. We only have one car. There are hardly any spots as it stands. We find it very difficult to get parking during peak times. Of course, like on the weekends easier, but during peak times, it is very difficult to find parking as it stands. And there's going to be a lot more cars coming into the neighborhood if this project goes ahead. our car has been hit a few times because of lack of space while it's been parked. And I understand that a few neighbors have experienced us as well. That's all for me. Thank you.
Thanks very much for your comments. Do we have any other speakers in chambers? Welcome. Again, if you can state your name if you're a resident and they're in favor of opposition.
Thank you. Yes, I am a resident. My name is Kathleen Adams. I live at Yukon. And 10th, so I actually have the wonderful experience of living on a very quiet street because there is, it's closed due to the Broadway subway instruction. However, I am opposed. And I am actually someone who might fit the demographic of someone that might benefit from a high-rise tower like this that's being proposed. I'm a renter. I live in a building that has about eight units. And I'm a cyclist. I'm a car owner and I love to use transit. I'm also a business owner. I work from my home. I have a law firm. And that is one of the reasons that I chose this neighborhood. I remote operate it from my home because I can get quickly from where I'm at to where I need to go, whether that is court in Port Coquitlam, or take the train downtown. When I moved into the apartment this past October, and while I was waiting for a permit and moving into the building, there was no nearby parking available for me to put my car, get my stuff up the three flights of stairs, and move into this new home. There was paid parking right across the street. No one's using it for now. But in terms of that, in-between period there truly was nothing available, nothing in the alleyway for me to use. I've found since getting my permit living in the area, I've experienced what the others have pointed out. Street parking within that one block is usually about 90% full. Luckily, my parallel parking skills are legendary. However, I will say that I have really benefited from living on the Z. traffic street of Yukon as opposed to my neighbors on Alberta, 11th, and so on. From a zoning perspective, I don't doubt that everyone involved has done all of their research. It sounds like you've met the Broadway plan, but from a community aspect, I will say that I've spoken with my neighbors who have gotten to know in this eight-unit home, and it does truly feel like a community. I speak with my neighbors when I go down and do laundry. I get to see everyone in the neighborhood that has their families. And it doesn't seem like this proposed development, for lack of a better word, really fits. What I do see fitting as I bike along 10th, as many of us do, is a series of historic homes. The building I live in is nearly 100 years old, and it has a great deal of history. And although I think advancements and the amenities that would come with this sound, of course, very shiny, I would take a moment back to reflect on the current economic status, the current vacancy rates, and the current sales market. I am someone who would potentially benefit from this high rise, and even I'm saying, I don't know if this is the time. I don't know if this is the place. And it could be an overlap with the Broadway subway that's about to go in an unknown period of time if this were to be approved, where there seriously could be, as I mentioned, 90% available parking. It could eke over into a 110%. I just don't know where I would put my car. And as someone who rents, I don't have the lovely option of using anywhere else, especially, as I said, a business owner who has places to be. So with that, I wish you the best of luck. I hope that you've taken this into consideration. That's all of my submissions for today. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay, scanning anyone else in person to speak to the application. Seeing none, the speaker's list is now closed, and we did, sorry, I'll just double check. We had no one online.
No speakers are on the line. Okay. Thank you. Has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item since 5 p.m.? No, there has not. Great in unison. Thank you. In that case, I'll close the receipt of public comments.
Does the applicant have any closing comments? Does staff have any closing comments? No, okay. So, counsel, this is the time for any final questions. They can be directed to staff, not to the applicant at this point. And I see a few counselors. I'm also going to add myself as well. Go ahead, Councillor Kirby Young. Yeah, thanks. So asking a question to staff, because I know we're considering this one
application, but we are receiving a number in this area. And I wonder if staff can comment broadly on anticipated changes to traffic plans. There's going to be construction with some new developments in the area. And then there's the Broadway construction. I wonder if you can comment if there's a plan for sort of revisiting the area with respects to how the calming works or the flow of traffic, etc. I spend a lot of time here trying to get in and around to Mount Pleasant and in and out of City Hall. And I do really feel for a lot of the comments the speakers are raising. There's a lot of intersecting demand and construction going on right now. But I know there's going to be different phases. But are we looking holistically at the area and how traffic is going to flow in and around? Yeah, good evening, counsel. Neil Peacock. I'm the acting associate director of development. major projects for engineering. I mean, really ultimately, I think we take direction from the Broadway plan as the kind of long-term vision. And of course, at the same time acknowledge this is an
area of transition, particularly with the Broadway subway complete impacts to that area. I would just acknowledge that, you know, often these are best dealt with at a neighborhood level. And we have existing programs within our department that cover this type of, you know, whether it be traffic comming measures and we monitor those. So it's is a challenge not unique to Broadway and it's best to kind of manage this as we go because you know where these applications ultimately pop up and so so can I just jump in for time then so because I'm not hearing that we're necessarily are we proactively looking at this area given just the volume and density other than as we go or existing traffic comedy measures because these are very live construction sites and it is tricky to get around the neighborhood I observe it every morning with respects to what the comments made around Yukon, Alberta. So I'm just,
I guess I'm looking for something. Is there some, is there a proactive effort from engineering to look at the flow on an interim basis during construction and then after some of this might be completed? Yeah, I would say, I mean, we generally manage this and other communities across the city through our transportation planning team and also our community transportation branch. And so to be honest, with the amount of volume, of service requests and resident inquiries. We're sort of responding to those and investigating them. So that can include things like updated traffic counts. We do site visits to assess
complaints and make recommendations. So these are kind of ongoing programs that we respond to. Do we have complaints in this neighborhood? Are we doing site visits in this neighborhood? Well, I'm sure there are. Yeah. I don't have those on file, but it's okay if you don't have the information you don't know. I'm just I'm just looking for where we're at now. And what we are doing or if we're getting specific complaints coming in. Do we know that?
I don't have anything specific with you right now, but I could follow up and get you more if you'd like.
Okay. That would be helpful because I think there's some pretty real concerns being raised. I'll leave it there for now. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Kirby Young.
Go ahead. Councilor Frye. Yeah, I think Councillor Kirby Young kind of touched on my questions as well. It was really just around traffic demand management in the context of construction and obviously ongoing construction and how we phase a lot of these things because I think that's the operative piece. Obviously, you know, development needs to proceed with shovels in the ground, but how do we actually
integrate that those impacts on the roadway and the bike route with the impacts of the station box, which presumably is going to happen pretty soon at Camby and Broadway?
Yeah. Again, I'd say the actual vocations and pace is obviously a bit of our control, but, you know, as we get into the development permit and building permit stages, we have. our traffic management reviews. So we're getting construction plans from the applicants and we have teams that look at those. They consider the current context. I'm sort of optimistic about what the state of Broadway will be when this starts construction. I think we'll largely be, you know, finalizing a lot of the road reconstruction on Broadway. So that will help to ease. But we really just try to respond to the current context as these applications move through.
Can you recently anticipate when that might, like what is the timeline for? I mean, ultimately, I think it, this is. situation where we're responding to a rezoning application and the pace of development, I think, is really with the applicant subject to market forces and their scheduling. But this is something we do on a regular basis for the hundreds of applications. And you do it well, so I thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you for the question, Scouts or Fry. I just have a couple of quick questions. You've addressed, I think, the process around traffic management during construction. Can you just clarify from our
very first speaker who identified some sort of ongoing challenges in the neighborhood.
Once the Broadway station is complete and Broadway lines open, will UConn reopen just in general? Yes, yes, it will reopen in accordance with our Broadway plan. So, yeah, that is the plan.
And also just to clarify that another comment about the driveway access off of 10th, that will be removed as part of this, so it kind of further protects that active corridor along 10th and doing that to the laneway. Okay. I appreciate that. And then just two more questions. This came up in a previous application as well as just in the context of the neighborhood, the older tree canopy that's the street trees, just to be clear. Will they be retained or impacted?
You comment on that and I have one more question after that.
Thanks for the question. So urban forestry staff from Park Board did review the application. There isn't any proposal to remove the street. trees and we do have conditions to provide an updated arborist report with the development permit and the building permit stage highlighting low impact construction methods related to protecting the roots and things like that. The applicant will also need to provide a construction
logistics plan showing where site and machinery access is proposed and then their arborist will have to comment on if there's any pruning that needs to take place with the trees and ensuring that that's according to arborist best management practices. Okay. Thank you.
And the last question, we've obviously had a lot of approvals and projects that involve cranes, but in the context of development of towers where we have lower rise construct buildings adjacent and a number of speakers highlighted, you know, the agreements are going to, you should speak to broadly crane safety because it has come up in recent years around larger scale developments. but just sort of what our expectations and because I know there's been a review too recently by sorry names escaping right now but on the workforce BC. But just be helpful because again I think a bit unique.
Kristen, it's first.
Yeah. Yeah, Omar Ljiburi from Development Planning. So typically when it comes to reviewing the technical stuff like that, it happens during the building, it happens during the building. permit and staff would just review it against safety measures and stuff like that.
Okay. And is there any information you can share as part of this public hearing in the context of the questions were raised by some of the speakers about concerns, safety concerns, gain adjacency to their homes? We haven't seen many of these yet, so I'm just curious.
I don't. I don't think we have staff from the building department.
No follow up. Your general manager coming out. Councillor Dominado, we don't have building staff with us, but I think what we can say is that the city of Vancouver follows best practice as it relates to both construction management and practices as it relates to safety on cranes and crane swing. It's not Vancouver's been building up for a significant amount of its history. And so we're well practiced in both the requirements and the practice and the practice and the over and regulation around issues around safety.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
No, no further questions on this item.
Oh, sorry, hang on.
I'm just going to check with the clerks and see if there's any further correspondence. Just give us a minute while we check that.
Yeah, there's no more correspondence.
Okay. Thank you. I think that then closes final receipt of all. correspondence. So, counsel, it's now time for decision. Can I get someone to move the recommendations? Moved? Councilor Orr, seconded by Councillor Kirby Young. This is our time for debate and discussion. I'll just clear the queue. So please put yourselves on a queue if you'd like to speak to it. Councilor Kirby Young, go ahead. Yeah, this is, I just want to know this is compliant with the
Broadway plan. It's one block off Broadway and it does provide new homes. I am very empathetic to the concerns were raised with respects to traffic flow and traffic management. I think that's something that hopefully engineering staff are listening thoughtfully and taking to heart because I do think that given the amount of activity in the area and the intersection between Broadway construction and other projects that that proactively does need to be looked at. So I will follow up on that myself as well. But in balance, I do think it's a good project. It's a nice looking building. It also includes below market rental, which is something that we hear. People want to see in terms of affordability as well. There was a comment made around parking and feeling there wasn't enough. I was actually surprised by how much parking there was in this building. I think it says 199 spots and eight visitor for 181 units. Some people had referenced, well, folks might have two cars, but what we hear a lot from folks that are renting is that they don't. There are units and folks that don't have a car. And oftentimes, we've overbuilt parking. And some of it has sat empty. So I think given on balance, I think it's a pretty solid amount of parking and it is located next to new major transit infrastructure, which will allow people to go, connect into going east-west and north-south in the city. So I just wanted to note that in terms of this is actually a pretty significant amount of parking. Other than that, it's badly needed new rental homes. We still continue to need those in the city. more and more of our city and the majority of our city are actually renters. And so that is a form of tenure that we need to deliver. So for those reasons, I will support it. And I appreciate all the comments that came forward. Hopefully also with respects to the schools, the, I know we've been working closely with our staff communicating and trying to share with the school board. What's coming in in terms of expected projects and growth and hopefully they can get ahead of their curves with respects to providing school capacity. Thank you.
Thanks. Yeah, I'm also very sympathetic to the people that came to speak today that are worried about construction impacts, particularly in this area, there's a real double whammy with the construction of the SkyTrain extension plus also the construction of new buildings. I think while it's probably not much comfort in the short-term. I think that in the long term, I'm really hoping that having the sky train, having active transport corridors is going to help with the traffic situation and what we're dealing with at the moment. I don't think there's been a single objection to a rezoning in my memory where traffic issues haven't been raised. It's a huge concern for people right across the city. But yeah, I think that constructing and investing in transit is absolutely the right thing to do, albeit inconvenient in the short to medium term. I understand also that the city is doing some analysis of, we had the issue raised of garbage trucks coming on different days. And I know that in the West End, it's some. seems like there are constantly garbage trucks from different companies circling. And I think that the work that the city is doing to look at how to reduce those impacts of garbage trucks is hopefully going to progress soon because I think that it comes in fits and starts the idea of outsourcing garbage collection to different companies. It does have external effects beyond cost savings that have impacts on. impacts on the community. So I'm also really sympathetic to that. And I'm also aware that the engineering department, the traffic, the staff involved in traffic management and traffic calming are also looking at daylighting of intersections along 10th to increase visibility of all road users by reducing the ability of very large tall vehicles to park quite so close to the corners. So hopefully that will. also progress. So I hope that that sheds some light on some of the concerns that you've raised. Thanks.
Thank you, Councillor Maloney. I'm not seeing anyone else on the queue. We'll go to the vote. If you could please vote on line on Creston. And I'll take a vote assist in favor of clerks, please.
Chair, it's comfortable Joe. I want also want to be a vote of the other assistance in favor, please.
Thank you, Councillor Jo. That's noted. Thank you, Councillor Jo. That's noted. Thank you, Council.
and that item passes with Mayor Sim, Councillor Bly, Councillor Classen, and Councillor Misenor absent. Thanks very much. And that concludes this item.
Okay. We're going to move along to item two, which is CD1 rezoning 7051 Ash Crescent, Langara Gardens. Before we begin, are there any conflicts of interest to declare? Hearing none, I'll have the clerk read the application and summary of correspondence. Actually, just pause on that. I need to make sure I have a quorum. I'm not sure. I do. Let's take a two minute recess. Presuming where we were, we're on CD1 rezoning 7051 Ash Crescent, checking if there's any conflicts of interest. Hearing none, the clerk will now read the application and summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by Concert Properties Limited to rezone 7051 Ash Crescent, Langera Gardens, from CD-1 Comprehensive Development, 47, District to a new CD-5-1, one comprehensive development district to permit a phased mixed-use development with building heights ranging from 3 to 45 stories and includes retention of the existing four rental towers, 335 units, approximately 2,600 residential housing units, and a mixed of rental below-market rental, social housing, and strata residential units. a 74 space child care facility, a 1.8-acre new linear park adjacent Churchill track, and improves to Camp, improvements to Canby Park. A total floor area of 259,393 square meter, 2,792, and 83 square feet is 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. 29 pieces of correspondence in support, two pieces of correspondence in opposition, and two pieces of correspondence of correspondence dealing with other aspects of the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today.
Thank you, clerks. This is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council on this item, please call 1833353-186-186-86-5-pound. The phone number will be posted on X 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. We have staff from planning, urban design, and sustainability here to present the application. Welcome.
Good evening chair and council and members of the public. My name is Scott Erdman, and I am the rezoning planner for this application at 7051 Ash Crescent, known as Langera Gardens. Langer Gardens is a 20.8 acre site located between West 54th and 57th avenues, just west of Canby Street and Langara Golf Course. Canby Park is to the north, Churchill's secondary school and track is to the west, and the Pearson-Dogwood High Density Mixed Mixed Use Development Site, is to the south. The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of detached dwellings, mid-rise buildings along Campi Street, and newer high-rises on the Pearson-Dogwood site.
This site is currently zoned CD1 number 47, originally rezoned in 1968 as a mixed-use site. Presently, there are four 18-story towers in the southeast corner with commercial uses on the ground floor and 270 townhouse units on the remainder of the site. In total, there are 605 rental units across the entire site. In 2015, a planning program funded by the owners of Langara Gardens was launched to develop a policy statement to guide redevelopment of the site. In 2018, Council approved the Langara Gardens policy statement, which established principles, objectives, and policies to guide a future phased redevelopment. The policy statement provided directions for land use, density, and heights, tenant relocation, housing affordability, open spaces, and public amenities. It anticipated retention of the four towers while redeveloping the remainder of the site, with a mix of housing tenures. 20% of the net new residential floor area is to be allocated for social housing units. In 2019, Council approved an Issues report, which directed staff to accept and evaluate rezoning applications on large sites such as Langara Gardens to add up to 10% extra density beyond policy for the provision of additional rental and below market rental housing. In December of 2022, staff received a rezoning application for Langara Gardens. The application proposes to replace the existing 270 townhouse units with approximately 2,600 new housing units. The proposal includes buildings ranging in height from 3 to 45 stories and an overall site density of 3.078 FSR. in height from 3 to 45 stories and an overall site density of 3.078 FSR. The proposed housing tenure mix includes approximately 1,487 strata, 592 market rental, 84 below market rental, and 438 social housing units. Staff note that there was an error in the council report, which noted 123 below market units instead of 84. The total floor area proposed for BMR units remains the same, however. The existing four towers would be retained and given seismic and life safety upgrades. Additional public benefits include a 74-space child care facility delivered turnkey to the city, a new one-acre linear park, and funding towards Cambie Park upgrades. Given its large site size, redevelopment of the site will take place over at least 15 to 20 years in likely four or five separate phases.
Phase one is anticipated to be the portion just south of Cambie Park in the purple-colored parcel as seen on the map, and then progress in a counterclockwise manner around the site. The existing towers, which are to be retained and upgraded, are in the gray colored parcel on the lower right. A phased redevelopment approach allows for a balance of new housing and public benefits to be delivered in each phase, while also minimizing the number of residents to be relocated at any one time. Detailed drawings for new buildings will be submitted with each development permit application as each phase moves forward, with urban design, open spaces, and the public realm informed by the design guidelines submitted with this rezoning. There are currently 605 rental units on site today. As mentioned earlier, the application proposes to retain and upgrade the four existing towers and replace the 270 townhouses with 2,600 new housing units. One advantage of Langara Gardens is that being a large site, and with development taking place over multiple phases, it means there are opportunities for on-site interim and permanent relocation, thereby minimizing impacts for existing tenants. With each phase of development, existing residents will have multiple relocation and right-of-first refusal options. This includes opting to move into a unit in one of the existing towers at their current rents. Following construction, tenants will have the option of moving into one of the new units at their existing rents based on income eligibility criteria or into a new unit at a 20% discount to starting market rents. Tenants may also have the option to move into one of the future social housing units based on qualifying incomes for low-income households. This rezoning application proposes 20% of the total net residential floor area to be for social housing, as per the policy statement, with approximately 440 units. 180 of these units would be delivered by the applicant in Phase 2 as part of the CAC and financing offering for the application, with locations shown on the map with the yellow stars. In Phase 3, the applicant would transfer two serviced land parcels to the city for future construction of another approximately 258 units. The locations for these are shown with the red stars. Public consultation for this application included a series of online and in-person engagement events. Staff received approximately 80 pieces of feedback. Comments in support noted the addition of new housing options on the site, as well as the proposed
density and new green spaces. Concerns included tenant displacement from the new construction. Staff note that redevelopment is phased over many years and that a tenant relocation plan will provide multiple relocation and right-of-first refusal options for all tenants at the time of each development permit. There was also concerns about the affordability of the new housing. Staff note that the proposal includes a variety of housing tenures to meet a range of affordability needs, including rental, below-market rental, and social housing. Overall, there would be a net increase in affordable housing units on the site. There were some concerns regarding the proposed building heights. Staff worked with the applicant team to locate the tallest buildings in the center of the site, which will minimize shadow impacts on nearby parks and public spaces. The application proposes a variety of public benefits in their CAC offer, including financing towards 180 social housing units, a turnkey 74-space child care facility, and funding for a new one-acre linear park and Cambie Park upgrades. The application will also be providing DCLs and a public art contribution. Combined, these public benefits are worth nearly $137 million. In addition, other benefits include deed sites for additional future social housing, a land parcel for the future new park, and seismic and life safety upgrades for the existing towers. In conclusion, this rezoning application represents a significant delivery of new housing in a variety of tenures and affordability ranges, including strata, market rental, below market rental, and social housing. If approved, it would contribute approximately 2,600 new housing units towards the city's housing goals. It also includes a mix of public benefits and a tenant relocation plan to support the existing and future residents on this site, and is generally in alignment with the Langara Gardens policy statement. Staff recommends support of this application, subject to the conditions in Appendix B of the report. Staff and the applicant team are available for any questions you may have. Thank you.
We've got a slide deck, I think.
Okay. There we go.
Good evening, acting mayor and council. My name is Craig Waters. I'm the chief operating officer at Concert Properties. I'm honored to speak here on behalf of our Langara Gardens co-owners, including our partners at Peterson. At Concert, I'm just going to speak. Maybe you can move to the next slide.
Yeah, we'll get that moved.
At Concert, we have a long and proud history of building resilient, inclusive, and sustainable communities in Vancouver. We were founded in 1989 with a mandate to build assured rental housing in the city of Vancouver. We partnered with the city, the province, and Canadian pension funds, and together we delivered 1,971 purpose-built rental homes on city leased land, which we continue to manage today. Since that time, we've delivered several master plan communities, significant master plan communities, including Collingwood Village, with nearly 800 rental homes in one of the city's first transit-oriented developments, Arbutus Walk in Kitsilano, and most recently, the Creek in Southeast False Creek, where we partnered with the city to deliver 135 turnkey affordable rental units. As a community-minded developer, we've also contributed important social infrastructure over the years, including the Robert Lee YMCA, BC Professional Firefighters Burn Fund Center, multiple child care facilities, the St. James Cottage Hospice and a community centre and elementary school, many of these that have all strengthened neighborhoods across Vancouver. Our partner, Peterson, is a Vancouver-based family-owned development company as well. They've been active in real estate investments, property management, capital lending, since 1978. As a long-standing property manager at Langara Gardens, they share our commitment to building communities grounded on respect and integrity. Move to the next slide, please. We're incredibly pleased to be here this evening. Since partnering with Peterson since 2004, the journey to reach here has been more than a decade in the making, much too long, quite frankly, from our perspective. It's taken a significant effort, collaboration, perseverance from all parties to bring this application forward here tonight. We'd like to sincerely thank city staff for their years of dedicated work, and I'd particularly like to also acknowledge the city leadership team. They've been instrumental in engaging and providing guidance over the past 18 months to resolve some complex issues that had been holding us up from getting us here this evening. Before turning over the presentation to our design team, I'd like to just briefly highlight the significant opportunity this redevelopment represents. You could just move to the next slide, please. You know, as Scott said, this delivers much needed housing at scale. We're caring for the existing residents, and we're preserving what people value most about this community. This proposal has the potential to deliver approximately 2,600 new homes, ranging across all tenures and affordability levels, while retaining all four existing towers, which continue to provide critically needed affordable housing today. Move to the next slide, please. The benefits. Again, Scott outlined, I'm just going to touch on a few of them. Over 1,100 purpose-built rental homes, including 440 social housing suites. A turnkey, 74-space child care facility, funding for upgrades to Cambie Park, and a dedicated one-acre parcel for public park, as well as critical infrastructure and transportation improvements. As Scott said as well, our phased redevelopment approach, combined with retaining the existing towers, creates a rare opportunity to offer on-site relocation options for residents affected by redevelopment. Next slide, please. Over many years, we've engaged extensively with our residents and worked closely with city staff to develop a thoughtful relocation strategy that gives residents a range of future housing choices. Combined with our recent experience redeveloping older rental stock in the city of Coquitlam, we're confident in our ability to be able to manage this important and sensitive transition with care and respect. Next slide, please. We have several members from our team here this evening that would be happy to answer any questions that acting mayor and council might have. In closing, we're very proud of our development proposal, proud of the thoughtful engagement behind it, the commitment that we're making to the existing residents, and the suite of public benefits that we're offering to the city. We hope that the care and collaboration and long-term value that this proposal represents is evident, and we respectfully ask for your support this evening. With that, I'll turn it over to James Chang, who has led the design for our master plan and has been a vital part of our team from the beginning. Thank you.
Thank you, Craig. And members of council, it gives me great pleasure to be here tonight. I hope to share some fun things with you instead of all the statistics. Next slide, please.
We're just going to get the slides back up. Let's give us one minute.
I think we can skip this one. You know the site very well, and Scott has well explained all the amenities surrounding the site, including some new parks. Next please. I'd like to take this opportunity to give a shout out to a lady architect that should be recognized. Her name is Nanoula Markovic. She was the brain behind the rezoning in 1968. This was a legacy of urban design. She was a pioneer in mixed-use community and sustainable development. This was actually a rare project in 1968 that combined high-rise and low-rise living as an example in Vancouver that we now come to accept as normal. But in those days, it was exceptional. And her work is
still amazing today. Next, please.
I'd like to show you what it looked like in 1970 when the project were first built. That's the picture on the left. And the picture on the right is today. And you could see the number of trees and the park-like setting that this project has become. Next, please. And now the city has evolved with Oakridge, Pearson Dogwood, Langara Gardens, and Marine Gateway. The city has evolved. The profile has changed. Next, please. When she did her project, that's the skyline of Vancouver in 1970. And today, you could see Marine Gateway on the left, Pearson Dogwood, Langara, as well as Oakridge. So we are transforming the city to accommodate the housing that we need. Next please. What is so brilliant about her plan and the neighbourhood planning is the amount of open space and the connection to the existing community. So with Langara Gardens and Parkwood, we are able to link for pedestrians and the residents, northwards as well as east-west, to connect all the schools and circulation safely for children and senior citizens. Next please. And the most important is we're able to preserve, I would say, all of the major significant trees, including the giant sequoias. And the most important is we're able to preserve, I would say, I would say, I would say, all of the major significant trees, the oaks that line to make this project a park-like setting. Next please. And part of her genius is that she only had two roads to serve this 20 acres. And that's extremely efficient and sustainable. As you know, blacktop takes away the permeability of rain. And the trees that's been planted since have become a natural character for this. Next, please. And the other ingenious part of her planning is to create communities within community. She started a series of courtyards and with swimming pools and some of them, they became the neighbourhood centre. So when we did the public consultation, that was the main thing the residents want us to make sure we retain so that they maintain the scale of a community. Next please. And you can see this is what Ash Crescent is today and is open to the public. Anybody can drive through it and walk through it. Next please. And then the courtyard with high density and low density mixed together. Next. Next. And so we're following her footsteps. We're densifying in her footsteps. We're densifying with the same footprint. We're replacing the two-storey townhouses with some of the higher density. But we're able to maintain the trees, create a central open space, and connect in a new park. And this is a typical courtyard that will be carrying on the tradition of the mixing higher buildings as well as low buildings with green roofs and garden spaces. Next please. And that's the final site plan. I just want to show council what it looks like to walk through the project. Next please. This is coming in connecting Pearson Dogwood through the central open space that which newly created and it will feature bike path, multi-use trail as well as wetland for water collection and so on. Next please.
1157. I'm sorry.
I just got to go through this — yes, two more slides. Thank you. Just to walk you through them very quickly. Thank you. This is looking back from Cambie Park in the last slide. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
Appreciate the walk through memory lane there. That was great. So council, if you have questions, I see a couple of councillors on the queue. This is also your only time to ask questions of the applicant. So I'll advance Councillor Fry. Go ahead, Councillor Fry.
Thank you. for the applicant and thank you James for that presentation. It was really interesting, the historical retrospective and really the innovative design in urban planning. The only thing, and I love all of it, the phasing, the tree retention, the design, it's all great. The only question I have is that it is a bit of a retail desert there, and I know that there's the only retail around there is in the old towers. And is that sufficient to support the new population? Is there plans to add more retail or anything of that?
I can answer that. Council, if I, yes, we do believe that the community would be well served with not only the existing retail that exists on the property today. So there's roughly about 20,000 square feet of retail, which is in the base of the existing towers. There's also, obviously, what's already been approved by council, our neighbour across the street at Cambie Gardens has got approvals for about roughly 130,000 square feet of local-serving retail. And this site is also, which I'll remind is centrally located between both Cambie Gardens, or sorry, Cambie Gardens and also Oakridge Centre in terms of having the opportunity for major grocery and retail and shopping experiences.
Car-light in terms of...
Well, we haven't really, in terms of, well, the terms of the amount of parking we'll actually offer, we'll do that at development permit in of design development when we go through that process.
Yeah, thanks. I'll direct my question to the applicant since this is the one opportunity. I wonder on the slides as represented by James Chang, can you, can we pull one of them up? Can you walk us through where the additional one-acre parcel falls for the, that could be built out by the city as a designated additional park or green space? I'm just trying to synthesize that in my head, looking at your slides.
I want to put back up some of the slides.
Yes, if you could show us that, if that's helpful.
I think we can do that.
Okay. Thank you.
There's a moment.
We actually tried very hard to improve on Nora's site plan, and after about 10 tries we gave up, she had the best site plan. We can't really improve on her work.
Which slides do we want to go to? I just scroll through. Just let us. know when you want us to stop. Somewhere around 22-ish, I think. I don't know if this is the right one.
Slide 22 might be a good one.
I'm just looking if you can demonstrate for us or show us, where would the additional one-acre park designation appear? I'm just trying to understand where the additional park space would be.
Oh, yeah. Can we go back one slide? I think it shows a site plan. Okay, I can use this one to demonstrate. The site to the north is the existing Cambie Park. And then the green space to the left is the new central space that we have created for the residents and the neighbourhood to use as they go through the site.
So are you saying on the left of the slide abutting Ash Crescent?
The left of the slides, yeah. And that's the existing Ash Crescent. And next to it, we pull the buildings back to create much more open space to be.
shared by everybody. Okay. And that will be, that's the city's, I don't know if this is a question more for operationally, that's, that's not the, I don't know if you or the applicant want to add something to that? Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Actually go down. Let us know which slide do you want us to move to. Right. Yeah. Yeah, is the, is the next two slides, I think, if that's, we could go to that.
Because my understanding is that this is a land designation. Yeah, this is a site plan.
Okay. One thing I might add to Craig's comment, this whole process, we've actually been working in coordination with Pearson Dogwood, and the retail space, it was determined through traffic control and so on. It's closer to the new proposed station. So they were focusing more on the commercial on their site.
I'm just going because I'm restricted in the amount of time I have. And so I don't know if some of you or the rest of your team want to weigh in here, but I'm just not fully clear because I understand. that you're allocating a dirt parcel that the city would build out and I just really want to make sure that I properly understand where that is — right, just on the western edge of the parcel there — so it would be just east where it says new park next to the Churchill track — that is the one, just over one acre — okay — but it will be the city's responsibility to finish and complete that — yes — yeah — okay — and then following up with respect to the comment around the adjacent 130,000 square feet adjacent development going to Oakridge. It's a grocery desert right now, literally. So do you know if any grocery is planned for that? Because people at Oakridge, and I know that there's construction going on until the Safeway opens, but people are driving to Cambie Village and not able to go anywhere. And it's a long way between 41st and 57th. Yeah, I'm not familiar when the timing of that's going to come on in terms of. Is there a grocery planned in the adjacent neighbourhood or in some of the existing retail space you mentioned?
Not in our, not on our property, no. Okay. Are you aware of, do you happen to know? Cambie Gardens are.
is one. Which would be your neighbour immediately to the south? Yes. Yeah.
We're sorry that, yes, that's that's the south. Sorry, Cambie Gardens is immediately to the south. Sorry, yes. And they would have, they have provisions for? There's no grocery store there today.
Okay. Do you, is there any opportunity within, you mentioned the existing retail space on the site to
tenant grocery style? It would not accommodate a grocery store with the tenancy that we have in there today, so. Okay. But I'm asking that because I think that's one of the biggest misses in the Cambie
corridor to see if there's any flexibility there because people are literally, we're building these complete communities, but people are literally driving for groceries because there's no food.
Yeah, and Pearson Dogwood does have a plan for one. I'm just not sure of their timing.
Sorry, who has a plan for one? Cambie Gardens across, just across the street.
For a natural grocery store, like a full service? Okay, great. Thank you.
Thank you. Great questions, Councillor Kirby-Yung. I'm just going to advance myself. I'm going to ask this question of the applicant. I'm curious. with the, and I recognize this is phased. Let me just sort of backtrack. The existing site, aside from the towers, has I think 270 townhomes. And as you noted, the existing tenants could be accommodated through the phased development. But I'm curious if the, with any of the new construction, which I saw a lot of tower forms, there's also social housing, if any of it will have a townhome built form. And I ask because it's been. a challenge — a lot of people in the city have wanted townhomes and they're not just wanting to live in a tower form. And so I'm curious if anything that you're going to be building and replacing will be in a townhome style built form. Sorry, I don't have the right words for it, but if you kind of get my drift, particularly families and others. There is a requirement for family housing
to begin with. Secondly, the unit mix at this point, we have ground-level oriented homes. with patios and so on. And some of them will be two-storey like a townhome. So it will be further developed when we apply for development permit.
That's helpful. Could you give me just a sense of how many homes or units might look like that, be that ground-oriented, maybe?
We don't have the exact breakdown at this point. But I think the family housing unit is dictated by the city as to number of percentage for two-bedroom and more.
Yeah, I might direct this question to staff because, of course, we do have the requirements for family-sized units, but in many cases they are in a tower form.
And so when you say that, I'm not sure is that going to be accommodated in the new towers going up, or will there be any more ground-oriented or lower-density housing? I see, so go ahead.
Michael Ginter with the applicant team. So there are two, it will be accommodated, as Jim said. in the towers in the base and there we have a requirement for at least 35% in the social housing — at least 50% will be social housing. But then also it was very important. Staff noted your desire and so during the planning phase the east-west pathways and the northwest pathways, there are dedicated three-storey townhome buildings, which would be I would expect 100% two- and three-bedroom plus units.
Okay, that's helpful. I really appreciate that because I think it's still a desirable model of living for many people. And so I'll leave my questions there. I'll now advance Councillor Orr. Go ahead, Councillor Orr.
Yeah, just a question about the sort of the social housing aspect of it. A lot of times when we've seen this come forward with the 30% at-scale, I seem to remember there are also sort of being a situation where we actually get to a much higher rate of social housing. and percentage, sorry, not rate, due to sort of starting the process and being able to sort of begin looking at senior levels of government. Is that something that would be accurate on this site where we could see, you know, potentially higher than 30%?
Hi, thank you. Dan Garrison, Housing Policy and Regulation. Councillor, that is exactly the plan. The plan sets out a way to get the sort of social housing built through a combination of CAC allocation and financing with the applicant. We've used as a starting assumption, just conventional financing. When we go forward, we intend to — the city will work for our non-market development operations group with Concert and with a social housing operator that is selected through a procurement process to try to secure government financing, to try to secure funding to deepen affordability. So that's definitely part of the plan and part of the construct.
And then for the dirt site, could you just walk me like sort of around how that would look?
Would you have to partner with a different developer or? There's a number of ways it could get developed, but when this dirt site gets transferred to the city a little bit later in the phase because it has to be transferred after the servicing is delivered in that part of the site, the city, again, through our non-market delivered development operations group, would generally do a like a procurement. process and RFP for a nonprofit to work with us to develop it. How it actually gets built would then be a part of that process that would come back and be approved by counsel. It could be an extension of the partnership with the developer on this site. It could be through a nonprofit and a builder that they work with. So that's sort of to be determined.
Okay, thanks. And I'm not sure if this is a question for you or somebody else, but just around the sort of the phasing and the tenant sort of relocation, like I haven't really, seen that come forward yet. Just sort of walk me through how that would work. I mean, this is clearly like a pretty good opportunity because of the way it's phased. If you could just sort of expand a little bit more on that. I'm just going to ask Sarah Robin for my team who's
worked on the tenant relocation to come out. Okay. Sarah Robin, housing planner. Thank you for the question. Yeah, exactly. Because it's a large site in multiple phases, there's actually quite a lot of opportunity to have phased relocation. So, you know, with the first phase being built out, there'd be opportunities on site for interim housing, just as there's kind of natural turnover on the rest of the site. So that does provide quite an opportunity to have interim housing on site. And then as housing is built and constructed, then opportunities to move into new homes. But there also be supports if tenants do wish to move off site as well.
What would those supports look like? So there would be support in terms of financial compensation if
they decide to move off site as well as support to provide other types of accommodation. So the applicant actually has a portfolio of other properties as well. So they'd be able to offer units in various locations in the city. We have kind of a survey process. We want to know what the needs are of the tenants and where they do want to live. So they'll be working with tenants one-to-one at that stage.
Okay. And that hasn't started yet. But I know from the applicant, I'm just. assure you've spoken with some tenants as well. How's that process sort of going today?
Sure. Since the process has started with policy statement, there's been 10 different engagement points. Some of those have been public open houses. But more recently, through the rezoning process, there is an open house with the residents before the rezoning application was submitted. And then two different engagement sessions just with the residents around the 10th, tenant relocation plan. It was presented. We received feedback. And then about a year later, we presented it again with refinements. And then just prior, or just last fall, had an opportunity for residents to drop in and ask questions. And does that answer your question? Yeah.
Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Counselor. Counsel Kerbi-Young. Yeah, I just have a point of
privilege from my chair. I know we've been having some confusion with the different versions of
presentation sent around tonight. So I think we were sent in applicants versus the staffs. And I noticed online, the staff presentation is actually the applicants. The applicants is not up there. And I'm getting versions that are, the orientation is off. So I'm just wondering if we can get those checked. I'm finding it hard to find the information and I'm sure the public is. Okay. Okay. That's fantastic. So apparently it's being updated right now. So thank you. Yeah, thank you for bringing that to our attention. Okay. I see no one further on the queue for questions. So we'll do our second call for speakers.
speak to this item. Please call 1833353-8610 and followed by participant code 106-1445 pound. The phone number is posted on Exx and will be displayed during the recess. We'll now hear from the public. Any speakers in council chambers please come forward to the left podium when it is your turn. Phone and speakers will be unmuted. Speakers will have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of this application. Our first registered speaker is Judy Kay. We have Judy here in person. Welcome, Judy. Good evening. I'm Judy Helly and I'm the rental office manager at Langara Gardens, but I'm also a tenant.
I've been at Langara for over 31 years. From the time I started back in 1994, redevelopment of Langara Gardens was discussed. I'm absolutely in favor of redevelopment. The garden apartments are getting old and more and more there are issues that cannot easily be repaired. Many people want air conditioning, freezers and in-sweet laundry, which we're not able to offer or allow. We don't have the power or the plumbing to allow this. Being accessible is so important. I found this out as my husband was disabled and in a wheelchair for years. Now as I'm getting older, not old, I find stay. stairs can be difficult and painful. Carrying laundry would be difficult or impossible for some, and stairs are currently unavoidable in the garden apartments. We have a photo of the original Langera Gardens in our office from 1970, the days before trees. The architect showed this in this presentation, along with Langara Gardens and the future Langara Gardens. I could imagine the opposition before Langera was built. I believe we are now ready for a new phase of this complex. It will look even better than now. I understand this change is not to inconvenience us, but to prepare us for the future. Future for the young and older populations. With redevelopment going on all around us, personally, it is not unbearable. When buildings are completed, they're beautiful and refreshed. With the traffic, you can plan your day around it. Learn the shortcuts. We have convenient transit as well. The ownership of Langera Gardens from the beginning, listen to what our tenants wanted in the new development, especially the outdoor pools, recreation area, accessibility, and views. We have tenants that reside in what will be phase one, that have special needs. It would be awesome for them to be around to enjoy and watch the birth of the new Langara Gardens complex. Benefit for the new Langara Gardens Complex. Benefit for the land. from the transfer to the towers at the same rent until the new apartments are ready. Now, I made a promise when this all started, that I would be here for our tenants for redevelopment. I am 68, and I would like to fulfill this promise. So let's get started, get it done. Let's do it for the future, the next generation, and to add to our beautiful community, our family, our home. Build it so that many, Like many of us, will continue to make Langara Gardens our home. Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments this evening. Our next speaker is Donald Hickling on the phone? Yes, I'm ready to go. Yes, go ahead, Donald. You have five minutes to discuss. Thank you. So my name is Donald Hickling. I'm a resident of Vancouver.
In fact, I live in Langara Gardens in Tower 3, which is located on 7241 campus. Street. I am in favor of the redevelopment of Langarar Gardens and wanted to make three very quick points.
So firstly, when I moved to Langara 12 years ago and it was shown around the various apartments, the Langarar Gardens rental agent was very transparent about the fact that the owner was planning to redevelop the property and that would involve the townhouses and garden apartments, all of them. They could not specify specific time. frame, but I kind of had the impression it might happen within five years, but here we are 12 years later. So that's my first point. The owner to the property, it was first Peterson and then joined by concert as their partners. I've been very upfront and transparent about their redevelopment plans. In fact, I would say they've gone out of their way to keep tenants informed about each step of the process. My second point I wanted to make, even to a somewhat untrained. die, but I did do a bit of construction work in my early years. It is easy to be just from walking around that the garden apartments and the townhouses are nearing the end of their useful life. Peterson is the rental agent, does an excellent job of maintaining them. Really, they're coming up from being 60 years old. And there's really a limit to what you can do with wood frame construction of that era and age. So in my mind. It's not a question of if, it's really about when and who does the redevelopment. And my third and final point is, again, going back to if we accept the fact that redevelopment is inevitable, given the age of the buildings, it comes down to the question of who. And I personally, I've lived in Vancouver all my life, I personally don't think we could ask for better developers than Peterson and Concert. It's really a perfect marriage in my mind. They're two excellent developers and they've enjoyed a sterling reputation in the community for all the projects they've done, top quality every time. And I say this with all respect. You can't say that about every developer, I think, but you can't say that about Peterson on and a concert. And on top of that, they're good community partners and landlords. I really do feel confident, but I do, I am also concerned about rent. I know it's hard moving, but I really do feel confident that Peterson concert will do everything they can to help the renters who will be temporarily displaced. And they will also, for the people that will be staying on the property, myself on the towers, they will minimize the greatest extent possible. The disruptions that will be faced by residents. And ultimately, this is most important. I've looked at the plans. I've studied them. I've listened very clear, carefully. We're going to end up. something that's really spectacular on Langerick Gardens. I love the fact that they keep in mind the original tent of the architect. I think that's spectacular. So for those reasons, I'm in support, and I want to thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak this evening. Thank you so much for your comments and for calling in this evening. Our next speaker is Jared Foreman. Also on the line? Jared, go ahead. You have five minutes to address counsel. This is Jared Foreman, and I'm a resident of Vancouver. and I am here today to speak strongly in support of the Langarra Gardens project being proposed.
And I say that because while I didn't grow up in this city, I chose to build my life in Vancouver because it's an abyssus place, it's a diverse place, and I see it as a city full of possibility.
And yet for a lot of young professionals like me, the biggest barrier to putting down roots in this place is housing. Rent eats up too much of our income. Ownership feels like a disdemeanor. dream and quite frankly, too often major housing proposals like this one get delayed or watered down, leaving real concerns about whether the city is serious about providing serious and real opportunity for the next generation. Glendera Gardens really is the sort of project that can turn the tide. It would deliver thousands of new homes in a transit-connected neighborhood, including a substantial number of purpose-built rentals and below-market units. It's the sort of scale that truly matters, and it would show that we can meaningfully address affordability instead of just continuing to add housing and small increments. Projects of this size and scale are truly rare, and this is the sort of project that can have citywide impact. Young professionals like myself, trade, but also tradespeople, healthcare workers, entrepreneurs, and so many others, just want an opportunity to contribute here in Vancouver. We want to build careers. We want to start families and we want to invest in our communities. We want to stay here. Realistically, that's not possible unless there are homes we can realistically afford. And so it's for that reason that I strongly support the Languergarten's projects because it moves Vancouver the right direction towards more housing, more opportunity in a city where young people can see a future for themselves. Thank you so much. Thanks, Jared, for calling in this evening. Our next speaker is Briand LaPierre. My phone. For taking the call today, I'm glad to be speaking to all of you. I am speaking as a resident of Vancouver, and I'm speaking strongly in support of this proposal. Langare Gardens is located near great transit network, schools, parks, and adding housing here aligns directly with their housing targets and transportation goals.
As a young person in the city, increasing housing seems like a no-brainer to me. And this project seems absolutely great. and I think that it would be a wonderful addition, especially with close proximity to transit
and rapid transit. And the part about this project that I actually really love, and though I'm not a parent yet, I hope to be, and I love the addition of the child care spaces. I hear from, you know, young parents that I know that we are very much lacking those child care spaces and people are having to put their kids on these lists even before their children are born. and I think that putting housing with child care just makes sense. And I'm really happy to see this project and see how it's turning out. And I hope that you all choose to expedite this project and get it approved. Thank you very much. Thanks, Brian.
Our next speaker is Baraket-Guta in person. Apologies, if I didn't get the pronunciation correct.
No, you got it right. Thank you.
Go ahead. You have five minutes to speak to council.
Okay. Hi, everyone. My name is Baraket-Guta. I'm a resident of Vancouver and a member of the South Vancouver Neighbourhood Assembly. And yeah, I want to just speak frankly about my position on this rezoning application. I'm not opposed to redevelopment, but I disagree with this rezoning plan. And I've had the opportunity to talk to many neighbours, residents, and friends about this rezoning application. And I'm here on behalf of the people who couldn't make it. the workers, the residents, the seniors, the people in the neighbourhood, those people who are working hard to keep our city and country running, those raising the next generation, and those directly impacted by these changes. As members of the South Vancouver Neighbourhood Assembly, we've been talking directly with these people and learning from each other to determine what is in our interest. Based on these conversations, I want to raise some issues that I see with this plan and what I've learned from our neighbours. So, first of all, I think everybody's worried about this redevelopment. We can see what's happening in this city already. I myself have been living in the city for more than 20 years, and I'm genuinely worried about the way that redevelopment is pushing people like me out of the city. I've had many friends leave BC because even with a promise of, oh, market housing, new stratas. new stratas. I don't see how a person like me can actually afford this city. The people that I've talked to are saying they're planning on leaving this country. They don't know what future that they have in the city because of redevelopments like this. We all love our community. We are part of it and we do not want to leave, but plans like these displace us. We see. this plan as disruptive to the lives of working people, and it lacks genuine democracy. I myself pride myself in being able to understand bureaucratic corporate mumbo-jumbo, but this is on a whole other level. It's vague. It is unclear with the way redevelopment, the tenant relocation policy is going to occur. People that I've talked to are unsure where they're actually going to find this housing that they say is available in this city when I can't even find housing in South Vancouver. We see this plan as disruptive. Like, there's nothing that can be said. Like, it's being imposed by these corporations that are coming in, all in suits, clearly here to make profit while people like me are being kicked out of the city. And this housing crisis, I'm unsure how this plan for more significant market housing is going to solve it and help our communities. With the rising cost of living, which is on everybody's mind, this plan is just another nail in the coffin in our community. It's literally killing us. I'm glad the questions about grocery stores, food desert have been raised because this is something I've already been hearing. In Marpole, there's literally no, there's no grocery stores other than one Safeway. In this area, there's literally one bus stop, one train station right at Langara and 49th that's filled every day with working class people just trying to get home. I don't see this plan as being meant for working class people in this neighbourhood. I see it as profit for Peterson and Concert Properties, which already own a ton of properties across the city and are just going to continue making more and more money. Something else that's been raised by residents of South Vancouver, has been the lack of schools in this plan. Where are the kids going to go? There's no space for us. Again, I'm not opposed to redevelopment, but I'm opposed to redevelopment that's based on corporate interests, not working class people. So what I ask you to consider is make a plan that's actually for working class people. This 20% social housing is not enough. In this housing crisis, we need to We need decent and genuine social housing for working people, not more housing for corporate profits. Thank you.
Thank you for your comments and thanks for coming in this evening. Our last registered speaker is Emily Lubba in person. Is Emily here? Welcome, Emily. So you have five minutes to address council on this item.
Thank you. So I want to start off with a quote that I've been trying to understand for the past bit. it says any approval that may be granted following the public hearing shall not obligate the city to enact a bylaw rezoning the property at any cost incurred in fulfilling requirements imposed as a condition of rezoning are at the risk of the property owner.
Can you just pull away from the mic a little bit?
Is this better?
It's a little better, yeah.
Well, thanks. So my understanding of that quote, and I am not a lawyer. I'm not a planner. I did spend a lot of time. trying to understand the Vancouver Official Development Plan. Is this better? Is the mic still weird?
That was better.
But I still get a bit lost, so I might be wrong. But my understanding of this is that whatever happens tonight, it's not legally binding. So if, for example, Peterson or Concert were to have financial troubles, they could change the plan. And this concerns me, because I've seen it happen before. I used to live in Burnaby. And I understand the Tenant Assistance Policy is not the TRIP. And then Peterson is doing something based on the TRIP. So it also might not totally be the TRIP. But what happened with the TAP is a developer in Metrotown did go bankrupt, since. So couldn't pay the tenants who were evicted and supposed to, so they'd be paying the same rent. And it's not quite the same for the TRIP. So these tenants are not getting any money. And also, the building isn't being constructed, so they can't move in. And I bring up this example, even though it's all staying, it's all staying within Langara Gardens, which sounds good, right? Like, you don't have to move too far, although you still have to move. And the units people are moving back into are going to be smaller, which, and also, there's no, like, what if something goes wrong? Like, there's no, it's not, there's no guarantee. And also people are, the towers aren't being torn down. Are people, where are people going to go? I just really don't understand what this relocation is going to look like, and it worries me. And it also worries me that there's no guarantee it will even have to happen. Whereas in a wild timeline, there are empty condos and rents going down like a little bit. So I'm not sure. And do we need more units? It's not a problem of supply. There are empty units. Empty condos. So. To me, it's missing the mark, like what this proposal is trying to do. It's as though we're like, oh, yeah. And also, like, it sounds good. Like, social housing, yeah, we need that. But again, I go back to my initial quote, I worry that it won't actually end up happening if something happens. The daycare facility, it also sounds good, but there's no mention of how much it will cost. And daycare that costs like 20, 30 bucks a day, it's not affordable. I know people. parents who stay home with their kids, like, aren't working right now and trying to get by on disability and whatnot, because daycare is expensive, and the plan doesn't mention that. And I'm not shocked that all of this is happening. If we go back to 2018, I think it came from the city that first document. I appreciated the history. It's been a long time. And then I think that Peterson and Concert came up with a second, something very similar, so I can see that the council, is working with developers for more housing. And yes, but what about the people who are already living there? What if we reverse this? And did they come? And Judy might actually know, like, did people come to, and did they say, like, I want a new building? My building's from 1950, and it's old, and stuff's not okay, but I don't want to leave. And no one I spoke to in these towers wanted to leave. But I could be wrong. Like, maybe you had, like, a hundred 100 people demanding you go to a new building. Relocate us. We want to live in smaller units. Like, I don't know. The people who live in the building are really important. And I get why there aren't as many of them here tonight. Because I have spoken before. I've been cut off at council. I've spoken through hundreds of other people and none of us were listened to. And I even know these hearings are going away. A city planner told me this, that they're kind of a sham. Like, we can say whatever. They can listen to us. I hope you do, please, because maybe something can change. But you don't have to. There's no guarantee. And I think there's something to be said for people who live in the buildings, who work in the neighbourhoods, being the ones who get to decide what happens. We're early days. But not really. I've been speaking to council for the last like eight years. And so I think of our neighbourhood assembly as a place where we should go to have our voices heard because we're going to get there.
Emily.
And I have seen nothing.
Oh, the time's done. Thank you for coming. That's your five minutes. but thank you for addressing council this evening.
Thank you.
Thank you. I am just going to check and see if we have any additional speakers in chamber wishing to speak to this item. Anyone in the hallway? No. Do we have any other speakers on the line, clerks? Okay. So it sounds like we do have some speakers. So we're going to, I'll do a final call, and then we'll take a five-minute recess in this case, just to clarify as quite a few people are on the line. So I'll do a final call for speakers. if you wish to speak to council on this item, it's 1-833-353-8610, followed by the participant code 106-1445 pound before the close of the list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. We're now going to take a five-minute recess, and then we'll come back and see how many speakers we have online. Thank you. Thanks, council. Okay, counsel, we're going to resume for council.
Councilors online, could you please put on your videos so we can confirm quorum? Just waiting for counselors online to thank you. Okay, counsel, we'll resume this item. We do have speakers online. I don't see any in chambers. We'll start with Scotty Green. We have Scotty on the line. Let's be a moment, counsel.
Hello.
Hi, Scotty. Go ahead. You have five minutes to address counsel.
My name is Scottie Green. I'm Rosina Marple. Actually, Montcalm, in 72nd. And I do want to speak in opposition to this motion. Like one of the previous speakers said, I am not opposed to redevelopment at that site, but I do have a lot of concerns. The fact asked about parking solutions and grocery solutions, the developer openly said, eh, we'll figure it out later, should be some massive red flags. That typically means they won't deal with it. And it'll be somebody else's problem. I, and parking in this city is an absolute nightmare. as it is, without a valid parking solution, without a valid grocery solution, without valid a number of family-oriented homes. I believe they said they would expect a certain number. This should be voted down just on that basis alone. They should come back with some more concrete numbers. Like, why is this being allowed to happen where we just take them on their word that they might, in theory, have an idea of what they're doing? And the second thing I want to speak in opposition to this is the whole idea of market rate. I believe they said about 70% units would be at market rate with 30% below market rate. Now, for context, I work at Canada Post. It's a full-time job. In theory, I should be able to afford a modest in this city. I'm not talking to house. I'm not talking to home. There's modest one-bedroom apartment. The only reason I can afford my place at Montcom and 72nd is because I moved in in 2019. the market rate from my place now is 60% higher than what I'm currently paying for rent. Or even when I get rent evicted again, I cannot afford market rate in this city. Maripole is one of the few cheap, affordable places for working class people left in the city. And for city counselors to decide market rate is acceptable. Market rate is dictated by capitalist landlords who are wanting to Got our wallets for their owner about this city. They don't care about the people who live here. Market rate is dictated by forces beyond the renters control. In 2017, I believe, there was a motion to put forward a Canada line station at 57th in Canby that was rejected at the time. And that would vastly have increased the, quote, market rate in the area. So anyone who would have wanted to move in at that time would have paid significantly more. So this whole idea of market rate is something every city counselor should wholeheartedly reject. They should tell them no. You come back with below market rate or at cost housing. This whole idea of market rate, I've seen so many developments in his neighborhood come up, I can't afford. Granville in 70th, I can't afford it. In Gateway, I can't afford it. French in 71st, I can't afford it. Developments on 70th. developments on Osler. I can't afford it. Keep in mind, I work a full-time job at Canada Post. You think I could afford something simple and modest. I cannot. When I get ren evicted next, I will not be able to afford to live in this city. So this whole idea of market rate is shame. I will be paying very close attention to every counselor who votes yes for this. Putting the ones who claim to support housing affordability, we'll be making sure to tell people how they vote. because working class people in Marple cannot afford, please remember that. Please remember that when you decide this proposal.
Thank you very much. And I'll just remind folks in the gallery that no yelling in the chambers here. Thank you. I appreciate the enthusiasm. Our next speaker is Luke White, Luke White Bruhn. Do I have that right? Yes. Go ahead.
It's which form. But close.
Okay. Go ahead.
Yeah. So, I mean, I was just calling in to, yeah, I wanted to call in for my support for the Langara Gardens rezoning. I just think it's really important to have more rental houses across the Vancouver area, just not in the kind of more select areas that you typically end up seeing it. Like a lot of people have said already. Like the city is facing like a severe housing crisis. It's a shortage. The proposal brings in a bunch of new homes and a bunch of new rental homes that the scale of that just like it feels like it pushes us in the right direction. I also feel that the inclusion of the 700 homes through the city's social homes through the city social housing and moderate income rental program. It's especially important. I feel like that is at very least a step in the right direction. It's excellent for those projects also to have those inclusion of the social spaces and the more open plan for parkways. Yeah. I feel like the proposal really creates options for working people who are increasingly priced out of living in Vancouver. And while it might not be the perfect solution, I think the tension of it and the direction of it pushes up there again in the correct direction. We like the Vancouver residents need well-located projects like this one. help push us towards making a more affordable to live in for Vancouver.
Thanks very much for your comments. Our next speaker is David Beliver.
Thank you so much. My name is David Gulliver. I'm a resident in Vancouver. Thank you for the opportunity to speaking in front of counsel. I'll keep it short. I just want to speak and support of this project. I think it hits on few areas, including new childcare spaces, the addition of new rental homes to the area, including. moderate and income rental seats, but also just the added greenery space as well in the preservation of the garden like setting. I think building new homes everywhere in the city is super important and this project should be a no-brainer and just want to urge council to strongly what would in support of this project. Thank you very much.
Thanks very much for your comments this evening. The next speaker is Elliot Klin.
Yeah, hi. I'm a resident of Vancouver and I like to speak and support of this development. All the points that I would have made have already been made by most people here like being near transit station obviously beneficial. I go along camp all the time. And I always wondered when you would see between that space and South Bend and Oak Ridge 41st, you'd see more of master plan communities coming up with lots of green space, especially, just because I find that a lot of the development that's already been there, just kind of in single or one or two buildings, but nothing really cohesive to the neighborhood. Obviously, a lot of other people here have spoken who live in the current existing development there, I've spoken in favor of wanting to enhance their living quarters, the deteriorating quality of the space there, and I think it's very beneficial, air conditioning, especially with how hot summers are getting in Vancouver, these new units, being more energy efficient, having better performing windows and things like that will improve the living standards of everyone who lives in this area greatly. But one thing I really want to touch on that's been brought up a lot with relating to working class people being priced out of the neighborhood. I find this really frustrating because we need to be able to meet the housing demand in order for rents to be low enough for people to afford housing. And coming in and saying, I usually am in supportive development, but then saying I actually don't want this development, and this is just repeated on and on and on and on again for so many developments in the city, the vacancy rate in the city is incredibly, incredibly low. We need more housing. You do not lower rents by not building housing. It is counterintuitive. It doesn't make sense economically. there needs to be more housing built. You can read posts and articles in the CMHC that they've released about how the vacancy rate is affecting the cost of housing and how building more houses, especially now as the vacancy rate has actually gone up because more housing is being built, we're seeing a lowering of the rent. It needs to continue. If we go back to times post-COVID 2021, 2021, 2020, 22, 23, when the vacancy rate was around 1%. You were seeing people in bidding wars to rent apartments. That can't happen in the city anymore. People like myself are paying almost like way too much to afford rent in this city and just essentially pushing off housing projects because we're worried about developers being greedy and this. It's not a solution. It's not practical. There needs to be more housing built in the city and I support this development.
Thanks very much for your comments this evening. Just checking in clerks if there's anyone else on the line.
There's no one else on the line.
I don't see anyone else in chambers or in the hall. Seeing hearing none, I'm going to close the speaker's list. So the speaker's list is now closed. Have we had a further large volume of public comments received since 5 p.m.
No correspondence has been received.
Thank you, clerks. In that case, I'm now closing the receipt of public comments. Does the applicant have any closing comments? Okay, thank you. Staff, any closing comments? No closing comments from staff. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel, do you have any further and further? final questions for staff. I'm seeing none. Clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the close of comments?
No, we did not.
Okay. In that case, we'll be making a decision now. Could I get someone to move the recommendations? Moved, Councillor Kirby Young, seconded to Councilor Frye and discussion. Councillor Kerby Young, go ahead.
Yeah, thanks. I know that this has been some time in the making, given it's my second term on council, and I remember receiving up. on sort of visioning plans and statements in the area as a whole. It's a significant undertaking and envisioning 2,600 new homes. The scale of that is substantive. As was said, it would build out over a long period of time in phases. I do appreciate the proponent bringing in James Chang, well respected in the city. I think we saw each other at the stack opening downtown. And sort of the effort. to adhere to sort of the underlying design and principles of the space, and particularly the retention of the mature trees, the Sequoia homes, the diversity of tenure and the provision of social housing. Oftentimes, people will say it's not enough or it's not affordable enough, but I would say that 400 units is definitely better than not having them. And there is also a substantive amount of public benefits that's included in this package from the child care to the parks, not just improvements, but actually adding new green space in, which is incredibly important from my perspective, when you are adding such, over time, such a large number of new residents. So I appreciate that component about it. I will also note the one thing that it may not be the proponent's responsibility necessarily for the provision of all the retail, but when we, the last term when we had a lot of rezoning coming forward in the Camby court and the Camby Desert, I think what was amiss in that plan, and people have heard me say this before, is it's a food desert. So it might be great that there is a large grocery on the neighbor to the south, but the ability for people to support and meet their daily needs will be quite dependent on that. And we do want to make sure that people also have the other locally serving amenity in retail so that they can get those daily needs and have some livability and quality of life in a transit oriented area, a nice treat area, in an area that has access to parks, etc. So hopefully some thought can be given to, as sort of over time, the tenetting of the existing retail space that the applicant mentioned remains in this project. So on balance, it has been a significant and ongoing project. I appreciate the fact there's clarity about in the phasing, about when the social housing will be delivered. I think council has seen this before, when there's an expectation. to do it up front that oftentimes proponents need to build out some of the accommodation first in order to get the cash flow to build the social housing. So I'm seeing that recognition in the phasing here for this project. But as we heard from a lot of the folks that it was, I think I put a lot of stock in hearing from residents who are current and existing tenants who were generally supportive, not just from somebody who was sort of a resident caretaker — or was that the appropriate term — or garden manager, but also from some of the existing residents that these homes are definitely aging and over time they do need to be replaced. So all in all, I think on balance, it's a very thoughtful design. It's a very comprehensive package and I will support it. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Kirby-Yung. Councillor, go ahead.
Yeah, thanks. I appreciate all the comments tonight. And I do want to assure everyone that all comments are valued and heard. I've seen a lot of rezonings come forward in my short time here. I haven't really seen something like this that really is able to have that sort of tenant relocation because of the phased delivery and the on-site relocation. It's kind of a unique thing. And I did appreciate the applicant talking about 10 different points of engagement. Would I like to see 100% social housing? Sure, which is why I think we should be using City land to do that. But this is 438 social housing units and 84 below-market rentals. And unfortunately, this is the reality of how we can deliver this for low-income families, seniors, and workers to be able to afford. And like my colleague said, this is the way that financing works with senior levels of government, and we can have even deeper affordability at this site. And we heard from tenants around accessibility and elevators and air conditioning. All super important. I do think there's time to litigate the shortcomings of our housing policy in general, and I don't really think public hearings are for that. I do understand the trepidation. It's a big project. But in our quasi-judicial role in public hearings, we must judge how the project fits within the existing policy, and this one does. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Orr. Councillor Maloney. Oops, sorry. We lost you there. I tried you back on. Sorry.
I'm there.
Keep pressing the button off that you just pressed on.
Sorry.
Go ahead.
Yeah, thanks. I appreciate Councillor Orr's comments and I won't repeat them. But I am very sympathetic to people who are working a full-time job and absolutely can't afford market rent in this city. It's an absolutely massive problem and we have so many people living in this city who are perpetually stressed that they are paying a rent because they've been in a home that they wouldn't be able to afford if they were displaced and required to pay market rent. But as Councillor Orr says, there is a lot of affordability incorporated into this redevelopment plan and having 2,600 new homes built over the next decade and a half is certainly going to contribute to pressure to increase the vacancy rate, which helps people to find housing. We absolutely need to be doing more to advocate to senior levels of government, do everything we can to build affordable housing, social housing, co-ops. I absolutely agree and I can see why it's frustrating in this forum to raise those concerns and not have the project rejected, but I think that on balance it's a good project and it's very important to provide the homes that this is going to provide. So I will be supporting it.
Thank you, Councillor Maloney. Seeing no further speakers, we'll call the question on this item. Please vote online. Thank you to the councillors online for having your videos enabled. I'll take a vote — all in favour, please.
Chair, can I also take a vote — all in favour, please?
Thank you, Councillor Zhou. We've noted that as well. Thank you, Council. This item passes with Mayor Sim, Councillor Klassen, and Councillor Meiszner absent. Thank you very much. That concludes this item. Thank you. Take a one-minute recess. Don't go very far, just so we can get people to clear out. Thanks, everyone. Councillors online, we'll resume in about one minute. I know this one, I get it. Okay, Council. We're going to continue. Okay, I'm — Okay, Council, we're going to continue and I put my coat there? That's all I want to do. Okay, Council.
We're going to continue with item 3 on our agenda. CD-1, 454, text amendment for 215 for 2154 West First Avenue. Before we begin, are there any conflicts of interest on this item? Okay. Hearing none, the clerk will now read the application and summary of correspondence received.
This is an application application by McFarland Marcou Architects and Vancouver School Board to amend CD-1 Comprehensive Development District 454 for 215 West First Avenue. The application is to increase the maximum building height from 13.5 meters, 44 feet, to 18.8 meters, 62 feet, to permit a four-storey elementary school. 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. 741 pieces of correspondence in support, 56 pieces of correspondence in opposition, and two pieces of correspondence dealing with other aspects of the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today.
Thank you, Clerk. We'll now do our first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to Council on this item, please call 1-833-353-8645 pound. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. We have staff from planning, urban design and sustainability here to present the application. Welcome. We're just going to make sure your slides are...
Sure.
Before you start, so there we go. Go ahead. Good evening, Acting Mayor, Council, and members of the public.
My name is Daniel Feeney, planner for this text amendment application being considered under the Southeast False Creek official development plan. The site in red is located within the Olympic Village area west of Columbia Street between Athletes Way and Walter Hardwick Avenue. The parcel is surrounded by Hinge Park, which is outlined in green. However, the city-owned development site shown in red, functions as a publicly accessible open green space. The surrounding context consists of residential with commercial uses clustered around the village and along 2nd Avenue. Temporary uses occupy the adjacent lands to the west, which include urban farming, parking lots, workyards and temporary modular housing. The site is well connected with pedestrian and cycling routes along the seawall. There are also cycling routes along Columbia Street and West First Avenue. The Olympic Village SkyTrain Station is also located half a kilometre to the west. The Southeast False Creek official development plan, as shown on the map here, was adopted in 2007. It is a framework to transition the area from predominantly industrial to a complete neighbourhood with a mix of uses. A core component of the complete neighbourhood objective is the delivery of public facilities like schools and community centres. Marked by the yellow star, the site is within Area 2A of the ODP and contains its own custom CD-1. The policy and bylaw require an elementary school with a minimum floor area of almost 40,000 square feet and a maximum height of 13.5 meters. This maximum height was intended to accommodate a three-storey elementary school at the time of bylaw adoption. There is no maximum density applicable to the school. This application proposes to amend the CD-1 zone to increase the building height from 13.5 meters to 18.8 meters. This request for additional height is to permit a four-storey elementary school. There is no density maximum and the proposed school use is consistent with the ODP and CD-1 zone. The proposed school includes instructional spaces for up to 630 students with a rooftop play area above the fourth storey. As noted, a three-storey school design was originally envisioned. Since then, evolving approaches to school design have led the Vancouver School Board to propose a vertical campus model, adding one extra storey to accommodate additional programming space. With respect to the built form, the proposal is for an additional 5.3 meters in height, equivalent to one extra storey above the ODP. Staff would like to clarify that the official height is measured to the top of the roof slab, not to the top of the rooftop play area. Overall, the vertical campus model enables more classrooms and play areas on a compact urban site. The proposal was subject to an urban design review and the additional height is considered compatible with the surrounding context. As shown on this slide, with the adjacent residential building illustrated to the left, the added height remains consistent with the area's built form where many nearby buildings reach up to 9 and 12 stories. A key consideration of the application and of new school facilities in general is the potential for increased traffic. To address potential traffic and parking impacts, the applicant submitted a Traffic Transportation Assessment and Management Study. With regard to upgrades, the scope of future roadway and traffic changes is still under development and has not yet been finalised. Engineering staff are present this evening to respond to any questions regarding potential roadway and traffic reconfiguration changes. In terms of the study's findings, it concludes that nearby intersections generally perform well and school-related traffic is not expected to create significant issues. The study identifies a strong active travel potential, with over 80% of students anticipated to walk, roll and bike to school. City and school board active travel programs also aim to support sustainable travel behaviours, which should help to further reduce vehicle trips. Lastly, pickup and drop-off points will be accommodated through six curbside stalls located along Columbia Street. Supportive feedback emphasised the site's central location and expressed strong support for the proposed school. Comments highlighted the need for additional student capacity, noting that existing schools are already at or near capacity, and that future-proofing is a constructive planning approach. Feedback also supported the proposed scale of the school, noting its compatibility with the surrounding urban fabric while enabling the delivery of educational spaces. Concerns focused on five themes listed here. For loss of green space, while the interim open space within Hinge Park has been a valued and well-used resource for the community, the 2007 ODP envisioned this space
DP identified this site as a future school. The green space was always intended as a temporary use until the school could proceed. In terms of green and open space accessibility, the site is next to the seawall with other green spaces in close proximity. New and expanded park spaces will be delivered in the area, including the new East Park, which is expected to be completed in 2028. Relocating the school is not possible for the school board or Ministry of Education. The current location is supported by established funding agreements that have taken years of negotiation and capital planning to secure. Relocating the school would likely void these agreements and require a new funding process, which could take many years to complete. Given the immediate need for a new school with additional student capacity, relocation is not viable. The policy does not limit student capacity for this site. Enrollment levels are determined by VSB with Ministry of Education oversight. The city's review primarily focused on the request for additional height beyond the ODP's prescribed maximum. With respect to the proposed height, one extra storey is considered appropriate within the context. The site and surrounding lands are not located within a council-approved, protected view corridor and therefore are not encroaching on public views. As previously outlined, the school's high active travel potential will likely see most students walk, roll and bike to school. Pick up and drop-off will also be accommodated along Columbia Street. Lastly, street and traffic upgrades are currently being developed by engineering. Public benefits for this project include an $86,000 DCL contribution and the construction of a new school facility. I'll just pause on this slide as we didn't transition. One slide left. In conclusion, this application meets the intent of the Southeast False Creek official development plan and staff support the CD-1 text amendment to increase the maximum building height to permit the development of a four-storey elementary school. Staff recommend approval subject to the conditions and appendix B of the report. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer any questions. Thank you very much.
Thank you for the presentation. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation or make remarks? Do you have a slide presentation? You do. Okay. Clerks, do we have that?
Just checking.
We don't, okay, we're just going to take a two-minute recess so we can get a copy of your presentation.
Okay, Senator. Hey, council.
So, we do now have the VSB's presentation. I'm just flagging for councillors joining us online that we are now resuming the public hearing on this item. Over to you.
Thanks for your patience. Excellent. Thank you. So good evening, acting mayor and council. And thank you for having us this evening. I'm Jesse Grosley Jones. I'm the executive director of planning projects and facilities for the Vancouver School Board. I'm joined here this evening by members of our design team, consultants and members of our staff. team. We're excited to be here to advance this critical file that will continue to address the needs of families and students within Vancouver. Next slide. I want to start off by thanking city staff, including engineering, planning, real estate, and Vancouver Park Board who have contributed to shaping this file and ensuring we meet the needs of the community and considering how this neighborhood has evolved and continues to grow. Next slide. As planning staff mentioned, the ODP was adopted in 2007. As part of the ODP, the city, earmarked this parcel of land for the future construction of an elementary school. As we know, since that time, the neighborhood has significantly evolved. It has become a vibrant community. Retail has flourished. Residential densities have increased beyond what was originally envisioned. And adjacent light industrial areas have taken shape as new hubs of job space. This is the outcome of great planning work, adaptation to changing economics, and being responsive to shifting priorities. However, the final remaining commitment to make Olympic Village a complete neighborhood is the school that was originally earmarked and is now needed more than ever. Next slide. Building a school in Olympic Village has been a top priority for the Vancouver School Board since 2006. The VSB makes annual requests to the Ministry of Infrastructure for new schools, expansions, and seismic upgrades. These are driven by enrollment needs and the critical needs of our aging infrastructure. Requests to the Ministry for funding of this project have been made annually since 2006. Over the past decade, Olympic Village has seen significant population growth, including growth amongst families with school-aged children. City Council and the VSB took the first major step in this process when the ground lease was established in 2022. In 2024, the Ministry committed funding to support this new school. And tonight, we are here to consider the next big step in this process. So the proposed elementary school will accommodate a school population of 630 students, which is necessary to serve the Olympic Village neighborhood given current enrollment pressures and future growth in the area. As noted on the map, you can see the extensive capacity pressures at Simon Fraser Elementary, which is the current catchment school. Nearby schools are also above capacity, including False Creek, Edith Cavell, and Crosstown. Therefore, students in the area are continually placed at nearby schools, including Nightingale, Mount Pleasant, Wolfe and Livingstone. School capacity must be properly calibrated to accommodate future enrollment demand over the next many years. There are currently around 800 more elementary students than capacity enables across the four closest schools. Next slide. Enrollment forecasts also show increased demand for an elementary school in the area over the next 15 years. The above map shows the forecasted capacity utilization in 2039, which is based off the VSB's forecasting system and is inclusive of local knowledge, integrating development data from the city to ensure development growth is considered appropriately. By 2039, all nearby schools would be at or above capacity. Enrollment pressures underscore the urgent need for a future-ready, accessible, seismically safe school within walking distance of Olympic Village. The new school will help relieve enrollment pressure at existing schools while keeping catchments walkable. We recognize this is incredibly important. A catchment review will take place in advance of the school opening. This process will be similar to the recent downtown catchment review that was undertaken in fall 2025, which will accommodate the new school in Coal Harbour that is being delivered in partnership with the City of Vancouver. To establish a new catchment, analysis of nearby school capacities, population growth projections, development trends, are all considered, along with natural boundaries, walking and cycling distances and the overall student safety. The potential catchment has also been used to inform our transportation assessment and management plan. Modeling reinforces this central location as highly accessible by walking and cycling, with 85% of anticipated school population living less than one kilometer from the school, with the remainder less than two kilometers from the site. The design will include five designated pickup drop-off parking spots on Columbia Street, and there will also be a school active travel program in place. As noted, the site is physically constrained, and this limited site footprint requires a multi-storey school designed to accommodate the necessary enrollment. Other VSB schools have been designed in recent years in a similar fashion, including the new school in Coal Harbour and Crosstown Elementary. The school occupies the majority of the site, and therefore the only way to enable capacity
to meet the demand is to increase the number of stories containing classrooms. This is ultimately fundamental. to the design and the result of the limited footprint. The school is designed to complement the Columbia Street frontage while positioning the primary entrance towards False Creek. This orientation allows for a strong visual connection and an ability to directly connect to the available outdoor space north of the site. The entrances are primarily oriented towards False Creek and Columbia Street, ensuring the existing Hinge Park remains uninterrupted. The structure of the building is necessitated by the building. by both the limited site footprint and the configuration of standard classroom spaces. Above, you can see the view of the school from within Hinge Park. The rooftop area included in the design is also needed to contain children's play within a screen structure that is intended to be light and secure. The roof play area will be surrounded by a six-foot high, semi-transparent guard on the north side, and an enclosure on the south side to contain balls and play objects. This design will include active space and also quiet areas where we can use them for learning environments. The VSB is also working with the city and the Park Board staff to enable the use of the green space north of the site for school use during school hours. This will include VSB investment in new play structures and learning space that will also be an amenity to the community outside of school hours. To date, several engagement sessions have taken place. This has included an Olympic Village Technical Working Group, which is internal to the VSB, Two engagement sessions have been undertaken with students attending other vertical schools, including Crosstown and Elsie Roy. These allow us to seek feedback on how current structures are working for educational purposes. And we also undertook an engagement session on site with students living in the Fraser catchment. This allowed us to seek feedback on the school context and reflect on how students understand the site and think it will relate to a future school. We also understand and want to ensure that schools remain a fundamental part of a complete and vibrant community. Schools act as community hubs. They host sporting and community events. And they provide community space access to multi-purpose spaces. Olympic Village will serve the same purpose and contribute towards the immediate neighborhood. Additionally, the school will support local school-age child care needs by providing approximately 60 before and after-school child care spaces. The VSB currently provides over 4,000 before-and-after-school child care spaces for school-age children, and this is a new facility that will contribute to that priority. I want to thank city staff again and I want to thank council for partnering on the shared vision of delivering a complete community.
And I want to reiterate the impact this new school will have on providing safe, inclusive, and sustainable education to children within our city. The elementary school is the final element necessary to complete the Olympic Village community. The new school will relieve the current capacity pressures, and this is a significant investment by the province, by the province and one that we are excited to advance in a timely way to ensure our shared objectives are achieved. Thank you.
Thank you very much for the presentation. Now turn to council. If you wish to ask questions, this is the time to ask questions of the applicant. You may also ask questions of staff at this time. See Councillor Kirby-Yung. Go ahead, Councillor Kirby-Yung.
Yeah, thanks. Appreciate the presentation. I'm going to direct my questions to staff and I'm going to focus my questions on the park and a triangular piece immediately in front of what was designated for the school site. So the report suggests, and we heard from the applicant's presentation, to provide additional outdoor space, the VSB are negotiating an agreement for approximately 18,000 square feet of space within Hinge Park to allow the area to function as active play space. Am I correct that you're looking at building out something on that and it would not remain as unfettered green space?
That is correct. So there is currently a land lease negotiation. underway between the city and the Vancouver School Board. We do have staff from real estate services who can provide...
Let me ask my other question first, and you can see if you want to refer it. That space was not part of the site that was committed to in the master plan or that the community was expecting was going to be designated for the school. Is that correct?
Correct. Under the ODP and the CD-1, that would not be a specific use that would be specified.
Okay. And so if it is play space and not sort of unfettered green space, per say, that was not included in the public consultation on this text amendment, was it?
No. It is a separate matter from the CD-1 text amendment.
Okay. So why is it included in the report?
Just as a means to provide transparency to the public, we did update the Shape Your City webpage, just as a means to provide that information early on, so there wasn't a surprise for the public later in the process.
Okay. Since the expectation of council and the residents' of Olympic Village was that that green space would remain, under what authority are staff proceeding with negotiations to change that green space?
I'd encourage my colleague in real estate services to provide a response on that. Thank you.
Because I don't believe — correct me if I'm wrong — council have had a briefing on that or any approval has been sought from council to enter into negotiations to fundamentally change the green space.
That's correct. We will be bringing that recommendation to council for their approval. That has not happened yet.
Okay. So I'm going to be very clear then. Is council in any way endorsing that direction if it approves this referral report tonight? Or at the conclusion of the public?
No, there would be two separate matters. So what's in front of council tonight is strictly related to the height increase.
Okay.
Any matters to the land lease to the north would not be part of this conversation this evening.
Okay. Can I go back to real estate then? Isn't it normal, sort of, often common that real estate staff would brief council on considerations around that? And do you view this as an overreach of extending into the green space, because it's fundamentally changing the nature of it and the social contract with the residents of Olympic Village? I think what's actually being contemplated here is called a
joint use agreement. So it will allow for play time dedicated to the school during school hours and still be open to the public during non-school hours. This is a similar but in reverse relationship to what we have with other VSB sites throughout the city.
Okay. But you would be building out, there was a rendering that suggested it looked something like a court. Would you be asphalting and building out some type of structures on the space?
Not to my knowledge, although the specific plan—
Why was there something that looked like a court that had a cage around it?
So that would just be a concept at this point. The actual design is yet to be determined between Park Board, real estate services, and VSB. And it's important to note that that space would be available to the public before and after school hours.
Okay. access wouldn't be limited. But the public would lose access Monday to Friday during the day.
That would be correct. Okay. Does council have the, but council would also have the ability to provide alternate direction at this point if it didn't wish to continue down that road. Is that correct? I think with what we're trying to achieve tonight is to focus on the
height increase. I think there will be a process for the— I understand that. I want to be very explicit on my questions. My time is limited. Does council have the ability within this process? You can come back to me with the answer to give alternate direction so that staff don't continue to negotiate something that council may not support. I'd also defer to senior staff to provide direction on
council's ability on that matter. I would suggest, Councillor Kirby-Yung, we would, if council desired to create separate direction on that, it would require a separate motion of council, independent of this rezoning application. Okay, can I — you don't have to give me an answer now,
but I know we have a lot of speakers. I had another comment, but I'd like to get information back as to why that would require a separate direction when staff are referencing this as an intended direction in the referral report in front of us and it is for quote transparency to be considered.
So we'll double check that with our colleagues in law.
Thanks. I would appreciate that. My framing of my question is that we had an auditor general committee this morning that pointed out discrepancies between seeking council direction and staff negotiations and I'd like to be very clear on this one.
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Kirby-Yung. I've just added myself to the queue. Just in that vein. Could staff or the applicant, whoever feels prepared to answer the question, could they just cite any examples where the city of Vancouver and the VSB have joint use agreements involving schools and green space? That's certainly welcome. Our parks colleague can
attend to that question. Thank you. Good evening. Tina Mack, Director of Planning and Park Development at the Park Board. We have several locations across the city where we have shared use agreements. Most recently, we received your authority to have a joint use agreement for Vancouver Technical Secondary School, as well as Kitsilano Secondary School, where we have shared playing fields. So we also have many parks without agreements where, for example, Elsie Roy Elementary School downtown in the Yaletown neighbourhood and David Lam Park, where we have a park without an agreement that's enjoyed by the school and students as a school yard during school hours. without a license agreement. So we have various structures across the city where we're sharing lands. Staff have entertained this possibility for Hinge Park to give that clarity and also to share some maintenance responsibility potentially with the school board if we have a shared site here at Hinge Park, whereas currently in all of the other locations, the Park Board is bearing the operational ownership and burden for the school children during the school day. So this is a great opportunity for us to further explore, probably outside of this decision tonight, a different construct for an agreement to support children who need outdoor space to play during their school hours, access to nature, because the existing construct of Hinge Park isn't sufficient to support a school body of 400 or 600 students. I hope that helps your
discussions this evening. Yes, just one follow-up question to that. And so the two secondary schools, Kitsilano — Van Tech — you cited Elsie Roy and and then what about — I thought there was a joint use shared use agreement in the West End as well, is there not? We have none. Well, we have the West End Community Centre, which is a shared
site for indoor spaces in shared use. Thunderbird and Strathcona Elementary have indoor shared use in joint use agreements. We also have Eric Hamber and Oak Meadows where there's a joint use agreement for an outdoor sports field and I may be missing a few, but that's I think a good sample there. VSB, anything else to add? I may just clarify comments earlier. I've got direction from law that it is your purview to provide direction on that tonight, if you wish. And I'll also just add for the comments that the ODP for this area does contemplate a significant amount of park space in the adjacent site 1A. But it is your purview to provide direction on the joint use agreement tonight.
Can I just clarify actually that point? Because I made a note earlier when you did reference the, sorry, just grab my notes. the future East Park to be open in 2028?
That would be for me. Again, the question is East Park opening timeline. So we're in design stage for East Park right now. That's about 1.2 hectares of new green space envisioned in this ODP as green space. We'll have a large open space, a songbird meadow, and seating. Our timeline is complicated a little bit by some of the changes happening in the Expo deck and the waterfront and the greenways there. But we're in design, expect construction to begin in 2027 with opening as soon as we can after that. So 2028 at the tail end, the worst case for an opening date for the new East Park.
Okay. That's helpful context. I appreciate that. Okay, I'll leave my questions there. I see no one else in the queue. And so we will move to do our second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to this item, please call 1-833-353-0648 followed by participant code 1061445 pound. Followed by participant code 106-1445 pound. before the close of the speakers list. The number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. We will now hear from the public. Any speakers in council chamber, please come forward to the left podium, and that's the one to my right, when it is your turn. Phone-in speakers will be unmuted. Speakers will have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the application being considered. As a reminder, please state your name if you live in the city of Vancouver and whether you're in favour or in opposition to the application.
Our first registered speaker is Kathleen Thorncroft.
Thank you. My name is Kathy Thorncroft, and I'm a resident in the Olympic Village. I'm opposed to the rezoning amendment. I'm an educator with over 40 years of experience. I'm also a parent and a resident in Olympic Village. I'm speaking on behalf of a group of educators who are up there in the gallery. I am not in favour of the rezoning.
Hang on just one moment. Just one moment. Kathleen. Okay. Kathleen, we just need you to identify at least, I think, three other people you're representing by name that they're here.
Monica Pamer, Kent Campbell, and Nancy Boyle.
Yes, they are.
Fantastic. Thank you. It's just part of our process. So I'll let you start again. Go ahead.
Okay. My name is Kathy Thorncroft. I'm an educator with over 40 years of experience. I'm a parent and a resident of, or in, Olympic Village. I'm not in favour of the rezoning amendment before you, but I am certainly in favour of a school. I have a great amount of empathy for the parents in this community who have waited nearly 19 years for a school, but I believe they deserve much better than what is being proposed in this rezoning amendment. I'm here today to support the original school plan of 350 students as the most responsible option for this neighborhood. I urge City Council to reject this rezoning amendment, which would nearly double enrollment, creating the largest elementary school in Vancouver on the smallest site. School size is not simply a planning number. Research and capital planning practices both show that size directly affects educational suitability, site functionality, long-term utilization, and community impact. The proposed amendment departs from the original vision of Olympic Village as a complete, walkable, and sustainable community. Principles reflected in the City of Vancouver policy. It also adds considerable complexity to the design process, which will inevitably delay this project. I believe this amendment is attempting to address a delayed commitment to build a school of sufficient capacity to a school to a school of sufficient capacity to a accommodate the anticipated densification along the Broadway corridor and increased population of Fairview slopes. This is without due consideration to the impact on quality of education, safety, access to play areas, and green space, traffic congestion, and prudent management of capital resources. A larger catchment area also impedes connections that build social cohesion and healthy community dynamics. An appropriately sized neighborhood school can mitigate these factors, particularly for our youngest citizens. A neighborhood school invites families to congregate and connect before and after school, as well as on weekends, mitigating the effects of high-rise living. According to the BC Ministry of Education and the VSB Long Range Facilities Plan, school projects are evaluated on several key criteria. And I have been fully engaged in those. engaged in that process in two other school districts as an area superintendent. These criteria include demonstrated need, enrollment projections, site suitability, educational program delivery, long-term utilization, and stewardship of public funds. A neighborhood school for 350 students aligns well with this criteria, while a school of almost twice the size can be challenged on every factor. Number one, appropriate size and utilization. A high density neighborhood with smaller residential units and a higher proportion of rentals tends to experience enrollment volatility over time. Oversizing a school risks, future underutilization, as we see on Vancouver's west side where schools have vacant spots. It is also critical to consider the need for child care spaces, which is set in. lacking in the proposed new vision. A mid-size school, as originally proposed for the Olympic Village, provides the flexibility to respond to demographic change without committing public resources to a facility that may exceed long-term need. In addition, a cost of $150 million significantly exceeds the normal cost of building an elementary school in Greater Vancouver. Number two, site suitability, suitability, functional design, operational, and life cycle value. Olympic Village is a constrained urban site with limited outdoor space and road capacity. Ministry capital guidance is clear that school capacity must align with site conditions. An oversized school creates operational challenges, such as strain on on shared spaces, shortened outdoor playtime, staggered schedules, increased supervision demands, and higher long-term operating and maintenance costs. A school of 350 students avoids these compromises and ensures the facility supports rather than constrains educational programming. From a capital funding perspective, the right-size school represents responsible stewardship of public assets delivering long-term. long-term value. Number three, educational suitability and inclusion. Research overwhelmingly shows that small and mid-sized elementary schools are better positioned to support diverse learners, early intervention, and inclusive practices. This directly aligns with the Vancouver School Board's stated values of learners-first. At this scale, educators are more likely to know students well, deploy support services effectively, effectively and focus on teaching and learning rather than the management of resources and facilities, as I would say the day-to-day logistics of running a school. Number four, community integration and investment. A neighborhood-scaled school supports walkability, aligns with city transportation and climate goals, taking people out of cars, and minimize traffic congestion and safety concerns. When schools exceed the scale of their community, families are more likely to rely on on vehicle drop-offs, increasing congestion, and undermining the very planning principles of which Olympic Village was built upon. In conclusion, the original proposal of a 350 elementary school meets BC Ministry capital planning criteria, aligns capacity with site constraints, reflects Vancouver School Board's stated values of learners first, supports inclusive, high-quality, educational programming, increased family and residence engagement, reduces capital and operational risks, fits the scale and character of Olympic Village, and in this case was going to include a much-needed daycare facility. In closing, this is a case for building better. It represents a balanced, evidence-informed, educator-endorsed choice for the community. I am personally committed to working with the parents and educators and folks to help realize this vision, and I ask if we could establish a community advisory committee to help guide the design process. I respectfully urge Council to think big, not build bigger, and to honor the original vision for this neighborhood school, one that is educationally sound, financial responsible, and deeply connected to the community that it is supposed to serve. I would encourage the school board and the city to work together to get this school built. Thank you.
Thank you, Kathleen. Thank you for those comments.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Ira Nadell.
Ira here.
Welcome, Ira. You have up to five minutes to address council.
Thank you. And good evening, counselors. I am very pleased to be here this evening. I am Ira Nadell, a resident of Olympic Village, and I'm speaking on behalf of Village Voices. Now, we support having an elementary school in Olympic Village at the South. at the scale originally approved. What we oppose is the rezoning application that nearly doubles the enrollment on what is likely, and I'll say this several times, the smallest designated school site in the entire city. This is not opposition to a school. It is opposition to a rezoning that creates foreseeable land use, safety, safety. safety and livability impacts that this site cannot reasonably absorb. I will focus on four areas, site capacity, traffic and safety, governance and transparency, and alternatives. Site capacity. The original proposal, which was a three-story school for approximately 320 students, fits the site. The revised proposal. certainly does not. To accommodate 650 students, the building grows vertically to six levels when mechanical floors, grade elevation for flood protection, and rooftop play space are included. Ground level play space is absent. It's displaced. And a public green space is effectively lost. A rooftop playground, excesses. by elevator is not equivalent to ground level play. And comparable schools have found such spaces underused, particularly by younger children, who have, by the way, short legs. Think of that. This design choice for the expanded school, I do not think think is educationally driven. It is a response to site constraints. The rezoning asked counsel to approve a building form that overwhelms its context and forces operational compromises, such as parking, which was not really identified as an issue by the Vancouver School Board. But believe me, it is a big issue. So I'll turn to traffic. Olympic Village was designated as a walkable neighborhood, not as a high-volume, school. drop-off location, a school with 650 students with, let me repeat this, six, six drop-off spaces hardly suits on-site staff parking. It has no space for buses or delivery areas. It creates predictable ingestion. And the proposed one-way street changes, funnel traffic onto Manitoba Street, limiting access not only for parents, but for emergency vehicles, deliveries, waste removal, and local businesses. This must be rethought. Even under optimistic assumptions about walking and cycling, daily pickup and drop-off congestion is unavoidable, particularly for kindergarten and primary students who require supervision and often, frequently, if not always, accompaniment to their classroom and certainly to the school. Six parking drop-off locations. This is not simply inconvenient. It creates safety risks, rushed drop-offs, illegal stopping, double parking, and conflicts, did I say, with cyclists and pedestrians. These are not hypothetical concerns. There are documented patterns at other high-density schools. Council was being asked to accept what I would call a hope-based traffic scenario rather than a comprehensive school transportation safety plan. But let's talk about governance and transparency. There are unresolved questions that matter to a rezoning decision. Enrollment across Vancouver schools has generally. been declining, and we understand the primary pressure on the system is seismic upgrading. There are also unanswered questions about funding. The amount is 150 million. There is no transparency on how that money is going to be used. I will close because I see the little flashing lights. I normally don't pay attention to them. I lecture at UBC, so you know we don't have to pay attention I can see a smile. I'm suggesting that there be another consideration for a site. I think it's been mentioned. And, of course, that is on First Avenue. We do have three hours of more speakers.
Ira, thank you for speaking. We do have to respect the time because we're giving everyone up to five minutes and some groups up till eight minutes. So thank you very much for your comments.
Thank you.
Thank you. And our next speaker is Mirna Leslie. and I understand you have a PowerPoint. Oh, you have some, okay, that's great. Thank you. I just want to make sure that we have those available. Yes, I'm certain do they do that. Can we just make sure that we have mirrors photos? Yep, we're ready. Okay, just noting, Counciloror just have leave of absence at this time. So just you're wondering. Go ahead.
Seeing Mayor Domenata and city councillors, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is My name is Myrna Leslie. I am a resident owner in the village of Falls Creek, otherwise known as Olympic Village, and I've been there for almost 14 years. I am here because I believe approving this text amendment will have serious and permanent consequences to the character and livability of our award-winning community. And I respectfully oppose this application. I have long been an advocate for Greensman. And after consulting with urban and city planners, I fundamentally believe this site should not be developed at all. Did I have next picture please? This parcel is the only level usable green space in the village now and in the foreseeable future. It has direct access to the water, use of the city, sea, and mountains, and it sits on a floodplain beside an ecologically sensitive wetland. land and creek. In a village of concrete, it has functioned as our community's backyard for 15 years. Over time, amendments to the original Southeast Falls Creek plan have increased density
without adding green space. This site must be preserved. Once it's gone, it cannot be replaced. Next piece, I am presenting a petition, 2119 signatures, requesting that this site, remain part of Hinch Park. I urge council to give serious weight to this level of voter response, particularly in light of our greenest city commitments. I want to be very clear. I support a school. It grounds and completes our community. We need one and we have waited a long time. However, I believe this site was never appropriate for a school, and it's certainly not appropriate for a school of this magnitude. The Ministry of Education's own area standards indicate that a school of this scale requires approximately 12,000 square meters of play space. Even with rooftop play areas in adjacent park space are included, this site provides only about 25 or 30% of that requirement. Next, please. This proposal would create the largest elementary school on the smallest footprint in the city. The building would cover the entire site with no setbacks and no meaningful ground-level green space. For free play, small children thrive in accessible, unstructured outdoor environments. Rooftop play areas are limiting, not available after school hours, and not accessible to the public. In effect, our community park disappears into the shadows. of this very large structure. As growth continues under the official Vancouver plan, we should be planning a school that serves the future, not forcing an oversized school onto an undersized site. More appropriate alternatives exist within or near the community, including the parking lot west of Hinge Park on 1st Avenue, it would be a site in East Park plan, or locations such as 7th in Columbia. These options would allow for safer access, appropriate scale, and the preservation of much-needed green space. Finally, this rezoning application came as a complete surprise to residents. Despite stated commitments to consultation and transparency, the community was not meaningfully engaged, and many residents received inconsistent or conflicting information from all levels of government. This has eroded trust in the process. Our children and our community deserve better. Children's health and well-being depend on thoughtful school design and a vertical campus with limited access to green space for our youngest of students moves us in the wrong direction. Yes, land is valuable, but so is our children's school life experience. We need a school that supports our community. not one built at its expense. I'm asking the city to reject this rezoning application and to immediately begin working with Vancouver School Board, the province, and a community advisory group to identify a more appropriate site that we can work together. I believe if there is a will, there is a way. That's your time. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Ravine Mandir-Paulz. Ravine, welcome. Hello, good evening, counselors. My name is Ravine. I live in Olympic Village and I support the rezoning application.
I've lived here with my now husband and our small dog Bailey since 2019. In 2022, we welcomed our son Mason and we love living in Olympic Village.
Like many of our neighbors, we chose to start our family here believing, perhaps a little naively, that this dense, thoughtfully planned, walkable community would be matched by the public infrastructure that families depend on, child care community programs, and ultimately a neighborhood elementary school. What we've come to realize is that the reality is far more complicated. In one of Vancouver's most densely populated neighborhoods, access to these services often comes down to chance, chance in securing a daycare spot, chance in registering for swim lessons before they fill up within minutes. and most surprisingly of all, chance in accessing a public elementary school in the community where we live. It wasn't until after Mason was born that I realized our designated catchment school, Fraser, is about a 25-minute walk away from home. And that's 25 minutes for me, not for my soon-to-be five-year-old child. I only recently learned that that placement for that catchment school isn't guaranteed. It's determined by lottery. Neighboring schools are also under severe enrollment pressure and families are routinely displaced from their communities in search of a public school spot. Right now, we don't know where Mason will land for kindergarten, so we can't plan ahead to secure before and after school care, nor can we make any concrete plans with respect to our jobs and routines to plan our pickups and drop-offs. And we will 100% have to, have to drive him to school because that's the only practical option for our family. And that matters to us because our daily life is otherwise entirely walkable. We walk Mason to daycare. We walk to work, and the absence of a nearby school forces us to depend on our car. We were very fortunate that Mason secured a spot at the daycare in Olympic Village. It's been a wonderful experience. We're building strong relationships with the families whose children and attend there. We support each other, rely on each other, and these kids are growing up together in this community. It'll be incredibly sad to see them scattered across different schools simply because there isn't enough capacity at the local school. I'm looking ahead to 2029 when Mason would be entering grade two, and I'm hopeful about the possibility of a school within walking distance of our home. I'm encouraged by the thoughtful design, especially the rooftop playground, which is so similar to the one he enjoys at daycare now. I worry, though, that if capacity isn't sufficient, that we're going to end up on a wait list. And sorry, it's kind of crazy that we're going to end up going to a school that's not the one that's across the street from where we live. I support an elementary school that is truly accessible to all of the children in our community. And this proposal. seems to be the only plan on the table that will give us a school by 2030. I'm asking you to approve it. Doing so would give present and future children in Olympic Village a safe, accessible elementary school within their own community, and that would align with our neighborhoods, infrastructure and with the families who call it home. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments. Speaker number five is withdrawn. And just given the hour, I am going to, just I'm going to, just I don't know, want to run out of time because the next speaker has update minutes. I am going to canvas council about extending past 10 p.m. to hear more speakers.
I just recognize that we have a number of people. It's actually a full host in here this evening. So I would, I'll throw a motion on the floor. I see Councilor Kerbiyang, so I was about to throw a motion on the floor, but go ahead, Councillor Kerbiyang. If you're looking for a motion chair, I would move to extend to hear speakers and refer a debate and decision to a future reserve date. I believe the next one available is, and clerks can confirm, is the 26th in the afternoon or failing that on March 4th. But I think that given that
so many people have come out tonight, I'm going to put that out for counsel's consideration and everybody's made the trip and they're here. Thank you, Councillor Kirby Young. That's on the floor. I need a second. I and actually just seconded by Councillor Fran. I'm just going to pause for a moment just to
consult with the clerks. So hang on a moment everyone. So, Councillor Kirby Young, just following consultation with the clerks, we would need to ensure that if the motion is simply to hear speakers this evening, that we're referring all portions of debate. So follow-up questions as well as debate and then decision. Yes. That's, I think, your intention. I just wanted to clarify that. That is correct. I was just looking for confirmation for the clerk, whether it would be to February 26th or March 4th. February 26th? Yes, that's correct. Okay, so just to be clear for everyone in chambers of those of joining us online, the motion is to go beyond 10 p.m. this evening to hear speakers and close off that list and then refer follow-up questions to staff, debate and decision to February 26th in the reserve time in your calendars. at 3 p.m., just to be clear. So, Councillor Kerbion, I'm just going to advance. Councillor Bly, she's on the queue next to speak to. It is a debatable motion. Go ahead, Councillor Bly. Thanks, Chair. I'm just curious if we can get a best-guess estimate based on the number of speakers we have remaining on the list at about five minutes each. My math is it would put us close to three hours, which would mean speakers would have to stay in chambers until close to 1 o'clock in the morning in order to get their turn to speak. it does, I just would like some advice there that seems like a bit of an extreme and may not be fair to the speakers. Certainly, I'll consult with the clerks. I will say eyeballing it. We have at least 20 people, if not more, and I would say more than that, 25 to 30 in chambers. And we have more, I believe, in the lobby from what I could hear earlier, but we can consult with security as well on that. So just give us a moment. members, which is we're trying to accommodate that as well. So I'm going to end 13 online as well. So I think that gives you a sense of this scope. And so do you have any further comments to the motion?
Can I get clarity on forum, noting many counselors are missing from this meeting. So what is our status with quorum?
We have six members. Does that answer your question, Councillor Bly? It does. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, counsel, I don't see anyone else on the queue, and so I'm just going to call the question. I think, I hope everyone's clear on the motion. It's going to be a recorded vote, counsel. Please vote online. I'll take a vote assistant favor, please. Councillor Bly, I'm just waiting for your vote. And thank you, counsel, that passes unanimously. Okay, thanks everyone for your patience. We will move to our next speaker, Jonathan Berkowitz, a representative speaker. Can you identify who you're representing if they're here this evening in person or online? Yes, I'm representing Ed Dowling, Myanna Dowling, and Susan
Wingate, and they are all here today. Thank you very much. Go ahead. Thank you. Good evening, Acting Mayor, Councillors. My name is Jonathan Berkowitz. My wife and I have lived in Olympic Village since 2012, and I am speaking against the text amendment to increase the size of the proposed school. Now, I am in support of an elementary school in the village, but with three floors. A fourth floor? Well, that's another story. I hope I made, I hope I made you smile. It is getting late. I'm a statistician for over four decades. I've taught statistics and analyzed data, and there are many lessons I've learned — here are three. First, if you can only see one way to interpret the data, you are probably wrong. Second, prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. And third, if the answer doesn't feel right, it probably isn't right. So take another look. Let's start with enrollment. The VSB, from their own report, says, we've seen a decline in enrollment since 1997 leading to thousands of empty seats. And even in their enrollment projections update June 2025, they write, quote, the consistently smaller cohort of annual births from 2019 to 2024 is expected to be a major factor putting downward pressure on enrollment levels in the school district in future years. End quote. That's their data. The data show that. Now, the same report lists factors that decrease enrollment: low and declining birth rates. Yep. Cost of living, undoubtedly. Out-migration. Also, yes. Reduced immigration of families? Absolutely. Economic uncertainty. No kidding. They're already happening. Another is low student yields from new development. Who will the new condo buyers be? What percentage will have school-age children? We don't have those data. So, enrollment data don't support the text amendment claim that space is needed for 630 students. The enrollment data do support the original plan for 350 students. The proposed fourth floor will likely be empty for a very long time. Now, transportation and parking. The amendment says, quote, reduced parking is not a concern given the site's excellent walkability and strong connections to local pedestrian and cycling networks. End quote. Olympic Village is a tourist attraction. Where will the visitors park? especially the older generation. Not everybody will be able to walk or cycle. Plans for the school call for 32 covered bicycle stalls. That's only enough for 5% of the proposed 630 students. So much for cycling to school. Are teachers and staff expected to cycle too? They don't live in the neighbourhood. Now, the traffic study predicts that transportation to the school will be 83% walking and cycling, 13% car and 4% transit. But there are other studies. Those numbers contradict hands-up surveys that are done of students, which show less than 60% of students actually walk to school, east side or west side of the city. Where are reliable data on walking versus driving, especially nowadays with public safety top of mind? Supposedly three-quarters of the 630 students would be from in-catchment and one quarter, that's 158, from out-of-catchment. The latter are much more likely to be driven than to walk or cycle. Well, that contradicts the 83% walking or cycling prediction. Was Vancouver weather ever taken into consideration? How about differences in behavior between the lower grades and the upper grades? Was that considered? Here's another prediction they make. Of the 472 in-catchment — the three-quarters — nearly everyone, they say, will regularly walk, roll, or cycle to school. That includes 15% who live between 1 kilometre and 2 kilometres away. We know that a 2-kilometre walk is at least 20 minutes on adult legs. Obviously, a lot longer on children's shorter legs. Let's do just some tiny bit of arithmetic here. 15% of 472: 71. Add a large fraction of the 158 who are out-of-catchment students, and you find somewhere between 100 and 200 students being driven to school. Remember, that's a prediction. We don't know how good predictions are, but pretty close. The report claims there is minimal likelihood of significant out-of-catchment enrollment triggering elevated auto use. Really? These predictions don't feel right at all. There's one more startling claim in the transportation and parking. Quote, no significant issues are anticipated with curbside parking for on-street pickup and drop-off, end quote. With only six spaces, as you've heard, does that claim actually seem reasonable? What about students, teachers, and parents with accessibility issues? Good luck to any resident wanting to leave Olympic Village during those times. I'm glad. I'm semi-retired. Traffic. The traffic study notes that opening a new school would not have significant adverse impacts on the four existing signalized intersections. But it says, quote, modifications under the City of Vancouver's assumed scenario are expected to increase traffic volumes on Manitoba Street. The intersection of Columbia and West 1st may experience significant active transportation volume and heightened collision risks following the opening of a new school. End quote. A bigger school combined with the city's road network plans are a disaster waiting to happen. Now, Mayor Sim has identified public safety as a key priority. That should include safe neighbourhoods, safe schools, and safe transportation. The proposed changes to traffic flow will endanger residents of the Olympic Village. With only one street northbound, that being Manitoba, that would be used by service and delivery vehicles, we will indeed be safe in our homes since we won't actually be able to get out. There are four streets leading in and out of the village. This is arithmetic at the kindergarten level. Four divided by two is two. Salt Street is already one-way southbound. It is illogical to make two more one-way southbound streets out of the village and only one street, one street northbound into the village. I asked Vancouver Fire and Rescue about this. They told me their work would be greatly complicated by the proposed change, but they weren't asked. Why not? In my professional opinion, many of the statistics quoted in the reports are misleading. Even the school address is misleading. 215 West 1st, haven't you? It's not on West 1st. It's on Columbia. Education has its three R's. I ask you to embrace three R's too. I and many voters in the Olympic Village ask you to reconsider, re-evaluate, and reject the proposed amendment. Stick with the original plan. You want the right school, at the right size, and the right place — that's another three R's. OV stands for Olympic Village, an original vision, an outstanding Vancouver. Come to Olympic Village, have a first-hand look. Good luck finding a parking spot.
Thank you for your comments. Well-timed. Just a reminder, we don't usually accept clapping in the gallery, but appreciate the arithmetic lessons as well as you went along. Okay, our next speaker is Jason Lyons in person. Jason, welcome, Jason. Thank you.
Good evening, Councillors. My name is Jason Lyons. I'm a resident of Olympic Village, and one of the few parents fortunate enough to have the family support to be able to attend this evening's hearing. I am thoroughly in support of the Vancouver School Board's application to increase this school's height for our new planned neighbourhood school, and I urge the council to approve it, and here's why. For years, Olympic Village has been labeled as a hot spot for young families, and the data shows it. According to the last census held five years ago, Olympic Village has by far the highest density of children residents under the age of 14 of any neighbourhood in the entire city. At that time, 800 kids under 14 years in only eight city blocks. A number of additional buildings have been built in the area since then, of course. Let me repeat: 800 kids under 14, eight city blocks. And that was before the completion of an additional six towers in the same area around Pullman Porter and along First Avenue. Existing capacity challenges have already been covered. So in the interest of everyone's time, I won't repeat that, but I will try to give a parent's perspective. Getting basic amenities for your own child should not feel like winning the lottery. Yet most parents in Olympic Village, that is a daily occurrence. Lotteries to get our children into daycare, lotteries to get our children a family doctor, lotteries to get our children swimming lessons, and of course, a lottery to get our children into a nearby school. Don't call us, we'll call you. That's what we hear on a regular basis. My wife and I, like many of our neighbours, moved to Olympic Village because of the promise of a walkable lifestyle, proximity to TransLink amenities, and a school in the works, only to find families that have been waiting for this school for almost 20 years. 20 years. Neighbourhood kids have been born and reached adulthood in that time. We have seen delay after delay, and every year of inaction represents another cohort of children forced to crowd into schools far beyond our catchment's boundary. But this isn't just about education. It's about infrastructure and health. By building this school to the right capacity, you are taking cars off the road. Instead of parents driving across town to an overcrowded school in another catchment, our children could walk. Research shows that walking to school isn't just exercise. It fosters a sense of autonomy, independence, and maturity that children desperately need in today's dense urban environment. As mentioned earlier, at least 80% of the future students with this increased capacity school will come from within two kilometres of that school. Two kilometres. For most of the students, it would take their parents longer to get them down the parkade into the car, and then back out onto the street, than it would just for the children to walk or cycle to school. The fastest way to get this 20-year delayed project moving is to stop the delays and let Vancouver School Board build what they believe is necessary. The existing schools don't exist where the kids are. That is the reality. Please relieve the parents of Olympic Village of one lottery tonight, approve the height increase, and help us finally bring this school home. Thank you for your time. I yield the remainder to the rest. Thank you.
Thank you kindly. Thank you for your comments this evening. Next speaker is Peter Reese in person with a PowerPoint presentation.
Good evening. Good evening. We have your slides, I believe, and if you want them, just let us know next slide and we'll move them ahead. Acting Mayor, Councillors, thanks for inviting us here to share our views. I'm Peter Reese, an Olympic villager, a village voice. I'm opposed to this. I'm I'm opposed to this school amendment. As architects, we explore issues and opportunities. I'd like to help get us to the heart of the matter. Kids matter. Green space matters. The World Cup is here. Kids want to play soccer. Be messy. Outside. Play outside school hours. Be happy, have fun, and practice, practice, practice. Another matter. Three floors is faster to build than four. Parents are tired of the wait. They look to you to start their school. We want it started, and it's our school too. Look both ways. But if you stop this text amendment, everybody will be happy. Stopping it would speed up, not delay the school. Now, buildings are designed inside computers. It's a magic box. The fourth floor is the same as the third. A few clicks and four would be three. With less weight, some steel and concrete could be deleted from foundations. It could be done between breakfast and lunch. Slide two. We've waited and waited for our school. Here's the original vision. A village school with green space and a future playfield by the bridge. Almost connected. That's what we see. Next slide. The current model, that's what we saw. People were happy for funding. But 150 million, 100 million. A hundred million contingency? I'll focus on two issues: process and green space. Slide three or four. Slide four. Process. Now we wait again for VSB's application to play out. Extra height, extra storey. 630 kids, activated rooftop. A school sketched with some hatched lines on top. What's that? Nothing about what else might come extra.
Active Ruth Scher to play soccer there in that enclosure, 630 kids. That's regimentation, not play. Next slide. Oops. Where did that come from? Next slide. That shouldn't, that, next slide. Yeah, that shouldn't be here either. It's too much information. So, here's the notice of a public hearing. Where's all that extra stuff? It's here. You know, pages and pages of engineering minutia. Isn't that EP conditions of approval? To me, it is. And this. What's this? Form of development? Also to be approved? Whatever the roof enclosure might be approved? look like. It might look like options in the booklet, or might not. Isn't that like signing a blank check? Three stories would fit our village better, be better for kids, for teachers. Mass timber would be even better. Less mess. Use BC wood, not steel. Green space. Green space.
Peter, you're coming to the end of your time.
We could have a place. Playfield that's by the bridge moved close to the school now. By the time the school bell rings, why not just sit down with the school board.
Thank you, Peter. That's your time. That's your time. That gave you a bit of extra time.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Ashley Corcoran on by phone.
My name is Ashley Corcoran. I am a resident of Vancouver, and I live in beautiful Olympic Village since 2017. I'm calling tonight to support this rezoning. In 2020, I made the life-changing decision to become a solo mom. As part of that decision, I carefully considered whether Olympic Village was a place where I could raise a child long term. At the time, the NDP had promised to fast track in elementary school here, if elected. That commitment mattered to me. It gave me confidence that this neighborhood would grow with families like mine. I am in many ways the quote, ideal Olympic Village resident. I both live and work here in the neighborhood. My son has grown up here. He's now four and a half years old and he has attended daycare here in the village locally. We walk everywhere to daycare, to work, to the grocery store, to the seawall. We've chosen to live with a small footprint in a densified area because we love this pedestrian lifestyle. In September, my son will start kindergarten. Olympic Village is in the catchment for Simon's Fraser Elementary. This is an adult 25-minute walk away. It's along busy streets that are not safe for children to navigate alone. Walking there would take an hour each way, each day, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. Our pedestrian lifestyle would no longer be feasible. But before I get ahead of myself with the idea of attending Simon Fraser Elementary, what I want to talk about today is that many people without young children in Vancouver may not realize that in all of central Vancouver, public elementary admissions is a lottery system. There is a very real chance we won't even get into our catchment school. Last fall, I called Simon Fraser Elementary to ask how many kindergarten applications they typically receive. I was told they received between 120 to 140 applications each year. There are 40 kindergarten spots at that school, with about half of those going to siblings of current students. That leaves roughly 120 children competing for just 20 spots. Today, actually, many of my son's daycare friends' parents got emails, letting them know which elementary schools they would be attending. Who would be going to Simon Fraser? We did not get that email today. So as I speak here tonight, we do not know where he will be going to school in September. And we've seen this pattern before. When new downtown schools like Elsie Roy or Crosstown opened, they were already oversubscribed. Even brand new schools have not been large enough to meet demand by the time their doors open. People who've lived across the street from these schools did not win their lottery. That tells us something important. We are consistently under-building for the number of families who actually live here in central Vancouver. When families don't get in, their children are placed elsewhere, such as in East and South Vancouver. Some families don't find out where their children are going to until May or June. That uncertainty is incredibly stressful. It's not just about school. It's also about finding crucial aftercare once you know where a child is going to school. It's also about transportation, about work schedules, and stability. Parents are trying to plan their lives for waiting for a lottery result for public education. So I want to acknowledge concerns about traffic. I understand that some people feel this rezoning will increase congestion in the village. But the reality is, that according to the last census, there are approximately 800 children living within blocks of the proposed school site. These children already exist. Without a local school, those families, including my son and me come this September, must actually get into cars and drive to Simon Fraser or even farther schools. In other words, not building a school here with appropriate capacity directly adds traffic to our neighborhood every morning and every afternoon. I also want to speak to something practical as parents, as parents many of us are genuinely excited about the rooftop playground, a common feature in our children's current daycares here in the Olympic Village. Two of them have this already. Olympic Village is a beautiful, it's a beautiful community, but we do face challenges with things like needles or sometimes even human waste in some areas around our parks. A rooftop playground would provide a secure, contained, and safe environment for children. This matters deeply to families. So let's build a school for today, not for a population of 20 years ago. In fact, let's build for the future. Schools are meant to serve communities for 50 years or more. If we build too small now, we are locking in another generation of lotteries, of portables, and of children being driven across the city. No child in
Vancouver should have to win a lotto. Sorry, Ashley, that's your time, Ashley. Thank you. Your next speaker is Robin Chan. I saw Robin in person. Go ahead, Robin.
Welcome. Thank you, Chair and Council. My name is Robin Chan. I am a resident of Vancouver, and I'm here to speak in support of the proposed tax amendment. As many counselors probably know, I don't live in the Olympic Village catchment, but so I'll keep my comments brief. So you can hear from the families that do and from the many people after me. But I wanted to be here tonight, both to support Olympic Village families, but also to support the proposed increase in student capacity that this text amendment recommends, which means that the school would be large enough to be the overflow school for Falls Creek catchment where I do live. I brought my son, Sebastian, with me this evening, to witness democracy and action. He has learned there is a lot of waiting. And I'm making him read a book right now, not a screen. When Sebastian was entering kindergarten in 2022, we knew that we would have to enter the kindergarten lottery in our Falls Creek Elementary Catchment. Every year is the same perverse ritual of parents posting questions and chat groups about how to sign up for the lottery, what's going to happen, and then a few months later sharing their results. And actually in really, truly ironic timing, parents all over the city found out their lottery results today. When we got Sebastian's lottery results, we found out that not only did he not get into the two French immersion schools that we had applied to, but he was also the last kid on the wait list at Falls Creek Elementary. I felt like I had failed my kid. We had no idea where he was going to go to school, no idea if he would be with friends, and no idea when we would find out. If the school in Olympic Village had been built when it was meant to be over a decade ago, so many families like ours would have been saved months of stress as they wondered what they were going to do. The proposed increase in size means that hundreds of families will be saved from that stress and anxiety every single year. So please don't repeat the same mistake of building schools too small so that they are overcapacity at day one. We've seen this time and time again, and the proposal by the school board to plan for the future is so needed and welcome. My neighbor, Graham McGarva, who happens to have been the lead consultant for Southeast Falls Creek, as well as international village and roundhouse neighborhoods, where two schools were over capacity on the day that they opened, has said that there is no credible argument against the public benefit of this rezoning. Finally, in my last minute, I want to really recognize the years of organizing that parents, caregivers, and families have had to do just to get to this point. And the work of the province, school board staff, city staff, trustees, former trustees now on Council. Six years ago, friends of mine were involved in early organizing, finally getting that promise from Premier Horgan and our then new MLA, Brenda Bailey, to build the school. While we're still waiting, and a new generation of parents and children are here asking you to hear them. I know you've heard from and we'll hear from many other people during this hearing telling you why you shouldn't approve the additional student capacity or the height. But behind each family that is here speaking in support at a public hearing that has taken place over dinnertime and bedtime and bedtime and my bedtime, at a public hearing that's going to span multiple days. There are hundreds of other families that support the school, and we ask that you do too. Thank you.
Thank you, Robin. Our next speaker is Shizrad Pradadadadadad, Padram, sorry.
Welcome. Thank you. And good evening, acting mayor and counselors. My name is Charzad Pedram, and I have been a resident of Olympic Village for 10 years. I am in support of this rezoning application and text amendment. I have a 12-month-old. son, who I hope to be able to walk to school if this rezoning application gets approved. The parents of Olympic Village over the last 20 years have lobbied multiple levels of government to get this school project moving. I thank them, and I'm deeply sorry that their little ones were not able to attend school in our walkable neighborhood. I heard and read their stories about endless wait lists and doubling commutes to pick up and drop off their kids, about them attend. over crowded classrooms. Another added stress on top of all of the challenges of raising a family in Vancouver. It makes me anxious about when my son gets to school age. Those in opposition, their concerns around congestion is a red herring to deter more than 600 schools from attending a school in their community, just to maintain the status quo. All of their concerns are unfounded. I implore them to read the staff report to counsel. to council. Eighty-five percent of the school attendees will be living within one kilometer of the school, just like us. We choose to live here and not the suburbs because we don't want to rely on cars. I don't want to drive my son to school, but I won't be left with any other choice if he gets into schools that are in our current and nearby catchments. We need the school to be built to reduce congestion in our neighborhood. And we need the capacity of the school to meet today's and tomorrow's needs, not the enrollment projections from the year 2007. To quote Fred Rogers, we get so wrapped up in numbers in our society, the most important thing is that we are able to be one-on-one. You and I with each other at the moment. He also said, in times of stress, the best thing we can do for each other is to listen, with our ears and our hearts, and to be assured that our questions. are just as important as our answers. So I urge you to listen. Listen to the stories of those that have to raise families in this city. You'll see that the desire for maintaining a little patch of grass is minuscule to what this school means for our community. If Mr. Rogers was alive and lived in my neighborhood, he would be voicing his support tonight, I'm sure. I had to quote Mr. Rogers because my 12-month-old loves watching his show. And lastly, to counsel. I say please vote in favor of the rezoning application so that the school can finally move ahead. Let's get on with it and approve this application for rezoning. We, the present, past, and future parents of Olympic Village have waited far too long. Vote yes so that my son, along with many of his neighborhood friends, can enroll in the first class of kindies at Olympic Village Elementary without getting waitlisted. Thank you.
Thank you for your comments this evening. Good evening. Next speaker is Matthew Hogue on the phone. Hello.
Hi, Matthew. Go ahead. Hello, counselors and acting mayor, Dominado. Thanks for this opportunity to speak in front of counsel on this matter. My name is Matthew Hogue. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I support the proposed modifications to the Olympic Village School design based on my experience, the community need, and hard data. Look, I have young kids, and I'm relatively new to the experience as an elementary school parent. I'm privileged, I'm blessed, I'm lucky. My family has two spots. at Simon Fraser Elementary. Now, this chapter of my life has been new and joyful and an opportunity to build new community with other parents. Living only a few minutes walk from Simon Fraser Elementary has given me an opportunity to be connected with other parents, staff, and to lead community building events like kindergarten welcoming and movie nights. Look, I know my experience, I know that the experience is different from my friends who live a 28 minute walk away from the Olympic in the Olympic Village. Now, my hope is that this new larger school will be built for the Olympic Village. and that local parents will have the opportunity to build community and maybe have an experience that's similar to mine. Now, the community need that I want to highlight is the lack of school capacity. The expert data from the VsB shows that the five adjacent school attachments, Falls Creek, Mount Pleasant, Simon Fraser, Wolf and Cross Town are over capacity by 210 students today. Now, with the increased development of the Broadway plan, my amateur interpretation of the VSB facilities planning data shows that we may need 2,000 spots by 2033. Now, on data regarding traffic concerns voiced by opponents to this proposal, the staff at Stand Tech Consulting have completed a traffic analysis of the proposed school and published the report September 2025. And the expert analysis concluded that the neighborhood can manage the additional load from a larger school. The recent data found that 49% of Olympic Village residents work from home and 42% and take active transfer to transport to work every day. And that same report suggests that 83% of the students for this. Excellently Lintly service site will arrive at school by walking or cycling. Only 105 will arrive by other means. And this is why the five drop-off spot spots is actually a calculated and responsible use of space. It is not a concern. Because of this and other data, the report states that overall, and this is a quote, the addition of school generated traffic to the 2029 background traffic has an insignificant impact on the operational performance of the studied intersections. And similarly, the report states that the parking loads for pickup and drop off can be accommodated with five to six parking spots. The experts have found that parking and traffic will not be a concern. Now, I acknowledge that the opponents to this proposal are uncomfortable with the significant change, but the concerns that I have heard regarding parking and traffic can be, have been addressed by the professionals. And just like any development in a vibrant changing city, I agree. Things will be different, but the experts have stated that the traffic will not be significantly worse than if the school was not built. Now Simon Fraser Elementary school up at 15th in Manitoba has a material interest in the success of the Olympic Village School and this community. Since 2010, our school has welcomed students from Olympic Village area, but we must make a change to move out of the crisis of insufficient school capacity. Now to manage this influx of students to the from the Olympic Village. Simon Fraser School is currently operating at a hundred and 92 percent capacity of it with 162 more students than it was designed to support. Court. Now, limited capacity is common in this growing part of our city. And across the five nearby downtown schools, there are 210 more students in the catchments than available capacity. In my opinion is that it's surprising that the original school design of only 350 students was proposed and during this crisis of capacity in this area of the city. Now, this lack of regional school capacity is concentrated at my children's school at Simon Fraser. Students eat lunch in shifts because there is no space big enough to hold them all. Three portables are used for the older kids, isolating them from the rest of the school and limiting leadership opportunities. One class of four to five year old kindergarten kids is taught in a portable. And these young children regularly walk through the rain to access the main school as we don't have enough room for them. Now these are significant consequences due to lack of capacity, but I'm hopeful that together we can resolve them with this larger Olympic village school to reduce the load on Simon Fraser. Now, I don't sit on the planning committee and I'm not an expert at interpreting their data, but the worst-seeing capacity trend is clear. And it seems that we may need multiple schools of 600 students to be ready for the 2039 enrollment. Currently, schools of this scale of 600 students already exist in the VSB based on the 2024-25 data. This 650 spot school proposal is not the largest in the VSB has stated earlier at this hearing. Norma Rose Elementary has 600, 762 in the school proposal. enrolled. Other schools such as Lord Roberts, Laura Seacord, Lord Selkirk, all have more than 620 spots. And excluding the annexes, only 21 of the 89 schools in the VSB have enrollment of 35 students or less. These small schools are not common. Again, I acknowledge this is a significant change for residents who have been
comfortable with smaller schools. Matthew, thank you. I hope that we build this school and move forward. Thank you. Okay, our next speaker is Helen Helen. I'm a resident of Vancouver and over
Village specifically since 2014. We have been very lucky to recently become new parents, and I know most young parents don't have the luxury of time to call in at this time. But I support this free zoning, and I actually wish that it could even be bigger. I walk by the proposed site daily and weekly and have been for over 10 years. A lot of neighbors currently use the space for off-leash dog space, which is really great for them, but otherwise, it's really not accessible for many others. I've not ever sat in the park, because it's always muddy when it rains and has no shade when it's sunny. However, the playground just adjacent with a few swings and a play structure is always busy with line-ups because it's programmed, has shade, and functional. And I wish that Hinge Park would have more structures to make it more usable. So I'm very excited to hear that it will become effective space as a school, and even more so with the added programming on the other portion of Hinge Park. Now, while I appreciate concerns for a larger school on students, and operations, I think that it would be worse off not having the ability to go to school in one's own neighborhood. Surely that would have more detriment to a child, to a family. And for us, specifically, it would mean that my child's existing connections to the community, the neighbors we go and walk with, the daycare that we hope to secure, will all be thrown into instability again due to the unknown future with overcapacity schools, as presented in the VSD presentation earlier today. We are a one-car household, and I've met many new parents in the neighborhood who are from one or no-car households. So the reality is, if we can't get into this school, we'll have to get a second car, add to the traffic by driving our children from this neighborhood to Simon Fraser or even further, given previous commenters over-capacity experience. The 2021 census, which is five-year-old now has totaled over 700 children aged zero to 14 in Olympic Village. So I can only garner to guess how many more children there are here now. And so while I really don't mind leaving sleep over a waking infant, I really wish I didn't have to be losing sleep in order to watch public hearings and beg our counsel to approve a school to ensure that our child has a spot. So I really hope that council will approve this rezoning and furthermore support the Vancouver school board in reconciling the gap between the planning productions and the population reality where our schools are systemically overcapacity. And I really hope that council considers the impact on not just theoretical or general children with small legs, but the impacts of parents with real children who are here, who are now, living with the consequences of whether they will have a school spot in their own neighborhood. And as a previous speaker, alluded to the it to. The ability for kids to walk to their own school shouldn't be just for those who win the lottery at a limited capacity school. All families in Olympic Village and in our city deserve a walkable neighborhood. Thank you. Thanks, Helen, for calling in this evening. Our next
speaker is Diane McCurdy. Welcome, Diane. Good evening, acting mayor and members of council.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight and for your service to our city. Before I moved into my home 13 years ago, I was careful to investigate development plans for the general area. I was pleased to confirm that a three-story neighborhood school for 350 students was planned for Columbia Street. Also that the small, triangular green space area adjacent to Canada house would not be affected. I want to be clear, I strongly support moving forward with the original version for the school. This is a critical community asset that reflects Vancouver's vision for a healthy and child-friendly city. My concern is with the proposed doubling of density to 630 students, with 62 teachers and staff, on a small site with limited street access and narrow roads. Also, with the loss of the small but well-loved and heavily used triangular green space. That is the only green space in the area that could be preserved for community use. I am deeply concerned about vehicle, circulation, and traffic congestion that will surely block emergency vehicles, disrupt waste removal, servicing, and deliveries, limit access for residents, especially at peak drop-off and pickup times, backup traffic along 1st and 2nd Avenue, lead to illegal stopping, stopping, double parking, and block site lines at crossings, cause conflicts with cars, cyclists, and pedestrians, and not even to mention that the West Side is going to be even more development. I also question the assumption that only 20% of parents will drive their children to school. This may be a nice idea. but it does not reflect reality. In fact, analysis by government of Canada Transportation Report indicates the opposite, that 80% of parents are most likely to drive. A science direct report from 2023 states 53% of children that live five minutes from school used motorized transportation. Parents are dropping their kids on the way to work. We must design for real behavior, not ideal behavior. What is most troubling is that this process feels like a Fayaw-complea. that major decisions appear to have already been made. We hear reports of officials confirming there's no interest in reconsidering the proposed increase in density and its impact. Personally, I do not believe that's true. I believe in the opportunity we all have as citizens to influence the outcomes for our neighborhoods. Not only through the public hearing process, but also through ongoing community consultation, engages a broad range of views. I take seriously my responsibility to contribute my thoughts and ideas, to welcome the ideas of others and to collaborate in finding the best solutions for issues that might challenge us. Acting Mayor and Member of Council, I urge you to uphold the original vision of the three-story neighborhood school for 300 children in a safe and walkable community and establish a community advisory committee comprising residents, parents, and local businesses for consultation to move move this process forward quickly. By working together, listening to each other and learning from each other, we can realize the best possible vision for our community school. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak and for your service to Vancouver.
Thanks very much for your comments this evening. Our next speaker by phone, Hakan Coyote. Can you hear me? Yes. Go ahead.
Wonderful. Good evening, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Hawkin Coyote, and I'm a resident of Vancouver. I'm calling to express my strong support for the Olympic Village School rezoning proposal, but I'm a little perplexed that this text amendment is required for the site at all. shouldn't we trust our school districts to build the schools they need? Why is the city putting the school district or the province through additional processes when a school was originally planned for this site? All of this for one additional story so we can teach more kids and deliver more education. Isn't that what we want for the future and the next generation? The city has waited 19 years for this school to be built. And unfortunately, it's basically the city's fault that we're going to be built. we're waiting an additional year. The last year has been waiting for this rezoning process to be gone through. And not all of this because we've waited for so long, and now we need a larger school to satisfy the community needs. And I think these delays are really important because they've added additional time and costs onto the construction. And that extra time and money is going to be paid for by all of you counselors as well as me as a taxpayer. All of us taxpayers. I want my tax to to go towards actually building the schools, not paying for rezoning processes. And so I urge you to do something new this evening. Instead of just rezoning what is in front of you, rezone the school for school use. Remove the height, remove the density restrictions, just allow the school district to build a school. Let's trust the other institutions, other government institutions, school districts, hospitals to actually get out of the way and allow them to do what they need to do for our community. So again, this evening, support this test amendment. Let's build a school. But also, let's think about not getting in the way of these kind of things again, because it is so frustrating to have to be able to call in to support something that is as simple as a benefit as a school so that kids can learn for the next generation. Thank you.
Thanks for your comments. Our next speaker is Bobu Irich. Let's change it. Okay. No problem. Go ahead. Yeah.
Hello, Vancouver City Council and fellow residents. My name is Bobo Iric. I'm a resident of Mount Pleasant. I'm a parent of two kids who are starting school in September. I had originally called in to speak on the phone. But after listening to my fellow residents complain about the size of a school, I got irrationally upset, and so I have come in to make my voice be heard.
And I urge you to vote yes and to approve this school. I can't tell you how many times we have heard about the tragedy of families leaving the city, that the city doesn't work for families, whether that's housing, child care, swimming, take your pick. We're now sitting at a school that has been discussed for 19 years, and we're having a public hearing about making it smaller when schools in the neighboring area are all full. It's really with shock and dismay that I hear so many residents tonight and, you know, with these petitions that are flying around, opposing schools. And I can only really assume that they are living in the distant past and are unaware of the challenges that families and parents face in getting their kids into schools and accessing services for families. Schooling is not a luxury. It is a necessity. It has taken us 19 years to get from a proposal to a rezoning hearing. And just to use a relevant, you know, it might be a relevant example. In 1960, John F. Kennedy said that we choose to go to the moon, not because it's easy, but because it's hard. They went to the moon on the Apollo Project in 1969. It has taken us 10 years more to get from a discussion about a school to a rezoning than it did for the United States Space Program to get to the moon. What are we doing? The approval of a school design should not be subject to a public hearing. This is a necessity. It is a government service that is being provided and it is being subject to the whims of a small minority. I want to speak as well to the proposed size of the school. I truly hope that when this school gets built, if you approve it, that it will be built over capacity and that there will be extra space in the school. Because that says to me it is planning for growth. It is planning to, it is recognizing that councils have realized that we don't have enough housing and we are building more housing. And where we build housing, prices come down. And that's where families move. That's why there are more families in Olympic Village. That's why there's high demand for schools in places where councils have allowed housing. Not on the west side. That's a whole other issue. I have not sat through as many public hearings as you have, but in all of those public hearings around the Broadway Plan and around rental buildings, I hear complaint after complaint after complaint that we do not have the public and social infrastructure to accommodate new housing. Schools are over capacity. And yet here tonight, we are discussing a school that is going from 350 people, 350 kids to 650 kids to meet the capacity increases, and yet we still have residents who are standing up saying, no, this school is too small or that is too big. We should build a smaller one, which means that when we don't have capacity, kids are going to be forced to move elsewhere to go to school, or we have to build another second school. That is absurd. I lost my point. I have to reload my phone. Give me a second here. On the funding — The funding for the school comes from our taxes. The delay in getting this school built has not just cost us in the increased tax costs that it costs to build the school because infrastructure has increased faster than inflation. It has also cost families a worsened quality of life for the last 19 years when kids who were in Olympic Village have since aged out of the school system before this school is built. This is intolerable. And I can't stress that. enough and I know most of you feel it, but I need to say it. So in closing, I cannot believe that I felt the need to come today to speak in support of a school. And I really hope that you will do the right thing and approve the larger school because we desperately, desperately, desperately need it. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Bobo. Bang on time. Love your passion. Next speaker, Lynn Gray. Welcome, Lynn. No kidding. I'm almost on his side. Welcome, but go ahead. Good evening, Acting
Mayor and council members. My name is Lynn Gray, and I'm here as a supporter of the originally proposed Olympic Village Elementary School. I've lived in Olympic Village for 14 years, and I understand that the plans for this school have been on the drawing board for longer than that. A small community school would add to our neighbourhood. The purpose of my presentation is first to emphasize my support for that small school. Second, to highlight some of the gaps in the assumptions made in the transportation assessment and management plan commissioned in 2023 by the Vancouver School Board for the Olympic Village School. I'll call it the TAMS report. Third, I'd like to address the safety concerns about feeding school traffic through the Olympic Village. And finally, I ask that you reject the proposed amendment to the original school plan. While the TAMS report assumes that 83 to 90% of students will walk or ride their bikes to school, research does not support this. You've heard lots and lots of numbers this evening. The studies have been done in Canada and the U.S. And the studies show that walking to school has declined over the decades. In fact, in Vancouver, a recent study was done by TransLink called Travel Smart Kids and can be found on the TransLink website. This study showed that today, on average, 58% of elementary school children are driven to school. Even in walkable neighbourhoods, 20 to 40% of families still drive. And new schools, attracting families outside of the catchment area, increase that percentage. Morning drop-off traffic in our city accounts for one-fifth of the morning traffic. As a resident of the village, in addition to the safety of children attending the school, I have great concerns for the safety of people living in the village. The plan to make all one-way streets through the village will increase congestion and frustration. It's unsafe and poor urban planning to have only one access point into a community. By rerouting the traffic, as described in the TAMS report, rather than four access points into the village, we will have only one. And that's Manitoba Street. It's a small, narrow, inlaid brick street built for walking traffic in the village. It runs alongside the village square, where pedestrians walk, meet for coffee, and small children play. With all the streets into and out of the village changed to one-way streets, it means everyone who lives in the village will also have to drive down Manitoba Street. At drop-off and pick-up time there will be an additional 140 to 300 cars also driving through the village down Manitoba Street. The bottleneck and traffic jams will be unsafe and frustrating all the way through the village and likely out onto First Avenue. This does not even begin to question what will emergency vehicles, food, and other delivery trucks, garbage trucks, etc., do about getting into the village. Even between drop-off and pickup, the one-way roads and one street access to the village will delay all of these services. And parking. How will 64 school staff manage with four parking spaces? I've spoken to many teachers about taking transit or riding a bike to work. They all say it's not possible. They have books, papers, projects, laptops, that they carry back and forth every day. Street parking is at a premium in the village now, and the spots on Columbia Street will be completely lost to the residents. The TAMS report has overestimated active travel, underestimated vehicle demand, and underplayed parental safety concerns. It's also missed several key safety and operational issues in the Olympic Village. I fully support the original school plan and want it to succeed. However, I cannot support the rezoning proposal, and I ask you to vote against this proposal. Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your comments this evening. I appreciate that. Just a note, because we are at Burrard, and we do need councillors online to have their videos enabled. So if I could just ask councillors to do that. Thank you. Much appreciated. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sarah Pollock by phone.
Hi, good evening, council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Sarah Pollock, and I'm a resident of South False Creek, very close to Olympic Village. I'm also a solo parent to three children under the age of 10. I'm here to speak in strong support of the rezoning proposal for the Olympic Village School. Although my address falls in the False Creek Elementary School catchment, a new, large school would benefit those of us west of the Cambie Bridge, too. False Creek Elementary is a small, older school that's not at all accessible to any student or staff with mobility needs. Moreover, each year, False Creek receives 80 or more applications for only 20 to 40 kindergarten spaces. This past September, when my middle child started there, the school was only able to accommodate one class worth of kindergarteners, due to space constraints. And over half of that class went to siblings with priority. You've heard tonight already about the stress that this lottery system brings. This left so many families in my community in a lurch, not finding out until the last moment where they were going, and many going far away in traffic each day just to bring their child to public school. This goes against city efforts to reduce bridge traffic and reduce harmful vehicle exhaust. Had there been a new school in Olympic Village, this would have been a much more walkable and bikeable option for families to overflow from False Creek. I urge you to approve the Olympic Village School with the additional height and the rooftop play area. I applaud the initiative to build a school now that will serve the needs of a growing city to come. The current lack of school and kindergarten lottery system is unsustainable, and it is unfair to children and their families. I've seen so many families simply move away rather than deal with the stress and unknowns of the lottery. Others struggle every day to drop off younger children in one direction to a daycare and then rush to try to make it to kindergarten all the way up at Simon Fraser Elementary, or even General Wolfe, which is even further. My children are very frequent users of Hinge Park. And I hear directly from parents every year how stressful this is and how crazy it is to have to go through this for a public school space, a basic right for children. I urge the city to take this into consideration as other major developments are master planned, such as the Heatherlands and the Jericho Lands, to not make these mistakes in the future. A village is not a village without a school. The school should have been built from day one in the Olympic Village. And the opposition you have heard tonight does not represent the families who live here, who are up so late, who are going to be waking up before 6 a.m. with little people. This really matters to us. And thank you for listening tonight.
Thank you, Sarah, for calling in. Christopher Lee, speaker number 20.
Christopher Lee here.
Hello there. Yes, I am. Thank you. Go ahead.
Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Christopher Lee. I'm a resident, and I am fully in favour of this zoning amendment. I'll say it again and again, schools are the lifeline of livability in a community. They are community hubs, childcare spaces, and centres of learning all in one. That's exactly why when schools are strong and rooted in their neighbourhoods, it's communities that thrive. When they're overcrowded and under-resourced, everyone feels it, especially our students. Right now, Olympic Village families are feeling it. Their school is Simon Fraser Elementary, which is at 190% over capacity. What that means is staff stretched thin. Parents are forced to scramble for classroom space, and students carry the consequences of decisions made in backrooms and boardrooms. Our kids are the foundation of Vancouver, and they need enough space to thrive across our city, including Olympic Village, and I know that this four-storey plan will help fix that. And let me be very, very clear, planning for 600 students isn't too much for this community. It's the bare minimum. This is one of the first, of the fastest growing neighbourhoods for young families, and I'm certain that this school will fill up quickly. We need to build a city that everyday people can live and raise their kids in, a city where a parent can walk their kid to school, not where they have to enter into a lottery,
so their kid can get into kindergarten. Olympic Village has waited far too long. Even if approved today, this community will have waited more than 20 years for its elementary school. That's longer than it takes the Canucks to make it to playoff. Like, come on. Council has the opportunity to finally deliver certainty, and relief to families who have been patient for decades. I urge council to protect these plans for this livable, strong school and approve the zoning change, if not for the hundreds of parents who have written and spoke to you guys for the students and kids in Olympic Village will succeed and thrive because of it. Thank you so much.
Thanks for calling in this evening. Next speaker 21, Pavan Ram. Welcome.
Thank you. Good evening, Counsel. My name is Pavram. I am an Olympic Village resident who has lived in the community for over 12 years. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I want to begin by saying clearly, I support the elementary school in Olympic Village. A 350 student three-story feels proportionate and thoughtful for what the community needs. What I cannot support is this amendment to expand it to 650 students, six stories, and a rooftop-based structure. My primary concern is livability and safety within Olympic Village. Anyone who lives here understands the current reality. The traffic and ongoing construction along First Avenue and Columbia already creates a significant congestion, disruption, and noise. Access routes are constrained, intersections are frequently backed up, and emergency vehicle flow is already tight. Doubling the school's capacity and adding three additional floors will intensify traffic volume, alter movement patterns, and concentrate hundreds of daily trips in and already. out of a strained corridor. School mornings and after school mornings and afternoons are not theoretical. There are high-intentionity windows and high congestion. Introducing the scale of activity in this specific location will create daily chaos that directly impacts nearby residents and homes, including my own. This is not an opposition opposition to education. It's a concern about scale, fit, infrastructure, and capacity. I'm also very adamant that children deserve a genuine green space. A rooftop player is exposed to wind. I live right beside it at a Hinge Park is very windy. So having a rooftop at six floor and above, I don't see it being very adequate, enclosed in a cage. It's not a substitute for access accessibility. Ground-level green space. Children need a space to run freely, connect with nature, regulate their nervous systems, and feel safe. Hinch Park and the surrounding green areas are community assets. They should now become an overflow of the area. an overflow of compensation for not for overbuilt design. If we're building a school for families, it should reflect best practices in child development, not simply maximize enrollment with numbers and with a constrained footprint. Additionally, the proposed car drop-off and pickup feels disconnected from real-world experience. I have two nephews who attend David Livingston in Mount Pleasant, and I have personally witnessed the volume of vehicles, congestion, double parking, and unpredictability that occur every single morning in a considerable walkable neighborhood. We can hope families will walk and bike, but the reality that is that many will drive due to weather, work schedules, younger siblings, safety concerns, school generate traffic, school generate traffic. This is a speculation and it's an observed fact. Labeling the plan as feasible does not make it. So the scale must match the street and network capacity and right now it does not. Lastly, I wanted to address the ground, the ground, the ground, growing online commentary dismissing the residents' concerns. Many of the loudest voices on social media who don't live in Olympic Village, they do not experience the daily congestion. They are not navigating first in Columbia, leaving in the morning, going to work, traveling in and out, with construction, buses, and emergency vehicles coming in and out. This is not about resisting change. Olympic Village has always been about forward-thinking, family-oriented community, but responsible development requires listening to people who are directly affected. We're asking proportionately, we're asking for thoughtful planning. We're asking for a school that enhances the neighborhood, not overwhelms it. A 350 student, three-story school aligns with the character and infrastructure of this area. A 650, six-story structure with a rooftop containment does not. Growing is important. Education is essential, but scale matters, design matters, and livability matters. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for your comments. Next speaker is Patricia Taylor. representative and just a reminder please identify the individuals you're representing they need to be either here in person or on the line
I will do so thank you acting mayor dominato and members of council my name is Patricia Taylor I am speaking for myself my husband Stephen Krieger our neighbors Jacqueline Jones and Rita Cormier who are upstairs thank you and as a member of village voices we all live in the Olympic Village we oppose the proposed zoning text amendment for Olympic Village Elementary School. We wholeheartedly, and I want to say it again, wholeheartedly support the original vision of the Olympic Village Elementary School. The city's own updated transportation assessment and management plan, which was issued in September of 2025, and I'll refer to it as the updated TAMS, describes these amendments as significant changes. There's significant changes over the original TAMS plan. We agree. The text amendments fundamentally alter what council originally approved, this council originally approved, a community-scaled mid-rise school of roughly 350 students designed for a walkable neighborhood surrounded by green space. That original vision of the Olympic Village Elementary School remains viable today. The current zoning already allows the school to be built. These amendments are not required to deliver a school. to deliver a school. They are proposed to enable a much larger school. The first amendment increases the number of floors. And I refer to something as the second amendment, but I'm not even sure that it is an amendment because of what Council Kirby Young said already today, which is I don't believe that amendment is before you, which is an amendment taking over the triangle space. Together, they undermine walkability, increase traffic, require changes to road access, and introduce new safety risks, especially for the young children who live in our community, and the seniors who live in our community. And we are together a community. Yet no clear evidence has been provided to you to justify abandoning the original plan. My remarks tonight largely focus on traffic and safety. The updated TAMS assumes that 83 to 90% of students will walk bike or roll to school. That may have been realistic under a village-based catchment where people live in the area and go to school. It is not at all realistic once enrollment expands beyond the neighborhood, as this text amendment requires. Parents of younger children are far more likely to drive because of traffic volume, visibility, winter darkness, intersection safety, and children's limited ability to judge risk. These realities are are not adequately reflected in the updated TAMS report. The updated TAMS prioritizes vehicle flow over pedestrian safety. Pickup and drop off demand is underestimated. Curbspace is insufficient. Congestion on narrow streets like Walter Hardwick is largely ignored. For reference, Walter Hardwick is at its east end is Kitty Corner to the proposed school. Walter Hardwick is a short end as a kiddie corner to the proposed school. Walter Hardwick is a large. the service street. It is narrow. It serves as the vehicle access point for service providers to and the underground parking for residents of seven residential buildings with 867 units as well as vehicle access to underground parking for the Save On Foods, the Liquor Store, and London Drugs. Traffic calming is very difficult on one-way streets, as is proposed by this updated towns. The updated TAMS. The updated TAMS. concludes that five or six curbside spaces on Columbia will be enough. Real world experience at elementary schools tells us otherwise. Drop-off happens in short, intense surges. When space is inadequate, parents double park or stop illegally, not by choice, but because they feel they have no safe alternative. Five or six spaces is not realistic once enrollment expands beyond the neighborhood. The modeling in the updated Tams report assumes perfect compliance. evenly spaced arrivals, no weather impacts, and no behavioral variability. These assumptions are unrealistic. Cycling safety is also overstated. Children under the age of 10 often lack the cognitive skills for safe on-street cycling. Intersections remain the highest risk locations, and even with protected bike lanes, these risks are not fully addressed in the updated TAMS report. The updated TAMS report. The updated TAMS report. TAMS treats as though they travel the same way. They do not. Younger children are far more likely to be driven and parents are understandably more risk-averse. Policy goals for active transportation are important. The policy does not determine family behavior. Nearby schools like Crosstown and Elsie Roy, despite strong infrastructure, still experience significant congestion and safety concerns. The updated TAMS report also fixed. to account for families with physical accessibility requirements, parents with mobility challenges, multiple school drop-offs, weather-related shifts, and ongoing construction impacts. All of these will increase driving. There are already four elementary schools nearby that are better suited to absorb overflow. Simon Fraser, Falls Creek, Mount Pleasant, and Crosstown. These schools have scale, access, and infrastructure to allow for increased enrollment, Olympic Village, does not. Olympic Village Elementary was deliberately planned by council as a walk to neighborhood school. Expanding it undermines walkability, increases traffic risk, and requires zoning changes, and loss of public green space. Overflow should be managed through schools already designed for scale and enrollment flexibility. The removal of green space was not approved by council in the original and improved vision for the walkable school. school referred to in the original TAMS. The planning department and Vancouver School Board say it is necessary to remove the green space without consultation to service an increased enrollment. The space is for drop-off of students, yet they maintain their position, as does the updated TAMS report, that this increased school size remains a largely walkable school. This is internally inconsistent, and let's face it, 83 to 90 percent of 600 630 students will not walk, ride, or roll to school with this significant increase in catchment area. I want to alert the councilors to the COV website that lists the supporters and opposers to the text amendment. It is misleading. Those listed as supporters are actually supporting a school, the original vision, in most cases, not the text amendment. There should be a reconsideration and a recounting of that list. There is broad support for a school in our community. The parents in our community deserve the school they were promised. The community deserves to be listened to. But we support the original vision, a community-scaled school that fits its neighborhood, prioritizes safety, and preserves public green space. We respectfully ask council to reject this amendment. and I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you this late at night.
Thank you for your comments and right on time. Just noting we can certainly have our staff review the correspondence and how it's been organized and classified to make sure that it accurately reflects whether people are in favor of the text amendment or not. Thank you. So yeah, thank you for bringing that to our attention. Speaker number 23, Gord Keep.
Good evening. Did I just start?
Yep.
Go right ahead. All right. Well, thank you all for staying so late. It's a very important subject and you're probably as tired as I am. My name is Gord Keep. I live in an Olympic Village and I am opposed to the increase in the size of the school. To be clear, I'm not opposed to the school. The original school I'm in favor of. Proposed amendment to add a fourth floor and one and a half story high play area on top is a major significant change to what the original plans were. I understand the increase in student numbers will cause it to become one of the largest student numbers on the smallest site in the city. A large increase in the number of the number of students and teachers and staff will overwhelm the limited space available in the proposed school's current location. This will result in a traffic nightmare. When school is opening at the end of the school day, the area is not capable of adequately accommodating the expected number of cars. The increase in size will mostly be filled from a further travel distance student. and hence more driving, traffic, and congestion. I am very concerned with the proposed changes to the traffic patterns of the streets becoming one way. This will restrict the ability to get into or exit my neighborhood. It is highly likely that during drop off and pickup, given the limited space reserve for this and the allocation only six parking spots to the school, I will not be able to get into or out of my park gate several times a day. As a lot of Olympic village people are retired and older, the congestion will cause potential catastrophic delays for emergency vehicles to service the village.
Where are the 50 plus staff supposed to park when they are working at the school? It is unrealistic to expect these people to all walk or bike to school given the weather during the school year. Where are all the bikes going to park? The loss of only the only heavily used green space in the village and the plan to pave the last adjoining green space is a real loss. is a real loss to the community. The resultant loss of parking in the village will significantly affect our visitors and people that use Olympic Village, including the paddlers and the events that are held there like Thursday markets. The additional height will also significantly alter the character of the village and be a dominant feature versus blending in with the existing buildings. The play area will likely be rented out by Vancouver School Board and therefore the lighting at night on the roof will be very intrusive to the people living on the roof. Columbia and 1st Avenue. The noise and people using the space will also add to a loss of character of our wonderful community. The space is too small for the significant increase in building enrollment size. In summary, I'm strongly opposed the increase in size. I also think it is unfortunate the location seems to have been fixed when by moving 100 meters south and west where the easy park is, you could easily accommodate this space, you have parking, you have access, they don't have to come through, the village. It's unfortunate that it seems that that's not an option for a proper place to put this size of school that is being proposed. Lastly, a wise person suggested we should not accept a poor plan just because it was taken this long to get done and reference the success of the Canada line when all stakeholders got a chance to say and we ended up with a wonderful asset in the city. And I wonder if we could all somehow get together and get the site. proper size school moved a couple hundred meters and then four stories won't matter thank you very much thank you for your comments our next speaker is katherine keap my name's katherine keep and i live in olympic village and i oppose this motion thank you for the opportunity to speak now and for your time and service the lack of public i thank you for this opportunity the lack of public consultation about this important project has been disappointing
How this process moves forward will inform my vote on October 17th. I left another neighborhood in Vancouver because it had become a ghost town. Olympic Village is vibrant with people of all ages and that includes this special blessing of lots of children. Those children should absolutely have a neighborhood school and one within safe walking distance. This proposed school plan does not work. The location was chosen decades ago. My ideal school location would be on some of the vacant land on 1st Avenue and or closer to the Canby Bridge. This would ensure more space for children as well as safer and more efficient traffic management. At the very least, the rezoning application should not be passed. The proposed extra large school is not part of the vision for Olympic Village. The following are what I see as the biggest problems. Parking will be difficult for the whole neighborhood. The four or six spots for this new school are not enough. My son lives across the street from a traditional school situated on a whole city block with only 330 students. I counted 17 parking spots there. When I get called for grandma emergencies during school hours, it is impossible to get there to help quickly because I must have park blocks away. Please consider using the easy part lot on First Avenue for parking and drop off if this location is used. There are proposed changes to traffic patterns, specifically less lanes and one-way streets. Residents already have first-hand experience with this because of the current extensive closures on Quebec, Columbia, First and Second Avenue for sewer repairs. Cars get impatient, they go fast, and they make dangerous detours. The changes for the school will create fast streets. Walking everywhere and the slow streets have been part of the quality of life in Olympic Village. The much more serious issue is emergency access. How will first responders be able to get into the village quickly, with one lane on Manitoba being the only access north? Everyone needs them to have easy access. but especially the more vulnerable, like the children at school, senior citizens, and overdose victims. I also oppose this rezoning because of the loss of green space. Hinge Park and the attached triangle are our only green space in the neighborhood. This tiny square park is used extensively from dawn to dusk by people of all ages as well as dogs. The city might be getting the best per-person value out of Hinge Park, of anywhere in Vancouver. Attached to the north of Hinge Park is a triangle of grass. Plans for the schools suggest this area would be paved and fenced and used for children to gather to enter the building. This would be another huge loss for the village. The grass is well used. In the middle there is a concrete circle, six meters plus in diameter. There are so many playing on top. Dance groups, children learning to ride the bikes, young men playing on their trick bikes, family picnics, dogs, yogis, to name a few. The rezoned school with a four-story is too physically large for this tiny space and too many students. There is inadequate outdoor space for the school children and takes away any green space for the whole neighborhood. The proposed traffic pattern changes make it too dangerous for the children and the entire village. Families have waited a long time to have. school, but please take a little more time to build the right school for Olympic Village. Please vote against this proposed rezoning, set up an advisory committee to create a better school plan for everyone, and ask the engineering department to create a safer traffic plan better suited to the neighborhood. Thank you for listening. Thank you for your comments this evening. Our next speaker is Robert Ross. Is Robert Ross in person or on the line? We'll come back. Speaker number 26, Nicholas Ray. Nope.
Speaker number 27, Fiorella Pinilos. Yeah, can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Yes. Okay. Hello, good evening, everyone, city council and neighbors. My name is Fiorella Pinillos. I am a mother of two kids. I have lived in Falls Creek South for almost nine years. I'm an advocate for the school. I am calling in strong support of the reason
amendment for the land that has been provided for the Olympic Village School. And I want to start by sharing an audio with all of you. This is from 2019. This audio was recorded in Creekside Community Center where a group of parent advocates hosted an open house to talk about the Olympic Village School. Many elected officials and neighbors joined us. us. I share this because I want to reflect on whose voices we are listening today. How many of those voices represent children? How many of the opposing voices are parents of small children. I want to remind you that this decision is fundamentally about children's well-being and the right to accessible public education. Children have voices and it is their futures that we are shaping. In 2019, when this audio was recorded, My youngest was a baby and my older son was a toddler. Now they're seven and ten years old. We, back then, we had a beautiful community of friends in the Olympic Village. As time passed, my older kid got into the school lottery. He got into a neighborhood school, but others didn't. There was a rupture in the community. Many of our neighbors moved away. The same story happened with my daughter. Our story is not unique. This keeps her. happening in the Olympic Village, the community is fractured again and again because the back of a neighborhood school. If the rezoning doesn't go forward, it would cost years of delays, which means more years of waiting for children's education. Parents are exhausted and don't have the luxury to continue to advocate for something that should be a given in every neighborhood. Schools are at the heart of communities. It is where bonds are formed. between neighbors and friendships are built. Please listen to the voices of the children and parents in the neighborhood and go forward with this rezoning so we can finally have a school in our neighborhood. It is the children's future and the right to public education that we are talking about after all. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Speaker 28. Joyce Oseer. Good evening, Joyce. You have up to five minutes to address counsel. Okay. Hello. Hello. My name is Joyce Oziere, and I have happily lived in the Olympic Village for the last 13 years.
I'm delighted that our neighborhood will finally be getting the elementary school that was promised so many years ago, and I look forward to repopulating the area with energetic young children that will draw hopscotch patterns on our sidewalks and sing and play jump rope in our plaza. These are not sites you see very much here these days. Since most families move out of the area when their children get to be school age. What you do see, however, are many strollers with babies, so they are coming. It is my opinion that the original school envisioned is a more appropriate fit with our neighborhood than the larger one currently proposed and that we should vote. to reject this current text amendment. I'm not going to repeat all the arguments that everybody else has been saying all night. It's too late. But I would like to use this opportunity to share my concern, to save the triangle of grass just north of the school site. I think it's a mistake to use this small area of openness, light, fresh air, and green grass. grass. It was not included for a reason. in the original school plan, which put the school next to Hinge Park. It serves as an important window looking toward the water and habitat island, which adds so much of the color and personality of our unique neighborhood. Losing it would be like losing a breath of fresh air. This little parcel of grass also provides a view cone looking out toward the beauty of the water busy aquibuses and the glimmer of North Falls Creek in a world that has become denser and duncer as time moves on. It is a small area that these things would be a big loss. As I understand it, the argument I've been given recently for incorporating this small plot of green into the master plan of the school, which there seemed to be no consultation with the nation, at all, is that, quote, that place will provide a place for students to line up in the morning before school waiting to enter the building, unquote. But with the architecture providing an overhead, overhang above the first floor, this would be very easy to accomplish around the perimeter of the building under the overhang. Or alternatively, if the entrance were moved to the south side, of the building rather than on the north, other options could certainly be considered. Either way, this precious little green northern triangle should be saved. Thank you. Thank you for your comments this evening. Our next speaker is 29. Norman Hudson, please. Acting Mayor and Council, thanks very much for listening to all of us tonight. You've heard many compassion.
arguments for and against this rezoning. And I just wanted to add a couple of thoughts.
I presented counsel with a letter earlier this week where I've outlined my own thoughts in detail, but I wanted to just kind of jump to the punchline within that and add a few thoughts. Everyone seems to be in favor of the school. for the Olympic Village. It's a question of scale. And I think the issue really at this point is the site suitability of the current location for the size of school that's being now considered. And you've heard arguments that say, let's go back to the original vision and build a smaller school, which would fit onto that site. I, as it happens, was the
individual who was responsible for selecting this site in the first place as one of the authors of the master plan for Southeast False Creek. And it was designed for a much smaller school and one that would really serve the immediate community as a walkable school. We're now looking at a much larger program, and I think it's incumbent upon all parties. if one is going to go with a larger program to reconsider the site. This site is sized for a much smaller school and it has all kinds of complications once you go to the larger enrollment. My thought on the process would be to actually defer a decision rather than simply rejecting this application and do some further work. take it back to staff and ask for some further studies. And one would be to look at the smaller school on this site and understand in a better way what the implications are for where the additional enrollment would be transferred to other schools, potentially, or perhaps it's, as some people have said, all these schools are overcommitted. But the more intriguing option, I think, that, a reserve study is, as has been mentioned, is the site on West First Avenue. Coincidentally, at 215 West First Avenue, which is the stated address for this project. People have said you can't move the school, but, you know, there's no concrete in the ground. And I think it's incumbent upon everyone involved in this process to have a look at the alternatives at this point to consider an alternative site. The advantages to the EasyPark Wilkinson Building site on West First Avenue is that it keeps all traffic out of the village. It would not require the rooftop play space. It could be on grade where it would be secured and more convenient. And you could move the playfield to the edge of Hinge Park. The playfield is proposed. further west and actually integrate open space, proper open space that will serve the school. This would also, by the way, free up further lands to the west that would become waterfront properties, which of course have a much higher value for the City of Vancouver. The existing site would be rolled into Hinge Park and the community would get to enjoy the green space that they've had for the last 15 years. These kinds of studies don't take a lot of time. And I imagine that the funding and the land lease is associated with 215 West First. So it would seem to me very simplistically that one could look at a transfer in the location of the site. And I think this is an important thing to do there. so many advantages to a location on West First that it's something that really should be looked at. So I just wanted to add those thoughts tonight, and I look forward to council's consideration of a deferral of this application. Thank you.
Thank you for your comments this evening. Our next speaker is Speaker 30, James Boyle.
Thank you, Councillors. I hope they pay you well for doing this. Thank you for listening.
No, you don't.
I sat outside, crossing out everything everybody else has already said, which will make my speech very short. I do live in Olympic Village. I have lived there for eight years. I had the privilege of growing up, and my children going to a nearby school, the bell would ring, and they would charge out the door and try to get there before the last bell rang. And this is what I want for Olympic Village, which is a village. And I think having a school there will come. complete the soul of Olympic Village. I really don't know how you sort through all this statistics that you've been given tonight, and I'm not going to add to that. I just really think that when it comes down to it, the amendment is really about doubling the size of the school, not one more story. Who cares about one more story? It's doubling the volume of children that go there. And bigger school means more driving, more traffic, more pollution, and more accidents. I really think that everybody here tonight wants a school, they want a school in Olympic Village. Really, the question comes down, as Mr. Hudson said, is what the Olympic Village can, what the capacity is able to take in in terms of the number of students and the traffic. I really think, I can't speak to the students, but I really think that the traffic would suffer immensely with that volume of traffic. moving through there with the current design in the current location, the current design of the traffic. So on that basis, I kindly ask you that you reject this amendment. I just think it's too much for the village that we have. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your comments this evening. Speaker number 31, Greg Morris.
My name is Greg Morris. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I'm speaking to you tonight in favour of the proposal. to expand the size of the Olympic Village school. I'm a father of two kids under the age of four, and our family has been very lucky to be a resident of Olympic Village for the last six years. Neighbours are great, and it's walkable to almost all of our daily needs. And one big benefit of this neighbourhood is that it's easy for us to take my oldest daughter, Julia, to see her friends. No scheduled play dates or fighting traffic is required, and we can just as easily have impromptu playtime with neighbourhood kids at the park or on the seawall or at the village square. Our family has developed close. relationships with other families nearby and we can rely on each other for babysitting, pet care, or anything that helps in the life of busy working parents. I don't have to repeat the numbers to you. You already know them. Olympic Village is in the most overcrowded school catchment and the surrounding schools are right behind. Where I live today used to be a salt factory and today there are thousands of residents and hundreds of elementary school age kids. It really isn't being built for the original plan 20 years ago, but for now and for the next 50 years. We'll need a lottery. Even though we live a block from where the new school would be, my kids wouldn't be guaranteed a space. Even if we were one of the lucky ones, like what about my daughter's friends, other neighbourhood kids? Now they enter a lottery for other nearby schools that are also overcrowded. So even if my own personal family is unaffected, the community starts to fracture. And this isn't just hypothetical either. This is the current story of families living here who have been waiting over a decade for this school. Ultimately, the school will will be built at some point and this rezoning hearing is really just about an additional story and a rooftop playground. In an ideal world, would it be great for the kids to have a big open field to play in? I'm sure it would be. We live in the real world. This is a densely populated city and area and there isn't unlimited space or money and all of our parents understand that this tradeoff when we choose to live here. An extra story can accommodate the extra kids that are needed and the rooftop play space means the kids' area doesn't have to encroach on all the green spaces around us. There is no such thing as a school that will disturb nobody, so I hope the councillors weigh the true choices here. One choice means you complete a great community and provide a walking distance school to hundreds of kids in the area. For those skeptical that the kids will walk to school and concerned about traffic, you're hearing from a lot of parents tonight who are saying that they want the school precisely because they want to walk. You may be able to walk. You may save a lot of children. Make life easier for these parents and for drop-offs and pickups in particular, and on the drivers and bus riders and the surrounding city who don't have to fight the additional traffic from hundreds of parents who have to drive across the city for school. The other choice, a smaller school that isn't designed yet. So we have to go back to the drawing board. And that means more delays, more uncertainty, more stressed out parents, worrying about where their kids will go to school because they're in lotteries, spending more of their limited time in traffic. There's more kids being split from their friends and neighbours because they don't have a chance to go to a school in the neighbourhood that they live in. Something that so many of us who grew up here have enjoyed in the past. But I hope you make the right choice. Thank you.
Thank you for your comments this evening. Our next speaker is speaker number 32, Joyce Resin.
Good evening, Acting Mayor and councillors. Thank you so much for staying this late to listen to us. I really appreciate the opportunity to share my views. My name is Joyce Resin. I'm a resident of Olympic Village and a member of Village Voices, and I definitely support a school for the Olympic Village. We need a school desperately, but the right school for our village. And so I want to support the original vision for the Olympic Village Elementary School. I have seven school-aged grandchildren. I understand completely the need for a elementary school in the village, but it has to be a right-sized elementary school that meets the needs of the children and the village residents and also aligns with the city's own goals for a compact, walkable, and sustainable community. I'm opposed to creating one of the largest elementary schools in Vancouver on the smallest site, and so I urge you to reject this amendment for all the reasons that have been so clearly defined by other speakers. I was going to go through them. I'm not going to bore you with them again. The traffic, the safety issues, all of the appropriateness for young children to be on a rooftop. Because tonight, I want to talk about another issue, which you may consider a sidebar to this text amendment, but I consider to be central. Transparency and public engagement in the development of this school. The VSB website states, and I quote, the Vancouver School Board is committed to transparent and accountable public engagement and stakeholder feedback processes to inform planning decisions. Yet, there was zero public engagement before the signs announcing the rezoning amendment went up in Hinge Park in the summer of 2025. There was zero public engagement or transparency about the height or the nature of the rooftop play field. The true height of the building will actually be nine residential stories, not four, as the text amendment indicates. There was zero public engagement when the triangular piece of Hinge Park was included as a new amendment. And when we asked for a meeting with all the VSB trustees to understand the rationale for the rezoning amendment, we were turned down flat. We were told by the chair, there's no point in meeting, we won't change our view. And that's a direct quote. By the way, if you do get the opportunity to speak to the school board, please ask them where their data comes from. Please ask them why the data on the website belies the data that they're suggesting for the need. When the students from Simon Fraser are moved to the new school, to the new school, which we hope they will be very, very soon, they will be under-enrolled. Not, there will be under-enrollment in four or five schools around our area. The City of Vancouver website states, and I quote, the city engages with the public to address issues of common importance, to solve shared problems, and to bring about positive social change. Yet, there was zero public engagement about the road changes that the engineering department is suggesting to deal with the inevitable increase in traffic. Road changes that will have a huge impact. on residents and businesses in the village. Yet the referral report recommends that the traffic report be accepted, along with the text amendment. And perhaps most discouraging of all, and I want to be very truthful about this, many of us have been told by several knowledgeable sources that approval of this text amendment is a done deal. A done deal that was done way before the signs went up on Hinge Park in the summer of 2025. We really hope that that's not the case, but that's what we've been hearing. We hope you will give honest consideration to our concerns. Transparency, as you know, is vitally important. It's about trust, and I suggest that there's been a great deal of trust lost in this community by the way this issue has been handled. I believe that you sincerely want to make the best decision for the families, the children, and our community. That's why you're still here tonight. I submit that going back to the original vision of a three-story neighbourhood school is a win, win, win. Parents have a long-awaited school that they deserve. The well-being of the young children is taken into consideration, and the residents of the Olympic Village will have a safe and livable community.
I ask again that you defeat the rezoning amendment. Build the school now, cheaper, faster, better. You can do it tomorrow. But I ask you to do it too. to support the development of a community advisory council to work hand in hand with you, the province, and the VSB to build the best school possible because you have the power. Thank you so much for staying up this late. Thank you for listening. Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your comments. Your next speaker is 34. Robert Cornish.
Good evening, Deputy Mayor and members of Council. Thank you for the opportunity. And thank you for your service and your dedication, as demonstrated by you still being here tonight. My name is Bob Cornish, and I've been a resident in Olympic Village for over 13 years. I support a school. I empathize with the parents, and I acknowledge the frustration for those who have been waiting for years. The children need a school. What we do not need is one of the largest schools in Vancouver built on the smallest lot in a village and with all of the associated issues. I support the original vision. and speak against the amendment that is before you. One of the vision statements from the False Creek Official Development Plan referring to the village includes a place where, and I quote, where people live, work, play, and learn in a neighbourhood designed to maintain and balance the highest possible levels of social equity, livability, ecological health, economic prosperity, so as to support their choices to live in a sustainable manner. This is the vision that we were sold. This is the vision that we bought into. It is a very — the village is a very successful experiment in urban living. It is pedestrian-friendly, walkable, sustainable. We have narrow streets, limited parking. We have calmed traffic. It's a popular tourist destination. As council members, you've heard a lot tonight. You've heard statistics about declining enrollment with the question, which questioned the need of such a large school. You have heard that the children's play area is 30% of the Ministry of Education standard, and yet somehow or other, this is acceptable. You've heard about the loss of green space and the appropriation of the triangle at Hinge Park. You have heard that there are alternative sites approximately 100 meters to the west. You have heard that the catchment areas are yet to be defined, which brings into question the feasibility of walking, rolling, or biking from points further afield. You know that only six parking spaces will be provided for on-site. 6 to 2 teachers and support staff and for tradespeople servicing the school. Staff will be arriving from across Vancouver and likely beyond. Cars will be involved. Parking is required. There is no plan. You have heard about an analysis of traffic which questions the very low estimate of cars that has been put forward. You know that only five drop-off and pickup spaces have been allotted to handle the school that will accommodate approximately 700 people. Please think about this for a moment. Visit any school in this area or in the Lower Mainland, or sorry, in the Lower Mainland, and you will find that it is swarmed by parents, driving their children to school and picking them up. This will not change with the OVES, no matter how much we wish it so. Can you visualize safety concerns as a result of such a massive influx of vehicles, safety concerns for children and adults alike, for able-bodied and otherwise? parents eager to drop their kids off and get on with their day, eager to get their kids and get home, rush hour both ways. This also presents a nightmare for first responders and access to the village. This is a recipe for disaster and it is entirely foreseeable. And if it is foreseeable, it is preventable. The livability and tranquility of our village will be no more. On the Shape Your City website, citizens asked why this particular location, for a school that will accommodate 630 students and why on the smallest of lots. The answer from city staff time and again was, City Council had not directed them to look at alternatives. Please consider alternatives. Rather than approving this amendment, ask the planning department to look at alternatives so that you don't have just a proposal before you, but you have the best proposal. The best school, on the best lot, with a minimum of disruption to the community. Engage with the community so that you can hear village voices. Strike an advisory committee. That is a school that will enhance the quality of life in the village and not detract from it. Keep the vision that was intended for the Olympic Village. Keep this monument to urban planning and living and do not detract from it. Consider alternatives so that you don't just have any solution. You have the best solution. I'd like to think that this is how the village was conceived in the first place. I say again, I stand for a school. I stand with the parents for a school, but I stand for a better solution than that being proposed by this amendment. I stand for the original vision. Please defeat this amendment. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you for your comments this evening. Our next speaker is Speaker number 35, Alan Farber.
Good evening and thank you very much. I appreciate you staying for this lengthy meeting.
We did.
I may start off by saying, my name is Alan Farber. I'm a resident of Olympic Village. I speak in opposition to the application and the amendment. I understand the frustration. Every single person who's come before you, we have something in common. We all want a school. Every single person who's spoken in opposition has said, yes, we want a school. every single person who has spoken in agreement with the application, they want a school. The question is, what kind of school are we going to have? I'm very privileged to have lived in the jewel that is Olympic Village for 13 years. I understand the frustration that the people have gone through. I attended a meeting 12 years ago where we talked about the school that was proposed and it has yet to be realized. I do say that in June we received a notice dropped on us sort of like a bombshell that they were going to change and amend the school to increase the height dramatically, to increase the enrollment dramatically, to completely change the context of the school.