Public Hearing — March 4, 2026 — Transcript
← Public Hearing March 4, 2026
All right, good afternoon, everyone. I'm now going to call the reconvened public hearing of Wednesday, March the 4th, 2026 order. This public hearing is reconvening from Friday the 17th, 20206. This meeting is being held in person and by electronic means. Council members and the public may participate by either method. Any council members joining electronically are reminded to enable video to confirm quorum. This meeting is being live streamed on the city's website and YouTube, and meeting progress will be up to regularly on ex-ad Van City Clerk. In case of an emergency requiring evacuation, there are two exits located just beyond the glass doors and to the left of the pillar. If we have to do that, please take the stairs. Do not take the elevator. In addition to that, if that glass door is obstructed for any reason whatsoever, there are four side exits here. If you require mobility assistance, please stay in place, and one of our super-friendly team members will come and have help you to a safe location. Also, there is a defibrillator at the end of this hallway, just beyond the glass doors as well. I do want to acknowledge that we're hosting today's reconvene public hearing on the traditional territories of the Musco, Squamish, and Spoil Tooth, First Nations. And I do want to thank them for their generosity and hospitality and loving care. They show this great land that we get to live, work and play on. I also want to acknowledge our incredible team members throughout the city of Vancouver, work hard every single day to make this place a better city for all of us. And so with that, clerk, can we please have a roll call? Yes,
Mayor Sim is in the chair. Councillor Kirby Young. Counselor, Councillor, Councillor Dominado has a leave of absence for civic business. Councillor Bly has a leave of absence for civic business. Councillor Frye? Counselor Montague.
Present.
Councillor Classen? Councilor Meisner?
Present.
Councillor Joe? Present. Counselor Or? Present. Councillor Maloney. You have quorum Mercer.
Great. Before we begin, a few announcements, the public may speak in person or by phone or may submit written comments to Mayor and Council. Speakers may only speak once and we'll have up to five minutes to comment on the merits of the application. Please state whether you support or oppose the application and if you are a resident of Vancouver. Those representing four or more individuals or groups, including themselves, may speak for up to eight minutes. Each person being represented must confirm their name and presence in person or by phone and may not speak separately. Please follow the live stream or 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 the presentation say next to have the clerk to advance your slides a reminder at public hearings Council acts as a quasi-judicial body and must focus solely on the merits of the rezoning applications. Members may ask clarifying questions of team members or speakers, including the applicant, but should reserve debate until after the speaker's list has closed. After hearing from speakers, Council may, one, approve the application in principle. Two, approve the application in principle with amendments. Three, refuse the application or four, refer the application to team members for further consideration. We have one item left on this agenda, and that is item number four. CD-1, ReZ1 Re-Rise. zoning 2202 through 2212 West 10th Avenue and 21 or sorry 2221 Mars Strand Avenue. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes that they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anybody wish to declare a conflict of interest? Seeing no one's hands up, uh, the clerk's now going to read the application in summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by LPI Management Limited to rezone 2202-222. West 10th Avenue and 222 Mars Strand Avenue from C7 District to CD1 District. To permit the development of a 25-story mixed-use building containing 221 rental units, with 20% of the residential floor area for below market rental units, and a two-story public utility building for telecommunication purposes. A floor space ratio of 6.65 and a height of 76.2 meters are proposed. The general manager of planning, urban design, and sustainability recommends approval, subject to conditions set out in the summary and recommendation. The following correspondence has been received since referral to public hearing. 63 pieces of correspondence and support, 227 pieces of correspondence in opposition, and two pieces of correspondence dealing with other aspects of the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 2 p.m. today.
Thank you very much. This is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833-3-353-860, followed by participant code 106-1-44-5 pound. Before the close of the speakers list, the phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be heard at the end of their registered speakers list. Now, we do have our team members from planning, urban design, and sustainability here to present the application.
I just want to check that I can advance the slate. It doesn't appear to be working. There we go. Okay, before we begin, I'd like to give everyone fair notice that this presentation is a bit longer than our typical format. There's a lot to cover, so I appreciate everyone's extended attention. Okay, so let's begin.
Good evening, Mayor Council. I'm members of the public. My name is Daniel Feene, planner for this rezoning application, being considered under the Broadway plan. The site in red is located on the southwest corner of U Street and West 10th Avenue. The property currently contains the telecommunications. building and a parking lot. Marstrand Avenue is located to the south. The eastern portion is owned by the city and the western portion is privately owned and maintained by the adjacent strata. The context consists of low to medium density buildings with commercial along Arbutus and Broadway. The Arbutus Walk in Yellow is a master plan scheme that contains a mix of buildings ranging from four to eight stories. St. John's, an independent school, is also directly across the street. The site is a site is a lot of. well connected with pedestrian and cycling routes in close proximity and a number of parks are nearby. Lastly, the neighbourhood is undergoing significant change with the new Broadway subway line located one block to the northeast. The proposals in the Kitsilano Broadway are Buda South Area D sub area of the Broadway plan with policy support for 20-story market rental buildings with 20% at below market rates. Additional height can be considered for sites with a frontage greater than 150 feet. The maximum density is 6.5 FSR. This application proposes to rezone the site from C7 to CD1 to permit a 25-story residential building with a telecommunications building to the rear. 221 rental units are proposed with 20% at below market rates. A density of 6.65 FSR is also proposed with 6.5 FSR allocated for the residential and 0.15 for the telecommunications use. With a 200-foot frontage, additional height up to 5 stories can be supported as per the Broadway plan. Advances in technology have enabled TELUS to modernise their infrastructure from copper wiring to fiber optics. This allows for a significant reduction in the building's footprint. The proposed telecommunications building will continue to house essential equipment that supports phone and wireless service. This facility would also be utilized by the city's emergency services for communication purposes. Lastly, the proposal does create a shadow condition onto St. John's school. This is a rendering of the new telecommunications building to the rear. This is an aerial view rendering illustrating the proposal scale and how it relates to the surrounding neighbourhood. The Broadway plan states that new buildings should minimize shadow impacts on independent schoolyards, particularly during school hours, but the policy does not set thresholds or baselines. Shown here are the shadow conditions for the proposal at the Spring Equinox. The school yard is shown in yellow with shadowing over the recess and lunch periods. The applicant undertook a series of design exercises to reduce shadowing onto the school yards. The tower evolved from a wider yet shorter building to a more slender and taller one. A wider building produces slightly greater shadows than a more narrow building. The applicant also assessed alternative tower locations and determined that East Tower location is the most optimal. The applicant's presentation will outline the proportion. shadow condition in greater detail. The application's more slender floor plate does result in a reduced tower separation to the seven-story residential building to the south. Typically, an 80-foot setback is applied to buildings over six stories. The application proposes a 67-foot tower separation, which means flexibility is applied only for the seventh story of the neighbouring building. Given the adjacent lots large site size, a tower could be accommodated should it redeveloped in the future. in the future. Here we have a building concept at six stories. This is the height for which no shadows at key times are cast onto the school. This six-story building would result in a significant reduction in below market rental units. To summarize, the policy direction is flexible, no shadowing threshold or set of parameters is outlined. The applicant's study examined options to minimize shadows. The study assessed multiple development scenarios and alternative tower locations. The applicant has followed. the intent of the plan, the intent of the plan solar access guidelines for independent schools and reduce the shadow condition. A condition of approval to improve the shadowing condition within the summer months is included. Given the flexible policy direction, staff can conclude that the applicant followed the intent of the policy and the final decision on this matter rests with council. Post the 600 comments and questions were submitted in response to this proposal. Comments of support were for the below market rental units, as well as locating high density residential close to SkyTrain and public transit. Supportive comments also highlighted how the area is highly walkable and bikeable, with easy access to shops, schools and parks. Concerns focused on five themes listed here. First, for height and scale, the plan supports high density building forms at this location, and additional height can be considered for larger sites. With the future Skytrain station one block away, high density of residential is appropriate. from a transit-oriented development perspective. Second, foreshadowing new buildings are to minimize impacts onto independent school yards during school hours. The applicant has followed the intent of the plan and reduced the shadow condition. Third, vehicle trips are expected to be reduced over time with the area's high active travel and rapid transit potential. Engineering staff have reviewed the proposal and are satisfied that the proposed parking, access and transportation measures, adequately address safety for all road users. Both engineering and the applicant's traffic engineer are present this evening to respond to any traffic-related questions. Fourth, concerns also centered on the lack of community benefits and the proposals potential to strain local infrastructure and amenities. In terms of community benefits, roughly 45 units are to be set at below market rates, along with the renewal of a key piece of telecommunication infrastructure. Staff also coordinate with the School and Parks Board, to assess impacts and plan for increased capacity or upgrades. Through the plan's public benefit strategy, new development contributes towards infrastructure, amenities and community facilities. Lastly, some responses claim the rezoning process lacked transparency and adequate community consultation. During the early stages of the public consultation period, 13 address points did not receive a postcard in the mail. To rectify this, two additional sets of postcards were sent out, delivered by hand and by Canada post. The applicant also held an in-person information session with staff in attendance. Staff also met with the St John's School to advise on their options for consultation and engagement with both the city and the applicant. Members of the public were also encouraged to participate in today's public hearing to formally present their views to council. There were also concerns about how the telecommunication building was processed. A development permit for the building went through a concurrent review. process with this rezoning application. As a federally regulated piece of critical infrastructure, service cannot be disrupted. This means the existing facility cannot be demolished until a new facility is fully operational. Essentially, a seamless transition from the old building to the new building must occur. The city's emergency services also rely on this infrastructure for communication purposes, so a seamless transition is necessary. To achieve this transition, a new telecommunications building was reviewed. under the existing C7 zoning, which permits this use and building type. This development permit should not impact council's ability to make a decision on the rezoning application as it is compliant with the existing C7 zone and the draft CD1 bylaw.
This concurrent review process is procedurally compliant and does not go against the city's charter or bylaws. A development permit for the telecommunications building has not yet been issued and conditions have been to improve the building's interface with the neighbours to the rear. This slide shows the existing building on the left, the rezoning concept in the centre, and the development permit proposal on the right. The public had the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed facility through the rezoning process and a development permit sign was installed earlier last month. The applicant also met with members of the strata to the rear to discuss the building's design and receive input. Staff have responded to questions and concerns related to this aspect of the proposal. through the project's Q&A period, the in-person information session, and many touch points over phone and email correspondence. Lastly, there were concerns about Marshawn Avenue's road classification and potential impacts to the private road to the west. Marshawn Avenue is split as a public and private right of way. The green area identifies the private right of way, whereas the blue area represents the public right of way. Some residents suggested Marstran Avenue should be considered a street, rather than a lane. However, Marstrand Avenue is approximately 6.1 metres wide and therefore meets the definition of a lane in the street and traffic bylaw. Building orientation and street naming do not determine lane classification. Some residents also raise concerns about increased traffic along the private right of way. Staff reviewed the SRW's governing legal document and confirmed it allows unrestricted public access, including vehicles and pedestrians, with no limits on traffic volume or intensity. As a result, additional traffic would comply with the right of way. Public benefits for this project are estimated at over $2.2 million, with 45 below-market rental units and a new telecommunications building. In conclusion, this proposal aligns with the Broadway plan and advances the city's rental housing targets by delivering 221 rental units with below-market rental housing. The proposal also modernises critical telecommunications infrastructure. 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 very much. Would the applicant like to present the application? Okay. Are there any questions from council to team members or the applicant noting that this is the only... Oh, there is an option. Okay. Sorry. It's okay.
I'm probably a little bit lower than you. Oh, and I just say next slide. Understood. Well, I guess I'm waiting for it to come up. Great. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Lauren Willinski. I'm with LPI Management Limited. We are the applicant for this project. I'm here today to present the rezoning application for 2202 to 221-2 West 10th Avenue, as well as the Marstrand Avenue address. I want to first start off by thanking Council. considering this application and to staff for all of your work to date and as well as to the neighborhood and to the stakeholders who have met with us and have discussed this project with us. And we are very excited today to present this application. We believe it's a great application and we will get into it. So next slide. So joining me today to answer technical questions Later, we have Lori McIntosh from D.Y.S. Architecture and our traffic engineer, John Trecchi, from Step 1 Mobility. Next slide. So to understand this proposal, you first have to understand the site's history. The current building was constructed in 1945 for the BC Telephone Company. While it has been renovated many times, we've been experiencing a multi-generational shift in technology, the switch to fire. This isn't just a renovation. It is a critical infrastructure upgrade that requires a completely new approach to the site. Next slide. We view this necessity as an opportunity to deliver significant public benefits. Our proposal offers zero tenant displacement as there are no existing residential tenants. I'd like to also point out there's zero commercial tenant displacement, which is also quite common in the broad corridor. It delivers family-oriented housing, enhanced public spaces, and utilizes a state-of-the-art heat recovery system. Next slide. Transit-oriented development. The site sits in the Broadway corridor, a critical employment hub with approximately 100,000 jobs, primarily in the education and healthcare sector. This is the definition of transit-oriented development, where it's actually 220 meters from the Broadway extension completing in fall 2027 as well as the future UBC line extension. The city's 2024 transportation fall survey clearly demonstrates this importance. The most critical factor for rapid transit usage is the proximity to fast and frequent transit options. Beyond rapid transit, the site is located right on the 10th Avenue bikeway and adjacent to U Street, providing immediate connections to the nearby Arbutus Greenway. Next slide. On the housing front, we are delivering a 100% rental building, the 35 of the units designed specifically for families. Crucially, we are also securing 45 below market rental units. This ensures that the people who keep Vancouver running, our nurses, teachers, and first responders, actually have the opportunity. to live in the community they serve. This site is also distinct in many respects. Gloibly, this development will achieve zero displacement of existing commercial or residential tenants. This will be a decommissioned infrastructure site, and there is no employment use on this site currently. This is rare, if not unique advantage along the Broadway corridor. For most new developments require the displacement of ice. commercial or residential tenants. Although mitigations are in place in the Broadway plan, displacement is destabilizing for the tenants and in the case of the commercial, the neighborhoods that they serve. Next slide. Critical infrastructure and economic growth. This project is about more than just housing. It is about securing critical infrastructure and driving economic growth for the entire city and the region. This new budget is about. building is not just about faster internet. It is about safety. It provides the essential infrastructure for our banking and financial sectors, but most importantly, it supports our 911 and emergency services. We are building to today's post-disaster standards. If an earthquake strikes, the new building and the infrastructure that it houses must stay standing and online. The fiber backbone is already here. but the infrastructure housing needs to evolve. This is a multi-generational technology shift. It cannot be shoehorned into a renovation. To protect this network, we need a purpose-built facility. Next slide. Our project introduces a significant environmental benefit by incorporating a unique heat waste recovery system, a feature that distinguishes it from other developments in the Broadway corridor and most likely from other developments throughout the city, other than other developments will be bringing forward to council. This innovative approach is projected to supply 60% of the residents' total energy needs using this recycled heat. The result is a substantial annual reduction in GHG emissions, equivalent to removing 800 cars from the road annually. We must emphasize that the specific our environmental innovation is only made possible through the co-location of the telecommunications building and the residential high-rise. They must sit adjacent to one another for this system to work. We have explored applying this concept to lower density buildings such as our six-story wood frame projects, but the necessary scale and certain technological incompalibilities prevent the system from being viable at lower heights and densities. Next slide. Now I want to walk you through the design evolution. And again, one of the key priorities from the get-go was the issue of shadowing and mitigating shadows. And I want to walk you through that to understand how we have done that step by step. Next slide. So to remind everyone, you can see our property in St. John's School immediately to the north. In conformance with the solar access guidelines and in working with city staff, We honed in on three areas, the rooftop study area, the rooftop play area, and the ground level play area. Next slide. Our first step was to analyze multiple tower forms. A slab form of 18 stories was considered to achieve a shorter building while accomplishing our density target. However, our analysis showed that a shorter, wider building casts of massive shadow over the school's entire rooftop. By going to the school's entire rooftop, by going to the school, taller to 25 stories, but making the tower narrower to a point tower, we significantly reduced the shadow impact. Next slide. Tower location. We then analyzed the location of the tower, starting on the left with the west location. The west location conflicted with the new infrastructure building and provided limited separation for the co-op. The central location cast the most shadow on the school. The east location, which we selected, creates the least shadow impact on St. John School and maximizes separation from the co-op. Next slide. I guess as the last kind of step in this design process was to squeeze out further refinements. So after determining the optimal tower form and location to minimize shadow impact on St. John's school, we made further refinements. First, we do the optimal tower form and location to minimize shadow impact on St. John's school, we made further refinements. First, reducing the podium from six to four floors to lessen shadows on the West 10th sidewalk. And second, narrowing the tower floor plate, which further reduced shadows on the school. Next slide. So I'll walk you through a high level of our shadow analysis. To conclude this section, we want to share the data that supported our key design to decisions. Here again are the central areas of our study. The roof level teaching area on St. John's school. the roof level play area, St. John's School, and the ground level play area, St. John's School. Next slide. This is a bar graph showing existing shadows. The visual shows the extent of current shadows. So these are the existing shadows. And I apologize. I notice now that we're missing a few labels, but this is at the equinox as per city guidelines. And this shows the coverage of or the shadowing. based on all the increments taken during the school day. The percentages indicate the average amount of shadow coverage across the study locations are March 21st. Following policy, this average is calculated during school hours from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Key findings for the existing condition are the ground level play area, covered in shadows for a significant portion of the day. So the existing condition is 81%. Roof level play. has no shadow coverage, 0%. Roof level teaching area has approximately 27% shadow coverage. And then the total across all is 28% shadow coverage. Next slide. So this is the impact post development. This slide shows incremental additional shadows on March 21st for those same locations. These averages are based on our current design,
which is deemed to be the least impactful of all the design options. Note that the final column title on the X axis should read totals instead of totals existing. Next slide. So this is the last section in our presentation. We were asked to add this because we understand there are significant concerns around safety and traffic in this neighbourhood. So I just wanted to provide a brief overview of that. Next slide. First, regarding. Regarding traffic calculations and volumes, our traffic engineer has spent much time studying the existing conditions to ensure that we are mitigating to the best of our ability. In that regard, here are some key points I'd like to emphasize. Our proposal has been designed to avoid the existing hotspots and safety concerns along West 10th Avenue. So in terms of traffic concerns, if you go here at school drop-off in the morning, it's a parking lot along West 10th between Yew and Vine. But as you can see, based on the circulation projections done by our traffic engineer, we will avoid that stretch of West 10th, and there will be two directions to go out, and both those directions avoid that hotspot at West 10th. Second, the automobile traffic generated by this development will be extremely low due to the site's proximity to Arbutus Station, local services, and excellent active transportation infrastructure. So there you can see the number of cars per hour at AM peak. So that is quite low, extremely low, actually, for a building of this scale. And we are able to do that because of the proximity to transit, and services and employment and all the other good things in this location. Next slide. Safety focused improvements. Again, we acknowledge the existing conditions on West 10th Avenue. As a result, we will actively be improving the public realm by implementing safety focused improvements. These include, but are not limited to, upgraded, protected bike lanes on West 10th Avenue, a new raised crosswalk at Vine and West 10th, and upgraded street lighting on eight adjacent streets and sidewalks. Next slide. So to conclude, we are not just proposing a building,
but a multi-generational investment that delivers first, critical infrastructure. This is a new post-disaster standard facility. It's essential to protect the fibre optic network that supports our emergency services and Vancouver's economy. Second, world-class sustainability. We've designed a unique heat recovery system that will supply 60% of the residents' energy needs. That's the environmental equivalent of taking 800 cars off the road. Third, essential housing. This is high density, 100% rental housing located right next to rapid transit. This includes 45 below market rental homes, and I want to emphasize this. Our plan involves zero commercial or residential tenant displacement. Finally, a thoughtful design that is consistent with the Broadway Plan that has been shaped to minimize shadowing and impacts to existing conditions. We are eager to move forward with this application and respectfully request your support. We are happy to answer any questions you may have. And thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. for your presentation. Are there any questions from council to our team members or the applicant noting that this is the only opportunity for council to ask questions of the applicant. Councillor Kirby-Yung.
Yeah, thanks. I have a number of questions. I'll start with the applicant because this is the opportunity and I appreciate the fulsome presentation. I'm not, maybe you can recap for me. I'm not fully clear with respects to the shadowing. You outlined the current shadowing condition. I didn't quite pick up and see what the difference was between the proposed shadowing and the existing. Did I miss that? Was there not another slide comparing them?
If you go back to that slide, you can see there's two different colors.
Can we ask staff if we can, can we go back to the, and pull out the presentation? I just wanted to be clear because you're talking about the slides that showed the recess and.
It was, there was a bar chart. It was slide number. I know you said it was mislabelled, so I just want to make sure I'm understanding. Slide number. 16. Okay. So you can see the orange is the incremental additional shadows.
Okay. I guess I have a question. Maybe I'll direct this one to staff on the same topic. I know that the Broadway Plan, it was re-summarized, has direction to minimize shadowing on independent schools. How would this compare if it was a public school on what would be permitted for shadowing versus what's being proposed here?
Thank you for the question. I think the expectation would be a lot clearer in that the policy is quite defined in that for public schools there should be no shadowing. But even when we're finding that in a case with other applications, there's more constraints. So for example, even the Olympic Village School will receive some shadowing within the morning. So it's more on a case-by-case basis. It hasn't necessarily been tested so far in terms of a public school, but there would definitely be a higher expectation for a public school.
It would still be a higher threshold. We're allowing more shadowing here for an independent?
Yes.
Because the kids are different somehow?
It's just the way that the policy's written. The policy's written that staff focused more on the attempt for the applicant to minimize shadows rather than the actual outcome.
Okay. Okay. Can you also speak to the fact that there was a reference that there was a condition during to sort of further look at shadow during the summer months?
Yes.
That stood out for me because school is not typically in session in the summer. So why during the summer months?
Correct. We have heard from St. John's that there are summer programs within the summer months. So what that condition aims to achieve is reducing the crown of the tower, so that top portion that steps back. There could be some design possibilities that would reduce that, and then would therefore alleviate some shadowing within the summer months.
And so it's specifically recognizing that they do summer programming and they feel the light is more important during summer than the other typically less bright time?
We do have the St. John's School staff here present, and I would encourage council to question or submit some questions to the staff in terms of their summer programming, but we do know that there is a potential for summer programming within the summer months.
Okay. I know we have this, this has gone through its due diligence and review, and now it's in front of council. I know that it's been reviewed in the current policy context. Would the provincial announced change to not do the daylight savings time shift impact the shadowing studies here?
That is a good point. To be honest, we haven't given that much thought, but we could certainly look at how that would change through the development permit process if council were to approve the
application. I think it would be very helpful, and I don't know if you don't have the answer now, if there's any, as we come back, I know we've got a lot of speakers to go through, if staff have any early thoughts on that, because I think this is probably one of the first applications that we've had since that announcement.
For sure. I think it would be worthwhile and it would want another look at the shadow study. If council were to approve the application, we could certainly have another look through the development permit process.
Okay. With...
Sorry, I've had my colleague from development planning.
I have limited time, and I'm, if you want to come back on that one, I can come back later. I want to ask about the service area with respect to the new telecom benefits mentioned banking supporting 911 and emergency services. What's the geographic range with which those telecom services are impacting Vancouver, Metro Vancouver? Like, how broadly does it, what's the service area impact? I have 30 seconds.
It is, so what I can tell you is this is one of the, it is the most significant central office, actually in VLC. Is it a regionally serving facility? Is it broader than that? How broad? I mean, they are, they are in a chain. So in essence, it is regionally serving. And it will serve hospitals, but it does serve mostly Vancouver.
That's my time. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. If there's any more detail to that previous answer, would be happy for to be continue or... You wanted to continue with the answer, that'd be great.
Sorry, can we ask the question again? I believe it was around the extent of the range of telecommunications, like who does this serve or not?
Yeah, my question is pretty quick because your presentation was pretty fulsome. I just had one question. I guess maybe it's more of a comment. The bar graph is kind of confusing in terms of the little orange bits next to it are additional. So it's just kind of confusing where it's laid out. It looks like it's less shadowing than existing, but I guess it's just, it'd be helpful if it was like on top. So it just kind of showed the extra additional sort of shadowing. But yeah, I guess my question is more for staff or for legal. There's been comments around from the strata around sort of the statutory right of way. I know you touched upon that in your presentation. but you know there's letters that have circulated around that the strata owners have rejected this and that approving this as proposed risks an ultra vires legal challenge and significant financial liability for the city. I was wondering if you or legal could touch on that.
Sure, thank you for your question, Councillor. We did have our legal team review the SRW and the governing legal document that regulates the right of way. They found that there's no language within the document that prohibits increased traffic or there's no threshold in terms of additional volume or additional intensity. I would leave it with legal to comment on anything further. So if council did wish to have legal chime in, then we could certainly arrange that.
Yeah, that would be great. I don't know how much time I have left on my timer, but is that possible to do right now?
Yes, counsel. It's Jeff Greenberg, assistant director of legal services. And we have reviewed the SRW and we were fully content that it provided the rights necessary.
Just following up on that statutory right of way on Marstrand Avenue. So the western portion is the private piece. And is, is it? Is it? Is that a condition of the previous development enactment that it needs to be open to the public?
Yep. Thank you for your question, Councillor. So engineering did do a bit of a deep dive into the history as to why that is a private piece of land. It's likely that at the time of its review and its approval, there was a below-grade parkade that would extend into the public right of way. So rather than coordinating easements at the time of the application or the approval of the Arbutus Walklands. They just dedicated it as private lands so that the parkades could extend under that laneway.
Oh, I see. So there's parking underneath that laneway. As far as we know, that's what engineering uncovered in their research. Okay, very interesting. So, but it needs to remain open. It needs to remain open as per the SRW language. Perfect. Thank you. A question for the applicant. And just of the many, many, many letters that we've received, many of them are from the SJS community, the St. John's School, and talking about reducing risks for kids. And I did see that you had some pretty significant traffic management solutions that you were proposing. Did you work with St. John's community on some of these solutions? We did meet with St. John's several times. We met with St. John's several times.
met with their head of school and another staff member. We presented the shadow studies. We talked about safety. We talked about traffic. One of the last conversations we had was to offer, to hold a neighbourhood meeting in their gymnasium. We received an email back declining that offer, saying that they had all that they needed to communicate to parents. We reached out again. One last time to meet with them, to meet with the parents. We even reached out to, they don't call it the PAC, but essentially their PAC, and we did not receive a response back. So, you know, we did use best efforts. We held a neighborhood open house. There were few, if any, parents that showed up to that open house is our understanding. So we did try very hard. to speak with them, but you can only try so much.
Sure. No, and I get that. You need two to tango, as it were. When it talks about reducing, because we get a lot of these letters, and that's the one that jumps out of me, reducing risks for kids. And I'm just curious if you feel that, like, yes, you've done all, you've addressed what you consider in good conscience to be reducing the risk to kids and that has been articulated to you so far?
in good conscience, yes, we will, in my mind, we're going to be leaving that street safer post-development than it is currently. We're going to be upgrading the existing bike lanes. We're going to be upgrading the street lighting. We're going to be putting in raised crosswalks at Vine Street. And as you can see from our traffic circulation analysis, we will not be going to that hot spot at West 10. So in our minds, we are doing the utmost to protect children to the best of our ability.
Thanks.
Yeah, thank you. Okay. Thanks, Mayor. Thanks for the presentation question for the applicant. So, you know, there is some benefit for this development, but, you know, for all the email we received, just like Council of Fry mentioned, is more about the community engagement. So you said, you're saying. some email to the St. John School. There's no response. Do you know the reason why there's no response from this from school?
So, I mean, I can tell you that we met with them three times. That was back starting September, 2024. In August of 2025, we sent them a letter saying we would, again, old and open house in their gymnasium with their parent group. We emailed both. both their head of school and their parent group directly. And we had to follow up again. And after following up, we received a reply that they had all that they needed and they'd communicate directly with their parents. They did receive a notification for that open house, a neighborhood open house, which I would like to point out as well, is quite unusual for the Broadway corridor. We did not. They had maybe one or two participants. that joined, maybe one parent. And then we did reach out to them an additional time, again, to request a meeting with them, a neighborhood meeting specifically for them. We would bring all of our consultants, print the boards at our cost, at our time, and meet with them, and they said they had all they needed.
Okay, so the last interaction we had with the school is August 2025.
are right? No, sorry. So we offered to hold that meeting in August 2025. In October 2025, they received notification for the neighborhood open house. And then more recently, January 15th, there were several emails that we sent for additional outreach. And an employee who doesn't work there anymore, said that they had all that they needed and all their questions have been answered and there's no further reason to meet.
Okay, so what is the in-person engagement we had with them last time?
It was June 9th, 2025. We did have our in-person open house, which was applicant-led, with city staff in-attentioned in-of-2020. Yes, and it's worth noting that that is a friend. rare occurrence given that the application is policy compliant.
Okay.
And one of the factors as to why we held in in person open houses was, one, there was a high volume of public engagement, and there was the mistake regarding the mail-out for the initial public consultation period. So combining those factors, we thought it was necessary to have an in-person open house.
So have we present all those different scenarios to the team? I'm just one to understand if the school is aware of all those different scenarios,
Yeah, in a couple of the meetings, I brought the boards. We had a Laurier architect, one of the senior partners of D.YAS, one of our consultants, Sophie Perndale, I was there. Our development manager Maria was there. We met in their office. We did this a couple times as well as, again, we offered to meet with them. We emailed their parent group directly. We emailed the head of school directly. and they did not want to meet with us.
We did ask questions.
You know, we were interested, do you have future redevelopment plans? Because, you know, these buildings take a little bit of time to get built and did not want to share that with us because we thought we could all look towards the future as well. The school is growing. But they did not want to engage.
Okay, so we did present or demonstrate the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the plan right now is the best model in terms of the shattering and the impact.
I'm happy to jump in here. The shadow studies were notified to the public. They were posted on the Shapery City webpage, so that that study was publicly available to the community.
Okay. So my last question, I'll be quick. So I saw the traffic impact study, 25 cars per hours. I know that's from Mars Tranche Avenue. That's only one car, almost every three minutes. So what is the impact on the web? Let's 10th Avenue. Do we have any study on that?
We do have a study on that. Actually, I can turn it to our traffic engineer.
Thank you, Mayor. Thanks to staff and the applicant for the presentations. I've had a chance to get more familiar with this area. I've visited the site a couple of times and spoken to community. So I appreciate the opportunity here to ask a few more questions. So we'll start with the applicant. The area, the tightness for sort of traffic has been discussed here, but I also know that with Marsground Avenue, the building itself, will be abutting a fairly, not terribly wide lane. So I'm just wondering what measures will be considered. in terms of, you know, kind of loading access, garbage collection, access to parkade, and any kind of, you know, vehicular views from regular, smaller and larger vehicles that'll be on that south side of the project.
So all of those thorough reviews went through and have gone through staff. So those are prepared with our architect. with our engineers, there's auto-turn studies done, and you submit those to staff through the application process, and you work on it until it works.
Okay. And I imagine that we can consider there are other potential design measures, traffic mirrors, other adjustments that can be made through. Okay, so that's important for me to understand this. You did a pretty good job of explaining the, the bike route along 10th Avenue, and the fact that it is a heavily used as a school pickup and drop off during the day. Let me just ask you, have you given any sort of further thought, given the proximity to the Arbuta subway station that will be opening up in a couple of years to try and help incentivize more of your residents to make access? make use of that in the, given that they're going to be close by, but obviously trying to create better behaviors that will try and reduce the amount of traffic impacts on the area.
Great question. And I guess that alludes to TDM. That was one of the measures that Council did bring forward to unlock rental developments. That was greatly appreciated. It has assisted with this project as well. I think in the transportation plan, world, the best way to get people to take transit is to put them close to efficient, dependable transit. And that's what we're doing here. So that is the best way to get people to take transit as well as not giving them a parking stall. And for better, for worse here, we're going to have very few parking stalls. This might be a question both for the applicant and for staff, but just with
regards to the fact that Marstrand Avenue includes that privately owned section, which is a statutory right away, just what kind of assurances do we have over the long term that this will not create any conflicts with the neighboring strata that shares the roadway.
Thank you for your question, Councillor. Again, considering that we're entering into legal grounds, we would refer to our legal counsel. I won't ask for legal to jump on. That's fine. I realize that
probably a question that would be posed at some point. Just in terms of the construction phase. I'm kind of curious as to how we will try to make sure that we're mitigating obviously trucks, cranes, other other vehicular impacts that will be brought into the neighborhood there. How are those kinds of things going to be addressed given the closeness to the bike route, the obviously the comings and goings of students?
I mean, we understand the sensitivities here. I mean, that was one of the first concerns when we looked at the site, tall street trees, etc. There is a construction management plan that has to be approved by the city. I guess one last thing is led Gore construction will most likely will likely be building this building. They build the Children's Hospital. They build. I've just got 20 seconds less. I might just get the quick
response from staff. Yeah, thanks. Just to follow up in that Daniel Kleim from engineering services,
so they would have to go through the typical process to reuse permits, construction permitting, etc. Those involve some engagement through the DP process. And then, subsequent permitting processes to minimize impacts. Thanks to both you for those answers. That's my time. Thanks, ma'am. Councillor Maloney. If you had anything you wanted to add to that answer, I'm quite happy for you to use my time to elaborate. Thank you, Daniel Klein, injuring services. So, yeah, essentially, like all projects, they'll go through the development permit phase.
There's another notification period, and then the applicant will be required to apply for street
use permits. Those, if there's any street closures, we have to ensure access, safety, et
things like cranes, etc. are regulated through crane safety BC, work safety, or other permitting processes which are established later take into account access for neighboring buildings, safety. And of course, there's additional considerations here with bike claims, school pick up and drop off. So it'll be a bit complicated, but it's part of our permitting process and we manage this type of thing across the city. And I'm also interested to know whether there's actually the appellants. Actually the app applicants traffic engineer might be able to help. Perhaps you could answer Councillor Joe's question about the findings of the traffic study on West 10th Avenue.
And I am particularly interested whether there were any, there was any data about high school students traveling to and from kit secondary, which I know is pretty close. Thank you. The question, Councillor John Taraki, Stepwell Mobility. So we had a chance to do a chance to do a few. fairly high level traffic assessment of the site. We weren't asked to do a complete traffic study simply because this is a transit oriented site that's not protected to have a significant
amount of traffic impact, but we wanted to understand those interactions between the school and our site as best as we could. When we look at how traffic distributes through the neighborhood from Mars Strand to the arterial streets at 12th at Broadway at Arbutus, there isn't really a reason for a site traffic to travel along that busy block of 10th in front of the school. And if you live there, why would you as well if you have the opportunity to go a different route? So overall, we really don't see a lot of interactions between site traffic and that school traffic. And as a matter of comparison, we see, you know, several hundred trips an hour being generated by the schools versus around 40 or 50 trips generated by this site. So there's a fairly significant difference in the order of magnitude of those impacts as well. And, I mean, there's already traffic calming, there are already traffic calming measures on 10th. And drivers tend to. to be funneled out to 12th or Broadway. Would that be right? That's correct. I think it's important to consider as well that this whole area over the last five years has seen a lot of
traffic challenges due to the Broadway subway construction. So the closures that are Budas and Broadway, the turning restriction, things like that, that's created a sort of a dynamic situation for traffic in the area. And once we see the subway open up, we should see traffic in the area be reduced a little bit.
Some of those older traffic patterns can reestablish. And hopefully that allows for folks to get We need to go a bit more quickly. Thanks. That's all my questions. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. This is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll free at 1-833-353-860, followed by participant code 106-1-44-5 pound before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on accident displayed during the recess. We're now, I'm sorry, we're now going to hear from the public.
Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the left podium.
and when it's your turn. Phone in speakers will be unmuted when it's your turn to speak.
Speakers will have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the application being considered. So our first speaker is speaker number one, Dan Holloway. Dan Holloway. Dan, are you on the line?
Good afternoon. Can you hear me?
We can hear you great. Please go ahead.
Hi there. Thank you. My name is Dan Holloway. As you mentioned, and I'm a resident of Vancouver. I'm here to offer my support for this project at 10th and Yew. I went to St. John's School, and I'm also a member of the Arbutus Club, so I know the area very well. But I support the project specifically, not just because I spend a lot of time in the area, but because it will add rental units without displacing any tenants or businesses. I remember looking across the street when I was a student wondering what that building was. After listening to the presentation, I now know. So it would be great to have secure rental units. And I believe there's going to be some below market units as well. So it would be great to be near a transit-rich location. Also, two of my favorite restaurants are within a few minutes walk of the proposed building. And I anticipate they would thrive with these new residents and having these new residents bolster the economy and sustain local business. These are all independent restaurants — would be really, really great. Finally, the proximity to Connaught Park, the community centre, ice rink, is a great benefit to the potential residents — green space, recreational amenities — and hopefully they do join the Arbutus Club. It's great space and a great area for communities and families. So I really hope that you will approve this project. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Speaker number two is Blaine Adley.
Good afternoon and thank you for hosting us. My name is Blaine Adley. I am the head of school for St. John's School, a junior kindergarten through grade 12 IB school, and I'm a Vancouver resident. I'm here to speak in opposition to this development. I know I speak on behalf of our entire school community, our neighbours, as well as our board of governors when offering this opposition to the project. Let me explain why we oppose this development. We have three main, though not exclusive, reasons for doing so. The plan to build a 25-story residential tower directly across from a school on a one-way street and a designated bike lane does not make any reasonable sense to us. In fact, we believe this is unprecedented and is a major safety concern. It is the only 25-story project planned with a school directly across the street from it. St. John's School is a school that has a licensed after-school daycare program whose play area will be permanently shadowed. We also have a full-year school day junior kindergarten program whose play area will be perpetually shadowed as well. As those who live in the neighbourhood know, we are an urban school without a playground. Instead, we have a rooftop play area, which will be shadowed much of the day. And I must comment that shadowing is not reflected in bar graphs of 81% when that constitutes sunlight coming through trees. It's best done with shadow studies, which we haven't seen this evening. If we were a public school, the project would not be considered. We strongly believe the approval based on the different wording for public and independent schools is discriminatory. As you will hear from others tonight, children are children, regardless of where they go — a public school or an independent school. The project does not improve, nor does it reflect the community in which it will be situated. The vast majority of people who have responded with input oppose this development. If it does not improve the community, you might ask, well, what would? That's an easy question to answer. Buildings designed to blend into the neighbourhood and possibly a community centre or theatre would be a better use of this space. In fact, St. John's School identified 11 not-for-profit organizations in the area that would make use of a theatre. Why did we do so? Because we had communications with Scott Juchak, who at the time oversaw TELUS Developments Canada-wide, and he requested of me we forward the architectural drawings of a 281-seat theatre we had prepared and when our school would have been willing to help manage. This occurred in December of 2020. Moving forward to November of 2023, Mansuita Batia, Director of Real Estate Developments for TELUS at the time, reached out to arrange to meet with us, and we welcomed her to the school. When we met, she explained some concerns with the creation of a theatre space. Instead, she shared architectural renderings for two very attractive, six-story, apartment buildings that TELUS was considering. We thought they looked fine and would be well received by our community. To date, it's true, we've had two meetings with TELUS and Ledcor. The meetings were cordial, but clearly both sides remained entrenched in their respective views. We have heard and continue to hear the financial viability of the project requires a 25-story tower. I would argue it is not viability, but rather profitability that is the driver. Only two years earlier, six-story apartment buildings that blended into the community were the plan. And these were to be built on lands TELUS acquired long ago at very little cost through its merger with BC Tel. Recently, City Councillor Mike Klassen attended a meeting at our school where some condo associations were meeting and heard the unanimous opposition by our neighbours to the project. Mr. Klassen also graciously accepted my invitation to come to the school to hear from me our school concerns and to view firsthand the concerns, the construction site, the area, and to better understand how imposing this structure would be for our school, as well as the several condominiums that would adversely be affected. In closing, I'm inviting all city councillors to come to the school, to meet with me, to see the project, and to better understand why building a 25-story tower on a one-way street with a designated bike lane and directly across a narrow street from a school is a very bad idea. Thank you for your time this evening.
Great. Thank you very much. The next speaker is speaker number three, Louis Galvin. Speaker three is not on the line. Speaker number four, Jamin Manga.
Hello, am I audible?
Yeah, please go ahead.
Thank you very much. Dear Honourable Mayor and the Honourable City Council, thank you so much for this opportunity to speak in front of you today. I would like to voice my strong support for this rezoning proposal for 2202 and 2212 West 10th Avenue, and I'm a UBC student and a proud resident of Vancouver who is interested in progressive housing development. I am a staunch believer in the structural reform of Vancouver's housing landscape by adding new high-density housing stock. Moreover, I find myself in Kitsilano regularly, so I'm personally interested in its future. I visited the open house for this project in November. While I was impressed with features like the 20% sub-market rate rentals, when I went out for a walk to check out the project site, I visited — I found it rather striking how little variety of housing options a neighbourhood as desirable as Kitsilano has. What makes Kitsilano desirable is not its low housing density per se, but instead its proximity to the water, mountain views and welcoming community that's serviced by small Canadian businesses and connected by transit. I believe that everyone should be entitled to living in a community like this and not just being a fleeting visitor. This project introduces more variety, greater housing density, which will positively affect affordability over time. Moreover, its proximity to transit routes like the 84 and 99 B-Line buses connect this neighbourhood to East Vancouver, Commercial Drive, UBC and business centres like West 1st and West 2nd Avenues, as well as downtown. This is also consistent with BC's transit-oriented areas policy as written out in BC Bill 47. Because of this, this development is particularly appealing to younger residents like students and professionals like myself, who are energetic and eager to contribute to our communities. As I mentioned earlier, I am a supporter of structural initiatives. Market reforms help alleviate rental concerns, but don't make up space for growing cities like ours. We need more housing units to ensure that newcomers to Kits or Vancouver have ample options or that even existing residents have housing options for the future. Kitsilano belongs to everyone, just like Vancouver belongs to everyone. Smart housing decisions should be made today in order to provide access to every neighbourhood, to people regardless of where they are in life or how they fare in the future. And I see this project as a smart housing decision. So please vote in favour of this application. Thank you so much for your consideration today.
Thank you very much. Our next speaker, speaker number five, Molly Kavanaugh. Speaker 5 is not on the line. Speaker number six, Bobo Irish. Speaker 6 is not on the line. Speaker number seven, Russell Wong.
My name is Russell Wong. I live in Vancouver and I do not work in real estate or development. I'd like to speak in support of this application. My wife and I have two kids who are now young adults, and like a lot of parents in Vancouver, we wonder where are they going to be able to live. We have limited land in Vancouver because of the ocean and the mountains. To add more housing, we need to build up. And it makes sense to allow more height and density where demand and thus land prices are particularly high. In this case, close to the new SkyTrain station at Broadway and Arbutus. Because this is a larger site, the 25-story height is consistent with the Broadway Plan. Shane Zinner observes that when you see low-density buildings next to tall towers, it's concrete evidence of a severe housing shortage. What usually happens is that neighbourhoods devolve in stages from single-detached houses to townhouses and low-rise apartments, then to mid-rise apartments, and finally to high-rises. But when all of the intermediate stages are suppressed by restrictive zoning, the unmet demand accumulates. Lack of housing results in prices and rents having to rise to unbearable levels to push people out. We end up with a health care system that's under increasing strain. High prices and rents translate directly into low real salaries, which means that hospitals have a hard time finding nurses and even doctors. This project will provide 176 market rental apartments for people to live in and 45 below market apartments. There's zero displacement of existing renters because it's on land freed up from a TELUS switching station. I understand that people in the neighbourhood are concerned about traffic, but if we block new housing close to a SkyTrain station, the people who would have lived there don't disappear. They'll end up finding somewhere else to live further out. Some of them will end up driving through the neighbourhood instead of being able to simply walk to the SkyTrain. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The next speaker is speaker number eight, Alison Taylor.
Thanks for the opportunity to come in and share a few words. My name is Allison and I oppose the motion and I am a resident of Vancouver. I think we need to look at the big picture. Yes, there is a need for housing and there is already no problem with densification in this neighbourhood. I understand that over 2,500 new apartment units will be added as a result of rezoning applications that have been approved in the last couple of years. Last week, I saw another rezoning on the same street, 10th Avenue, a couple of blocks down from the one we're talking about here today. Everyone in this community — I live there, I've lived there for 12 years — is aware that the face of this community is going to change. And we accept it to a degree, okay? But let's just turn to this particular one, and you've heard from the schools who are concerned about the consequences of a 25-story building for traffic congestion, safety, and well-being of children and staff. I'm speaking from the perspective of a resident and I'm a senior who has lived in the neighbourhood for 12 years. I attended an open house about this rezoning on November 6th last year and attended a discussion organized by community members on January 21st to educate ourselves, which — thank you to Councillor Klassen for attending. And there I learned some interesting history. You heard a bit of history of the TELUS building. What about our neighbourhood's walk? This neighbourhood was redeveloped from the site of a Carling O'Keefe brewery in the late 1990s. It already has more than 1,000 condo apartments in townhomes in over a dozen low-rise and mid-rise buildings. So there's no problem with density. Further, it's clear that this development — the original development that I'm living in — was carefully and thoughtfully planned as a living street design that prioritized walkability, green spaces, and places to gather. I think this history needs to be on the record because it seems to have been forgotten. We've already had to — this is the second rezoning. And I think that what attracted me to this neighbourhood originally was it provides safe, calm, and social community life. So what are the likely impacts of a 25-story building with 221 units on top of the many other rezoning applications in the area? I'm very concerned that the neighbourhood becomes more dangerous. We talk about children. There's also the elderly. It will lose its unique character and it will experience infrastructure strain if not deficit, and I'll talk briefly about each of these. I say dangerous and chaotic because it's planned for an already congested location. I rely on crossing guards on 10th Avenue when I go to London Drugs on Broadway when school is starting and ending. As has been said, it's a one-way street with a bike lane. It's important too to consider that the Seasons retirement home with 147 units for seniors is about 30 metres from this proposed development. They are a
the least likely to have a voice and are geographically limited. Out of scale, okay, second point, out of scale with the living street low-medium rise community. So the proposed tower will benefit for sure from the careful planning that occurred 20 years ago, and in my view, add nothing to it. I think there will be little, there would be little opposition to an alternative that involves human-centric design and integrates into what's already there. And finally, infrastructure strain. If developers have little incentive to care about community amenities, then I certainly hope council does. Currently, Kitsilano School, secondary school is at capacity. The Kitsilano Community Centre is also operating at near peak capacity. And many core services and facilities are experiencing significant strain due to the growing population already. Such amenities, I think, are integral to a feeling a sense of belonging. So to conclude, I know I'm getting close to time. I urge council members to build thoughtfully on urban planning models that have been successful and to prioritize long-term health and sustainability of this neighbourhood. Several of mine, and it's kind of disappointing to me that several neighbours aren't voicing their opposition because they don't have faith in the process. I hope there is. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Allison. Our next speaker is speaker number nine, Brenn Wonging. I hope I pronounce your name correctly.
Hello and good afternoon. Yeah, I'm here.
Just go ahead.
Yeah, hello and good afternoon, mayor and council. My name is Brenn Mongen. I'm a designated environmental professional and I specialize in sustainable building operations. I work for Enterpro, a local energy service company, and I actually lived only a few blocks from the application site for several years, although I'm no longer a resident there. For the record, I am not and I have never been employed by either LedCorp or TELUS. Rather, I'm calling in to make an independent statement regarding the sustainability merits of the proposal. So hopefully, we're all familiar with the Southeast False Creek neighbourhood energy utility. It's a very innovative heat recovery system, and it's made Vancouver a leader in North America in sustainable energy. But while large-scale district systems like this are highly beneficial for municipal planning, they obviously have limited geographical coverage. This does raise the need for smaller thermal energy systems to help fill in the gaps where the district systems do not reach. I'd like to draw your attention to Natural Resources Canada having a framework for these systems. They term these as integrated community energy solutions. And the framework prioritizes waste heat. Waste heat recovery is preferred by co-locating high density housing next to existing heat sources rather than building new ones. And ideally, NRCan also prefers these to be located in proximity to rapid transit. Considering this framework as a base, the proposal before you is really a prime opportunity. So expert organizations like the RBC Climate Action Institute highlight that integrated solutions like this are vital for urban decarbonization. And furthermore, the United Nations Environment Program, which has incidentally recognized Vancouver's leadership through the Southeast False Creek NEU. The UN Environment Program has begun advocating for integrated heat recovery in telecommunication and data center applications, as these make ideal heat sources. So in reference to the site in question, a telecommunication central office is effectively a massive heat generator. And historically, we simply dump that heat into the atmosphere as pure waste, but instead we can capture that heat and reuse it for which low carbon heating and hot water is particularly particularly useful in a residential application. In a housing crisis, this integrated approach provides long-term energy security, and this is obviously beneficial for projects like this that include an affordable housing component as it protects residents from volatile energy costs. In closing, I'd like to highlight some of the key benefits of this solution from the perspective of the triple bottom line. Financially, heat recovery lowers net energy use, which has the effect of stabilizing utility bills. It also has a direct positive impact on tenants and long-term housing affordability. Environmentally, we stop spending additional energy just to move heat out of a building or facility. Instead, we reuse that heat to lower the entire site's carbon intensity. And then socially, these systems also strengthen our resilience by diversifying energy sources. Diversity of energy allows increased density, while minimizing the need for major upgrades to electrical infrastructure. And these thermal systems also create local high-skilled jobs for facility personnel. So in closing, in my professional opinion, we really should be incentivizing developments that incorporate heat recovery. And this project could serve as a template for future integrated community energy solutions in Vancouver and across the Lower Mainland. With this in mind, I urge approval of this rezoning as a sensible step toward a more affordable, resilient, and sustainable Vancouver. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much. The next speaker is speaker number 10, Henry McQueen.
Hello, Mayor and Council. Can you hear me okay?
We can hear you great. Please go ahead.
Fantastic. My name is Henry McQueen. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I support this project. I'm a longtime member of the Maraloma Athletic Club down the street from the proposed project. The Maralomas are an inclusive multi-sport club for all ages and walks of life. Annual membership is cheaper than a flexi pass because it's volunteer run. I coach the very elite under six co-ed rugby team there or my daughter plays. I'm also a graduate of Kitts High down the street. Full disclosure, I'm a trained city planner and developer by profession. Housing is amongst the greatest anxieties on the minds of our young adult members of our club trying to make ends meet in an expensive city. It was also certainly the case for those of us who grew up around here. The project will not only provide housing opportunities in the near term, and as the applicant noted, without any residential or commercial displacement. But these buildings will become tomorrow's affordable housing, as so many of the buildings north on Fourth have provided to young members of the clubs over the years. This location next to the new subway, great schools, a great park, and the best athletic club in Vancouver could not be better suited to make space for people. And, you know, I want to note it's not on a loud arterial corner where these have traditionally been approved. So I think this will be additive to our community today and into the future. That's why I want to lend my support. Thanks so much.
Great. Thank you very much. Speaker number 11, Sadiq Abdullah.
Thank you. Your Worship, Mayor Sim and Vancouver City Councillors. Thank you for taking the time to convene this hearing. My name is Dr. Sadiq Abdullah. I'm a resident of Vancouver. I'm an obstetric anesthesiologist at BC Women's Hospital, a clinical assistant professor at UBC and a parent of two children at SJS. I'm also a governor on the board at SJS, and I'll be speaking in opposition to this item. I urge council to reject this application for two reasons. First is the deleterious health impact of a reduction of exposure to bright sunlight. Second is the unacceptable decrease in the safety of young school children in the affected area. Page 5 of the city's referral report explicitly admits that a six-story building height represents the baseline at which no shadows are cast onto school yards during school hours. The construction of a 25-story tower will therefore result in significant shadowing over an area frequented by school-age children for outdoor recreation. It has been shown in numerous scientific publications that exposure to bright natural light is crucial for childhood development. Furthermore, and equally concerning, a deficit of bright light exposure has been shown to be harmful to a developing child. David Hull-Adald in journal Dermato Dermato Endocrinology identified a number of conditions that individuals were at increased risk for when exposure to bright natural light was impaired. Children with reduced sun exposure were at elevated risk of developing multiple sclerosis MS. Several types of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dementia later in life have also been linked to reduction in sun exposure. Mental health conditions have also been linked to reduction in exposure to bright natural light. Work done by Marie Taculvey et al in the journal Physiology and Behavior, and Virginia Gable et al in journal Chronobiology International, has shown that bright light improves mood and wellness. Children's ability to regulate their circadian rhythms and obtain the recommended amount of sleep are improved significantly with exposure to sunlight during the day. Academic success, motivation, and cognitive performance have all been linked to adequate light exposure. Bright natural light exposure has also been shown to be an efficacious therapy in treating major depressive disorder, most recently by Menezes Almeida et al in the Journal of the American Medical Association Psychiatry. I cite these studies in an attempt to show that sunlight exposure is crucial for young developing students. I commend the City of Vancouver for recognizing this as evidence in the July 10, 2024 publication, Solar Access Guidelines for Areas Outside of Downtown. In section 3.1, the guidelines state, and I quote, proposed development should not create new shadow impacts on public parks and public school sites. And new buildings should minimize shadowing impacts on independent schoolyards, that is outdoor playfields, playgrounds, etc., particularly during school hours. I urge council to follow their own published policies before actively putting developer profit over the health of children, which would be the case if the motion to approve a 25-story tower at this site is carried. I also want to point out that approving this tower that shadows an independent school is discriminatory, insofar as the project would not even be considered if SJS was a public school. I humbly request council consider the legal and human rights impacts of this. I also want to highlight that the developer's shadowing study shows that our youngest students' play area on the ground is currently 81% shadowed. This is misleading. Those existing shadows are from trees. And if the tower were to be built, the percentage of true shadows to these youngest students would be significantly increased. Your Worship and city councillors, on January 30th, 2024, a 15-year-old student heading to school was struck by a car on 16th and Wallace Street. November 28, 2018, another student was struck heading to school on the corner of Barclay and Bidwell Street. Both students thankfully survived, but vehicular traffic was identified as a contributing culprit in both of these situations. These are only two examples of how students in our communities were put at risk from increasing traffic and congestion. We must take action to prevent these situations from occurring. West 10th Avenue is a narrow one-way street on a designated bike route. It is used by school buses and parents and vehicles for drop-offs at two schools. Students also walk or take public transit and must cross several streets in order to arrive at school. Page 8 of the city's own referral report acknowledges the strain this creates and requires major mitigations to manage this impact. There have been several cases of close calls where students have nearly been struck traversing crossings over West 10th Avenue. I feel particularly impassioned to comment on this point because one of my volunteer roles at SJS is to serve as a crosswalk coordinator. I've seen firsthand bicyclists being struck by cars who are stuck in traffic making unsafe maneuvers. I have actively stopped children from crossing despite having the right of way to avoid speeding cars not following the rules of the road. I fear that adding the traffic and congestion of a high-rise tower at this site creates unacceptable safety risks in an already crowded area. I implore you to take steps to reduce risks in school zones rather than to add to them by approving a tower in this location. Your Worship and council, I ask you today to reject the proposal in this current form. My objections are not those of a single concerned citizen. These objections are shared by hundreds of members of the SJS community. They had 10 more seconds
to finish? I'm sorry, but you speak really fast. No. All right. The residents of the affected
neighbourhood and my members of the medical community who have listened to my concerns. I implore you to work with the developer to create a building that fits into the fabric of the community. I'm sorry. And enhances it rather than. We're way over sorry. So thank you for your time.
Thank you, Dr. Abdullah, for coming in. The next speaker we have is Stephanie Biddington.
Stephanie here. Good afternoon. I sent in some slides. I don't know if they're available. Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Stephanie Binnington. I'm a resident in Vancouver living on Marstrand Avenue, and I have serious concerns and oppose this rezoning development application. To be clear, I acknowledge that replacing a parking lot with homes with no displacement of current residents is a positive goal. However, density must not come at the expense of basic safety, due process, and existing neighbourhood livability. This is a unique site, and while considered a large lot, the surrounding neighbourhood and streets in which it sits is already densely populated and at capacity. There are many reasons that this application should be rejected, but I'll highlight those of most concern. As you've heard, the site is bordered on the north by the one-way street and dedicated bike lane and on Marstrand Avenue on the south. Marstrand is a narrow street that has already seen substantial increase in traffic since the bike lane was introduced. And this increase in traffic and illegal parking has already raised safety concerns over the recent years for pedestrians and cyclists. As you've also heard, the West End is owned by Strata LMS. And to expect the strata to bear the costs of maintenance resulting from the inevitable increase in traffic is not reasonable. So being bordered by two independent schools because we have Fraser Academy on the other side of the
block. It's already creates significant foot and vehicle. and ultimately the scale of this development is just too large for the area to accommodate. The Broadway plan does not guarantee the maximum density. It guarantees contextual fit first and density only when a compliant form can support it. And council hasn't been shown a contextual form at the base height that fails to accommodate reasonable density, only that the applicant prefers higher yield. So you can see from these photos if you go to the next slide. But traffic is bumper to bumper on school days. north-south, east and west of the intersection. So if you can skip to the next slide. So this is looking east on west 10th Avenue. And if you go to the next one, it's looking west. Next slide, please. And next slide. And this, here you can clearly see the intersection of pedestrians, traffic. And then if you go to the next slide, cyclists as well, you can see how congested the area already is. Furthermore, Marstonne Avenue is a designated street, not a lane, though it's unique in that it functions as a dual purpose, so it already has higher usage than a regular street or lane would, because it's the only vehicle access to the strata. And if you go to the next slide, you can see that on garbage days, the road is effectively one lane. Sorry, next one again. So in despite being designated a street, the applicant and city appear to be treating it as a lane and not honoring required setbacks or public realm requirements of a street. The referral report acknowledges the tower does not meet separation distances. power separation is the plan's mechanism for ensuring the ultimate build-out of the block remains viable. And if the required separation cannot be achieved, that indicates that the proposed scale exceeds what the site can support. And the appropriate response is to reduce scale rather than to relax separation performance. The new exchange building being proposed to be built right to the property line is also a great concern in terms of its proximity and concerns around venting and additional noise for the residents of mass. Strand Avenue. Furthermore, the placement of the proposed Talis Parcade ramp is directly opposite 2228 Maastran Avenue's existing ramp, which is a serious safety concern for vehicles entering and exiting either building. If you go to the next slide, you can see the formature trees that are going to be removed. These are the ones that actually show on the plans. But if you go to the next slide, you'll see all the other trees and shrubs that are not on the plans that will be removed, and nothing is being proposed to be put in its place to the benefit of masterands. Strand Avenue. Basically, it feels that a lot more consideration is being given to West 10th Avenue to the new residents of Masterhand Avenue. I sincerely ask that you visit the site and see for yourselves how the scale of this proposal is problematic. We rely on new counselors to assess livability and provide oversight of the development process. These request a cumulative block impact analysis and true safety livability study before ever allowing this project to be meaningfully considered. Also note that there is already a 30-story translink tower approved for one block away at 10th and Arbutus and another rezoning of 20 stories on that opposite corner, which will further serve to overload this already busy area of West 10th. I ask you reject this proposal in its current form and work with the developer to create a building that benefits the area, one that is lower in height, preserve solar access and is more respectful if the neighborhood's needs. I urge Council to remember that Vancouver's best neighborhoods of which Arbutus Walk is a shining example were built through collaboration with residents and not in opposition to them. Thank you for your time.
Thanks very much. Okay. So Speaker 13, is that correct? So Speaker 13, Aaron Yates. Welcome.
Good evening, Mayor and councillors. My name is Aaron Yates. I'm a resident of Vancouver. And I am here tonight to express my opposition to this rezoning application. My concern about this, my concern is not about housing itself. I support housing in our city. My concern is whether a 25-story 221 unit tower is appropriate for this specific site. This is not a typical city block we're dealing with here. It's a unique pocket within the Budas walk ordered by two schools, children's playground. To the north, there's a one-way road of a bike lane. To the south, there's a narrow cobblestone avenue. Access in and out. of this block is already constrained. This block has a history of access problems. In 2018, traffic islands were removed and traffic patterns altered because emergency vehicles were not able to properly access the north side of the block. Masterand Avenue on the south side carries a significant number of non-resident through traffic. During school drop-off and pick-up times, congestion on Masterand Avenue, U Street and tents have is an everyday reality. There are no back alleys on Masteran Avenue. It's a dual-purpose road, which means rubbish bins are placed directly on the street for collection, effectively reducing Masterand Avenue to a single-lane road for multiple days a week. This issue will be compounded with the number of additional rubbish bins required to support further 221 units under this development. Street parking on all sides of this block is extremely limited. As a result, delivery vans, trades, rideshare services, postal trucks frequently stop and live traffic lanes, blocking movement and further restricting access. The key point is this block has struggled with congestion for years long before this proposal. A high-rose tower will compound existing problems in a location that is already uniquely constrained. Ayrs City Council to consider whether a 25-story tax is a high-story tower. is the best option for this site. And pro-housing, I believe a mid-rise building with a reduced number of units would be a far better option for this particular block. Thank you for your time and
consideration. Thank you. Okay, Speaker 14, Spencer Perry. Hello, counsel. Thank you for the opportunity
to speak today. My name is Spencer. Excuse me, I'm in our Buda's walk resident, Kitsilano neighbor, and as of eight months ago, a new dad. And I'm doing everything I can to stay in Vancouver and raise my family here, and I live in the strata across from this site on Marstrand Avenue. This site does not work for this place, so please just vote no to this proposal. 580 people submitted comments to this building, and from the online comments only 42 were in support. The overwhelming feedback to oppose this development is because of the structural issues on the block of West 10th, Marstrand, and U Street. Residents and community members see, feel, and experience these factors every single day. These factors are greatly oversimplified in the staff report and the design package. Staff's main argument to overlook these massive impacts is to secure additional rental housing. Development applications are everywhere in better suited parts of Kisselano, and many of them are approved. Further, even if this site has no displacement, the size of this tower proposes to do nothing with the displacement issue. This tower on its own does actual little to build more affordable family-sized units, given that more than half are one beds and studios. We see articles every day showing that Vancouver has built way too many of these small units in big towers that are not desirable or alleviating our housing crisis. These kind of units will not be the units that keep essential people like teachers and firefighters here. In fact, you can drive south on Arbutus and look at all the for rent signs on all the brand new purpose-built rental buildings. Today's tenants don't want to live in these kinds of units. I'll paint a picture of what we experience every day on these tiny streets like Marstis. because remember, there was no official traffic study done. On any given school day, residents on West 10th cannot exit their parking garage without cutting into lineups of cars that back up all the way towards Arbutus. West 10th becomes a one-way street that moves only when drop-offs or pickups happen at St. John's. Going north on you through West 10th is also a crawl. So to avoid waiting on West 10th, cars race down Marstrand and then get stuck on the blind corner as they come around onto U Street. I see near misses here daily. It's right above my home office, and I personally have almost been hit crossing this exact intersection. So to avoid waiting on... So if you exit Marstrand, by the way, on the Vine Street side, the school buses from Fraser Academy create yet another blind corner. So right now, by the way, that road is also closed for sewer work, which is worth doing, by the way. But you can really see how the traffic is intensified once you start messing around with the way the traffic flows. It's a nightmare to get down and around Marstrand Avenue right now. And this proposal makes no effort to alleviate any of this. In fact, it actually downplays an awesome. obfuscates the reality that more development of this size on this block only adds to the morning and afternoon rush. And peak traffic needs are real. Our road infrastructure is smaller than ever because of the protected bike lane that was built on West 10th in 2020. So now I have to speak about garbage day on Marstrand Avenue. Three times a week, our street becomes a one way for most of the day as dumpsters line the street. The staff report directly confirms this limitation by telling the developer they cannot add any more dumpster bin storage onto Marstrand. Even then, the applicant submitted this plan in its design, a blatant disregard for the site and the neighborhood that they seek to join. We all know this tower is not a fit, and yet here we are looking at a poorly conceived plan right on our desks. And by the way, the renderings don't even show our building in the actual pictures. It looks like there's green space directly adjacent to the site, but my building's been there since 1998. Importantly, none of the structural issues are alleviated by a sky train either. Young kids don't take the train to school, and Marstrand Avenue will continue to be the only. only way to service our adjacent strata. And bikers, by the way, will still take West 10th to get across town. It's a glorious piece of cycling infrastructure. So I'm greatly concerned about our adjacent strata on Marstrand Avenue that's primarily made up of seniors and young families like myself. We're also going to be forced to indefinitely pay for road maintenance from a larger building. So I really would like to understand why a large company gets all the financial benefits, but yet we have to pay for all of the costs. In fact, on Marstrand Avenue from some of the pictures we just looked at, you can already see the bricks are starting to break. right in front of the entry and exit of the parking lot where Telas's service vehicles access their site. That's only going to get worse, during construction and after the building. I just don't see how this makes any sense. So in summary, I want to leave you with just a few key thoughts if you came in today wondering how you should vote. I really don't think it's right or fair to download the costs to our strata just so that one of BC's largest corporations can make a few more dollars. And I don't think we can justify the approval of a massive tower given the shade and the effects on students and kids, as we've heard from some of the other people today. Would this proposal honestly even fit be in front of our desks if it were not for the Broadway plan? And given all of the demand for four lease, with all the four lease signs right now, why are we even looking at building more buildings of this size? Please reject this proposal outright. Thank you. Thank you.
Good afternoon, counsel. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I too am a resident of Mars Strand Avenue. And I want to begin with something important. This proposal is not a question of housing versus no housing. It's currently zoned for housing. They could go build housing there right now if they wanted to. The conflict coming to the neighborhood is directly to the scale and size and lack of safety, essentially. So I have a lot of notes, and I'm going to try to get over them quickly because I think a lot of this has been covered. The private road governance, while it's true that the statutory right of way does not explicitly name a limitation. It is known in BC property law that the intent that was considered when that was granted is the reasonable use in which it is allowed. So by the city approving, you know, three to 500 more additional trips onto a road that individual residents are legally liable for. And financially responsible to clear and maintain. I don't really think that's fair. Our fair precedent is set to local residents. Something else I wanted to mention. A couple of my neighbors have brought up the dumpster staging, so three days a week. We have dumpsters blocking half the road, bringing our functional width to about three meters. Vancouver Fire Rescue requires six meters at all times. The city has also, admitted that they do not have any tools for governance or enforcement to ensure that that part of the road stays clear. This means emergency access compliance is effectively dependent on a volunteer strata to ensure that access is compliant. Documented safety concerns. So I pulled some information from the Freedom of Information Act, and in a 2021 study it showed school pickups. We had a vehicle passing Marstrand Avenue every 44 seconds. And I'd like to remind you that currently there is no sidewalk on the northeast corner where the tellus lot is and what the applicant is proposed. I emailed you all photos with measurements this morning if you'd like to check that out. There is a manhole cover that goes from three feet to 12 inches and is not a safe passage or anyone using a walker, a stroller on mobility device whatsoever. Further, a 2023 speed study found that one in four vehicles is exceeding the 30 kilometer an hour speed limit down that road. The active school active travel planning program
has done an analysis on this block in 2021. Summer of 2025, they pulled this back up to run another workshop and from their emails that I obtained via Freedom of Information Request, many of their concerns are ongoing and still have not been addressed, and there are significant concerns around W and Tenth, both for pedestrians and bicycles. This committee has also documented that they are exploring turning the 2600 block of W Street into a car-free future greenway zone. So that makes us consider how in the world is this tower going to access their rear-lane street, lane if the road is shut. And that would be, again, rerouting them all the way through using private land once again. Another consistency issue with the policy that's been applied. So when the surrounding properties along Marstrand Avenue were zoned in the 90s, the tellus lot was not touched. If you pull up the VanMaps easements, you'll see the spaghetti sprawled all across. Every single other property was required to give an easement on their property to allow for safe pedestrian passage. And it seems fair to have a consistent policy be applied to this block, to this parcel as well. I'm going to wrap this up just because I don't want to be repeating all these same points that a lot of my neighbors have covered. I think ultimately I would like to ask that council refer this back to staff for a proper comprehensive safety analysis and explore a design that's compliant with the Broadway Plan in terms of massing and built form. Thanks.
Thank you. Okay. Our next speaker is Diane Elliott Buckley, who I believe is on the phone.
Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Diane Elliott Buckley, and I'm a resident of Vancouver here today representing Westside Family Place. I'm happy to speak in support of this rental housing proposal in our neighborhood. As many of you know, Westside Family Place was founded in 1973, by two local moms who saw a need for connection and support among young families. Their vision was simple but powerful to create a welcoming space where parents and caregivers could build community and receive support while nurturing the well-being of their children. Over the decades, we've evolved to meet the changing needs of families. Today, we serve a diverse community and offer a wide range of parenting resources, early childhood programming, and opportunities for social connection. We're proud to be Canada's first recognized family resource program, and to have served as a model for hundreds of similar programs across the country. What sets us apart is not just our programs, but the warm, supportive, and trusting relationships families build with our staff. Families come for connection and belonging, not just activities, and they return and refer others because they feel known and respected. Our work is also preventive by reducing isolation, strengthening parental confidence, and fostering positive parent-child interactions. We help families build resilience early. Families feel part of a community with a sense of belonging that is protective and meaningful. And that's why housing matters so deeply to us. We see firsthand how difficult it has become for young families to find stable, secure housing on the west side. Many of the families we serve are renters. Many face uncertainty when leases end or when rents rise beyond what they can manage. Housing instability creates stress for parents that directly affects the well-being of children. Conversations with parents also indicate that tenant protections are weak and adjudication is difficult to access, and many landlords seem to operate under the assumption that the tenant's rights are optional. Purpose-built rentals with proper management help ensure that rental units are maintained and that rights are respected. Projects like this one, which include rental and below-market rental homes close to transit, parks, schools, and community services are desperately needed. Stable rental housing allows families to put down roots. It allows children to thrive in their neighborhood. It allows parents to build support networks, participate in local programs, and contribute to the life of the community. We believe that this project will become a valuable part of our community and will help ensure that the West Side remains a place where families, not just those that can afford home ownership, can belong. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay. Our next speaker is Lorraine Lowe. Is Lorraine in person? Okay. I'm not seeing the podium. Okay. Speaker 18 is withdrawn. Speaker 19 on the phone, Heartstar Crawford. Speaker 19 is not on the line. Okay, thank you very much. Speaker 20, Tracy Kemp.
This is her. Yes. Yeah. Thanks. Hi, everyone. Thank you for hearing my voice. My name is Tracy Kemp, and I'm an owner and resident living directly adjacent to where this rezoning proposal is suggested. My neighborhood is called Arbutus Walk. I have lived in the neighborhood for 25 years. I oppose the development application for this 25-story tower at this site. I'm also a midwife. I work at BC Women's and I chose my neighborhood to give me the mental health support that I need to be of service in the community because I like blue sky and green open space. So this proposal, I would like to oppose this based on four key reasons. One, it does not align with the pre-existing long-term vision of this neighborhood. Two, there is significant neighborhood opposition to this proposal. Three, there is insufficient public benefit. Four, the infrastructure does not exist to support the extra parking and traffic congestion expected from this development. Now, I will say a few words about each point. Point one, this application does not uphold the long-term vision of the Arbutus Walk neighborhood. Here is a description of the neighborhood. You can find this online. It's a master-planned community, known for its tree-lined streets, quiet, park-like atmosphere. It has won architectural awards. The planners were praised for transforming the Carling Brewery industrial site into a sustainable, community-focused neighborhood through collaborative public hearings. The redevelopment means to insert a 25-story tower into this mid-rise award-winning community, effectively changing the character of the neighborhood forever. This could cast long, imposing shadows through the playground area and the park space. These are the spaces that support our mental health as people. and they're important, as we've heard from the doctor earlier. I'd like council to respect the hard work that your councillor peers and the community did in the 1990s, establishing this master-planned neighborhood by opposing the development application. Point number two, there is significant neighborhood opposition to this proposal. Today, you just have to look at the speakers and online to see that. The public forums were very well attended, and people have a lot to say about this. Point number three, there is insufficient public benefit. I would argue that with the rental vacancy rate at an all-time high, so higher now than in the past 30 years, we do not need another high-rise with a high vacancy rate with unaffordable rent. There is no evidence to suggest that this rezoning application will add any value to the community. We already have a great example of how to create affordable housing for families. It's called cooperative housing and it already exists in our Arbutus Walk immediately adjacent to this area. And these are actually affordable. There's no vacancies with cooperative housing because this type of housing is wildly popular. Finally, point number four, the infrastructure to support this plan has not been adequately addressed. There is already insufficient parking around the site and already severe traffic congestion without adding anything. This proposed site is encircled by a one-way road, a bike lane, two schools, and Marstrand Avenue, this smaller, minor street. The immediate vulnerable populations are cyclists in transit, school children, and seniors from the nearby seniors' home. Two days ago, I just saw somebody coming in a car up the one-way street, completely confused as to how to orient themselves around that area two days ago, causing people to flee in the streets. Before considering this proposal, there needs to be a traffic analysis, including peak hour traffic activity, a cumulative block impact analysis with a prospective lens that incorporates the new adjacent developments already underway. This should be a collaborative process with the residents, the schools, and bike users, because their safety should be a priority. Please support this community by opposing the development of this rezoning proposal. Please remember, these towering buildings are not removable. They must be proven to be beneficial for everyone through thoughtful, careful analysis. This proposal is in opposition to what the residents want. It has not been thorough considering the scale of the development, nor is it in keeping with the original Arbutus Walk Plan or the Broadway Plan to preserve the original form of communities. Please preserve the livability of this precious neighborhood. Thank you so much for your time.
Okay, thank you. So we are right up against the break at 5 p.m. And not enough time to hear from another speaker. We're just a couple of minutes late. So we'll now recess the meeting and resume at 6 p.m. Thank you.
Code is not valid. Welcome to Telus conferencing. Hey, Sonia. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Thank you. Awesome. Thanks. Yeah. Thanks.
Okay, welcome back, everybody. We are reconvening the public hearing. We are continuing to hear from speakers now. And we will start with Speaker 21, Davrin Lee Sun, who is registered by phone.
Hi, good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Davin Lieson and I'm the owner of the Sharpest Drug Mart on West 4th and Vine Avenue in Kitsilano, located close to this proposed redevelopment. Just a background, I've been a pharmacist for 46 years in several different neighborhoods around Metro Vancouver, with the last 20 years being in the Kitsilano area. I'd like to voice my support for this project, which would bring over 200 new rental homes to the vicinity. and with more importantly, zero tenant displacement. I understand it aligns with the Broadway Plan and the location is very close to the future Broadway subway station as well, as steps away from buses on Broadway. Building more homes next to rapid transit makes perfect sense and is sustainably sound. This project would increase the rental housing stock in Kits, with many different layouts, including many family-oriented units, and the business community is. along West 4th and West Broadway would certainly welcome the additional residents and increased customer base. I understand there are very real concerns about this project, but they always are with change and progress, none of which are insurmountable. So I speak in favour of this project, and I thank you for your consideration in approving this transit-oriented development. Thank you very much.
everyone it's Jane McFadden and I'm calling in support of this project. I'm the executive director of the West 4th Avenue Business Association. Although this project is, of course, outside of a few blocks outside of our BIA boundary, we see customers, of course, coming to dine and shop and use the services of West 4th from all over the city, but especially in Kitsilano. And one of the things that I consistently hear is that there's not enough rental in Kitsilano in and around our area. There's a few things that I really like about this project, that it's rental for sure, that there's zero displacement. That's something that we hear as well consistently. And I really like that commercial and residential will not be displaced as a result of this project. It does align with the Broadway Plan as one of my members that was just on the line from the pharmacy indicated, it is in line with it. And it's really, I don't know if you've been to this site anytime recently, but it's really just sitting there and it's been sitting there for a long time. And I think the need for rental housing in the area in the city, but also just specifically in Kitsilano is just a perfect use of this space. and now will be very close to this great hub of transit for people to be able to get around. And, you know, perhaps not rely on vehicle traffic, but use that transit infrastructure that we've been investing in building for several years. I think that's it for me, but I hope that you support this project and thanks for listening.
Good evening, Council. My colleague, Jane, from the West 4th BIA, really covered all the great points about why I also support this project. I represent the West Broadway BIA. And there's an event that we do every year. We're very grateful to host an outdoor movie night at Connaught Park, which is near this site. And a lot of the feedback that I hear year after year is from. people that attend that grew up in the neighborhood but can't afford to buy a home in the neighborhood. So one of the reasons I strongly support this is more rental, and as Jane noted, it won't displace any existing tenants. And we really do need all the support we can get for local businesses to have more shoppers in the neighborhood. So I do hope this goes through, and I really appreciate. all of the different points that have been made this evening about the concerns. And I hope there's a workable solution for this project to move forward. Thank you so much.
Hi.
Thanks.
And can you just confirm you've identified yourself as a resident of Vancouver. Go ahead.
Thank you. I'm a resident of my name is Tim Lauman Gardner. I'm a resident of Vancouver here in opposition. Again, I'm a resident of Vancouver. I live at 12th and Maple. My kids are 7 and 10. And yes, they go to SJS. It's a great neighborhood. More people should live here. There should be more diverse housing and more rental. If this building were anywhere near reasonable, I wouldn't be here. But I am. I'm here to speak to two aspects here. First is bike safety and bike access. And second, I'll speak to St. John's a little bit. But my primary emphasis is on bike access and bike safety. We chose this. neighborhood because of its bikeability and to teach our kids to get everywhere by bike and we bike to kids area daycare to Granville Island daycare to St. John's. They bike every day and we bike every day. My wife and I bike to work. We take the 10th Avenue Greenway every day. Everybody in this room agrees it's a fantastic piece of bike infrastructure. As far as I'm aware, I could stand to be corrected. I'm not aware of a single 20-plus-storey residential building immediately adjacent anywhere on the West 10th bike route. There's one currently being built on my kids' commute on the northeast corner of 10th and Arbutus, one application on the southwest corner of 10th and Arbutus, and this would be three. This would be the first three 20-storey buildings immediately adjacent to the major east-west bike commuter road where there are currently zero on my kids'. And they would all be within a two-block radius of my kids' daily morning commute. Sitting here today, there are significant safety risks with the way this bike road is laid out. The road is too narrow. The staff report had a PowerPoint that was in my view slightly misleading. It showed a bike lane, then a car meandering in the middle of the road next to it. That's not what happens on this stretch of road. What happens on this stretch of road is there's a bike lane, curb lane where everybody drops off at the school or the residences across the street. Then in the middle there's a travel lane. That travel lane is congested for at least two hours a day. And what happens is two things. Number one, people open their car doors to get out. That has an impact on the bike travel. The second thing that happens is people try to parallel park. I don't know if you ever seen a Cybertruck parallel park on a narrow road. But what happens is that they can't see my seven-year-old daughter as she's pedaling along the bike lane. They pull the nose forward to parallel park and then reverse. So the road sitting here today is too narrow. There's also two driveways. There's one driveway on the north side and one on the south side of West 10th.
So not only do you have east-west traffic and traffic going through on Yew and Vine, but there's also two places in the middle between Arbutus and Yew where cars are entering and exiting 10th. and Yew where cars are entering and exiting 10th. One is a commercial facility. There is a roadway through the Arbutus Walk. So it's an unsafe situation here today. And this will exacerbate the risks. The development — the staff report referenced and glossed over the hotspot. That's not just a hotspot. That's a place where people regularly have car and bike interactions. The staff report also suggests there would be 24 to 25 additional trips per hour in the peak, and I find that laughable. In a building with 211 units, 100 that are meant to be family units, that's 100 families whose kids are going to school at the same time every day. To suggest that's only going to lead to 24, 25 more vehicle trips per hour strikes me as wrong. And that doesn't account — in a building with 78 parking spaces — for the number of Amazon and Uber deliveries that are going to have to appear at the residence. So there's going to be a massive increase in car traffic and a massive increase in car-to-bike interactions. There's safety additions proposed in this development, and they're not going to make it more safe. The first is a raised crosswalk at Vine. That's not going to make it more safe at all. It's going to increase the backlog because it's going to act as a speed bump, and that backlog in the travel lane is going to make it harder for the bikes to go. It's going to — and doesn't address the main risks associated with the narrowness of the street in any event. There's a reference to the bike lane being separated. It's already separated. There's already dividers. That doesn't stop a Cybertruck. And last, there's again a suggestion to raise it. And I've seen these raised sidewalks. Again, that raising is no higher than a car bumper. It's not going to address dooring and it's not going to address the narrowness of the road. So this is already an unsafe section of the bike road and to add a third 20-plus storey building immediately adjacent is going to make it more unsafe. So this will make my kids more unsafe. I'll stop. I want to talk very briefly about St. John's. When we think of Westside independent schools, we often think of large physical plants. We think of St. George's. We think of West Point Grey that take up large quantities of public resources. This isn't that. This is an urban school in a dense area that requires and teaches its kids how to be neighbours and live Vancouver's values. What council needs to understand is this might be existential. The school may not survive this. Nobody's going to want to send their kids to school for two years of construction. I encourage council to vote no. Thank you.
Speaker 25 has withdrawn. Speaker 26 is Adam Politzer.
Sir, sir, the podium — is the podium immediately to your left? Just right here. No problem. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, don't worry. Let us know. Are you okay standing?
Yes. Thank you. Great. Go ahead, please when you're ready. Okay. Yes. My name is Adam Politzer. I'm a retired architect and member of the Strata Council of 2228 Marstrand, the development facing the development site. I'm speaking for myself. I ask council to not approve the proposed rezoning and rather send it back to the drawing board to correct its many major deficiencies. First and main deficiency: the rezoning has been developed considering that Marstrand is a lane, not a street. The planning department agrees with this bizarre concept and substantiates it in the report, with the ludicrous fact such as that the width of Marstrand is 20 feet. A simple proof that Marstrand is a street and not a lane is that Marstrand is the only access for the 176 unit complex where I live. It was approved by the planning and building department 30 years ago. At that time, as now, the zoning bylaw clearly stated — clearly defined a lane as a thoroughfare that provides only secondary access. The Telus rezoning has been developed as if the site faces two streets, West 10th and Yew, to which it shows its good face. And a lane, Marstrand, where I live, to which it shows the backside. That means that we, the Marstrand residents, will face the overwhelming 80-foot long blank wall of the Telus building that sits at the property line without any space for greenery to soften its impact. It means that in front of our entry, there will be a semi-covered loading bay that may in the future become a drug shooting gallery. It means that three mature trees, an asset to our street, will be cut down. It means that the proposed tower will overlook our bedrooms and living rooms. It means that the ramp to the proposed underground parking almost faces the ramp to our parking, which will increase the risk of fender benders. I could go on, but there are other problems that I want to bring to your attention. Item 3 of the proposed CD-1 bylaw states that the site is subdivided into sub-areas A and B. Although no area dimension is shown, Figure 1 is fairly easy to scale, and sub-area A is 21,275 square feet, sub-area B is 3,725, total 25,000 square feet. Item 7 of the bylaw states that in sub-area A, the maximum FSR should be 6.5, that is 138,287 square feet. The gross floor area of the proposal in front of you is 162,522 — an excess of almost 25,000 square feet. Floor space ratio is an index of the bulk of the building. The Broadway Plan determines the FSR of 6.5 as the allowed bulk for that area. The proposed development's bulk is way over. Last point. CD-1 341 that created Arbutus Walk 30 years ago took an easement of 5 feet from the Fraser Institute, Academy site and the Co-op side, in order to create a sidewalk. At that time, an easement could not be taken from the Telus side because it was not part of the CD. For some reasons that is hard to understand, Thank you.
Thank you very much. The city is — respecting — doesn't want to touch the laws. Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Okay, next speaker is number 27. Anita Landon Malaney? Maloney?
No?
Oh, yes, here you are in person. Great. Please go ahead when you're ready?
My name is Anita Landon. I live on Marstrand. Thank you, councillors, for your time and consideration. You should already have my written submission on file dated February 8th. The proposed 25-storey modern tower is inconsistent with the established low-rise character of the Arbutus Walk neighbourhood. Its scale raises serious concerns regarding traffic and parking, impacts on the very narrow Marstrand Avenue, Yew Street, and the one-way 10th Avenue with bike lane, and will cause disruption to the surrounding community. The Carling O'Keefe master plan — currently the Arbutus Walk — was the result of extensive community consultation, and was designed to achieve appropriate density while maintaining a human-scale, low-rise environment with significant green space and respect for the site's brewery heritage. The introduction of a modern high-rise tower with insufficient parking conflicts with these carefully considered objectives. I am also concerned about public elementary school capacity, considering the Telus proposal and two additional towers planned a block away. Existing public schools in the area are already at capacity and are located many blocks away with limited transit accessibility. It is unclear whether there are plans to provide new public elementary school infrastructure within walking distance to support a significant increase in residents in the planned towers. Construction logistics present another issue. The absence of back lanes and the narrow streets limit space for construction staging, cranes, trucks and so on, which is likely to further increase traffic congestion and restrict access to nearby residences during demolition and construction. While I acknowledge the need for additional, affordable rental housing, I believe a mid-rise co-op-type housing development of up to seven stories would be far more appropriate for the Telus site. Tall towers are better suited to major arterial corridors such as Cambie Street or Broadway, where transportation capacity is greater. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose the rezoning application as currently proposed on the Telus site. Thank you.
Speaker 28 is Carrie Gaimond.
Can everyone hear me?
Okay. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Carrie Gaimond, and I am one of several strata council members speaking on behalf of Strata LMS 317, representing 170 units on Marstrand Avenue. I'm here to oppose the proposed 25-storey 221-unit tower at 2212– 210 West Tenth Avenue. This neighbourhood has long been recognized for its green space, walkability and livability, even receiving awards for its thoughtful streetscape and pedestrian-friendly design. The proposed tower threatens all of that. A building closer to 10 stories could integrate fully with the community, preserving trees, sunlight, and pedestrian access while still providing housing. My primary concerns are safety, traffic, congestion, poor design, operational noise, acoustic impacts, shadowing, and the effect on future development opportunities. Marstrand Avenue is narrow and portions lack sidewalks. The proposed parkade ramp is almost, as Adam said, directly opposite our existing ramp, creating an unnecessary safety hazard. Traffic is already significant, particularly near two schools. The tower will worsen congestion, putting pedestrians at risk, and adding maintenance costs to a privately owned portion of the street, as has been reiterated by several members. We'll also experience continuous mechanical and servicing activity — heating, ventilation, deliveries — immediately adjacent to homes, while the CD-1 rezoning does not change noise limits. This operational activity has a real impact on livability. The proposal will further amplify what we call a canyoning effect, as mentioned by several people already, with four mature trees being removed and a 138-foot brick wall added to an already paved area. Echoes will intensify, making the street louder and more enclosed. This reduces both comfort and safety for pedestrians. The shadowing on St. John's School playground is unacceptable. Public schools are protected from such impacts, and independent schools deserve the same consideration.
All children deserve safe, outdoor space, which for play would deny them that. Another important concern is the lack of meaningful space between the proposed tower and nearby buildings, including our own strata property. While the zoning bylaw does not prescribe a fixed 60-foot gap, planning practice supports adequate separation between tall buildings to preserve light, air, privacy, and future development potential. To the current proposal, the proximity of the tower to neighbouring structures would effectively preclude and affecting property values and reducing appeal to potential buyers. Finally, the design treats Master and Avenue as a lane, as has been noted by several other members, rather than a street, eliminating setbacks, removing mature trees, and creating a stark and unsafe pedestrian environment. Mayor and Council, I urge you to visit this site and see firsthand how this tower dominates that worsens traffic, pedestrian safety, future property potential. Council has a responsibility to ensure development, developments enhance, not diminish neighborhood, character and livability. For these reasons, I respectfully ask you to reject this rezoning in its current form, and require a simply revised design. One that is lower in height, around 10 stories, preserved sunlight, street, skate, and acoustic impacts, integrate fully with the community and prioritizes safety, livability, and pedestrian family streets. I have lived in this neighborhood for 25-plus years, and I keep your time. Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it.
Speaker 29, Felika Sukha Karan. 29 is not on the line. Okay. Stephen Boas, number 30.
I'm on the line.
Can you hear me? We can hear you just fine.
Go ahead, Steven. Okay, I have a presentation. Can you make sure it's up?
Yeah, it's just coming up right now. Give it a moment. There you go. You're good to go.
Go ahead.
Okay, I don't see on the feet. Oh, okay, like.
I'm Stephen Bossam resident in Vancouver. I'm a renter, and I'm opposed to this application. As a cyclist, I will actually. I will actually echo the concerns of one of the previous speakers who spoke about bike safety, and it is a really big issue, especially on this block. What you see here is a massing model of the proposal that I just built independently. I will note that there are inconsistencies with a drawing. So this is a general massing. There are inconsistencies between the elevations, plans, missing floor layouts for the tower and so on, but this will give you the idea of the whole outline of the massing. Next slide, please. Slide number two, there's permeability through the site. So you can actually see through from one side of the site to the other site, and I think you can see the school right here. Next slide. The tower would significantly shade a school, and this is my shadow rendering from Marsha 20th at 12.15 p.m. I can give you any number of shadow rendering. It's very easy to do. to do. And during the broadway plan discussions, some of council were in the room at that time. There was discussion about solar access for schools, whether they're independent or public. And the consensus was that kids will be kids. And you're not going to discriminate between someone who goes to a public school or to an independent school. And this really does not show respect for people who are going to schools in Vancouver. Next slide. So here is the general amassing in the Arbutus Walk area. And the Arbutus Walk area was specifically made at this lower scale to respect the character of the neighborhood. And it was an award-winning space. And the whole idea was not to build towers. Next slide. Now, here's another shadow study at 10 a.m. on Marsa Twain, which is one of your standards. And there are significant shadow impacts all day long. And I said there are a shadow. inconsistency between the elevations and the plants in terms of where the windows are, and balconies and so on. Next slide. Here you see the other side of the site and the open space through the site and the neighboring properties. Next slide. And what you're seeing here is more like a bunker, which is the future TELUS building, the Telecom building. And it's not very neighborly. It's one big block that just faces the street here. And there is a possibility that Telos could actually redevelop this without actually having to do any residential or to do something like a Chester Street, which is six stories. Next slide. Here is another view and there is actually another tower on the other and on Arbutus. And I will note that I know model this over Christmas and the plants had actually been submitted to the city in December but only posted at the end of last month. So big delay there. Next slide. Here is another 3D view. And I've been working on this Broadway plan model for about four years now just to show the public and everyone else who is concerned about what potential amassing impacts are on the neighborhood. Next slide. And in the city of Toronto, this information is available and I heard other speakers before me talk about next one. You got that. Okay, I'm on the city of Toronto slide and you can. download all of the rezoning applications via a website, download all the context. There's no time to create, needed to create the 3D modeling and you can go anywhere and do your shadow studies and so on. So it's a huge barrier to entry that this information isn't available with the city. Considering the city has its own internal 3D database that's not releasing to the public currently via F.O.I. Next slide. And this is, again, the view from the green space in the middle of Arbuta's Walk, and it would be a big mistake to go back. on decades of planning. Next slide. The site is permeable. As you can see currently, next slide. That is the streetscape and you can get an appreciation of what tent looks like currently as a cyclist or as a motorist and so on. It is a narrow street and it would really add to conditions for cyclist. Next slide. That's from Cannot Park. Just a view to give you a sense of the scale. Next slide. Okay, next slide. The current building. a lot of telecom dishes on the top. Next slide. And here is, again, the shadow impacts on the other side of the streets. So the impacts are very large. Please listen to your neighbors.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Stephen. Thank you very much, Stephen, for speaking. You are at time.
All right. Appreciate it. Okay. Speaker 31 is Louis Villegas. I do not see him. Okay. Speaker 32 is Bologna Bader. Speaker 32 is not on the line. Not on the line? Okay. Speaker 33, Lavanya Anand.
Okay. Thank you. You have five minutes. Please go ahead.
Okay. Thank you so much. Hello, Consular. So my name is La Vanya and I'm a Vancouver resident. And I just wanted to call in to say that I support the proposed rental housing development at West Dent and Mars Trend. So I currently work at one of the schools right near the site. I work at Fraser Academy. So I really see every day how housing challenges affect both families and the staff in our communities. We have families who send their kids to our school from all over Lower Mainland, including as far as mission. And that's, you know, a really long commute for a child. And families are really making big sacrifices because they value the education the kids are receiving in this area. But it also goes to show how difficult it is to find housing closer to where they would ideally like to live. And it goes the same for staff. So I'm lucky enough to commute from East Vancouver. but some of my colleagues come from as far as White Rock every day. And for many of the staff in the school and the school families, living close to where they work just doesn't seem financially realistic, which is why this development, because it includes 20% of the below market rental unit, I really think that could make a big difference. More rental supplier just creates more opportunities for families and for school staff to actually live in the communities that they're a part of. I also just wanted to say that I appreciate that the project. doesn't involve displacing any existing residents or businesses since the site is currently a utility property, as we all know. And adding new housing without pushing anyone else just feels like a positive step to me. And with the new Arbuta Skytrain station coming, it just makes sense to add housing closer to transit, just supports short commutes and better access. So yeah, just wanted to say from my perspective, as someone who works right next to this site and walks right next to this building every day, it feels like a thoughtful addition to the neighborhood. Thank you so much.
Thank you so much, Levinia. I appreciate you calling in.
Speaker number 34 is Jeff Manton here in person.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Good evening, counsel. My name is Jeff Manton. I'm a local business owner, a community builder, and I'm raising a growing family directly across from the proposed site at 10th and you. And to be clear, I'm opposed to this development. I am not opposed to housing, nor am I opposed to density. In fact, I live in it. The Arbutus Wai. is one of the densest neighborhoods in Kitsilano already. It has been home to my family for the last eight years. And to paint a picture, it's 1,400 units across medium-rise buildings on a footprint of 25 acres, centered around a lush greenway with several playgrounds that are heavily used, communal gathering spaces, windy streets, quaint lamp posts, and a cohesive aesthetic. The list goes on. It's a wonderful place to live. And I have always wondered, who were the... visionary builders behind this neighborhood. How is this not the shining example of how a municipality balances the ever-urgent need for density with intentional human-sized communities? And it is important to remember the origin of the Arbutus Walk, as it seems to have been forgotten, as several of my neighbors have already shared. Imagine the Arbutus lands decades ago, a former industrial site slated for rezoning and the The initial solution offered by the city and the developers was four massive towers. Of course, the community pushed back and instead offered an alternative version focused on livability and connection. And history seems to be repeating itself. At the time, the city followed a program called the local area planning. Instead of ignoring the residents, the city council invited the community to participate and co-author the future of those lands. It took years. Many meetings. heated discussions, but in the end, this co-created rezoning plan was passed unanimously, and it gave developers a framework that the community actually helped write. Today, Arbutus Walk is a world-renowned, award-winning example of how community-led, human scale, transit-oriented density is possible. And central to that framework was a bold commitment. 20% of the homes were to be non-marketing. housing. According to the original architects of this area, that goal, that promise to the community has still not been fully achieved. Many of my neighbors and members of the St. John's Community School have gone to great lengths demonstrating to you all the countless safety and scale concerns that this massive project forces onto our already constrained community. And we are told these safety and scale compromises are a necessary trade-off for below-market housing or additional housing and to meet the goals of the housing at any cost strategy that seems to be such a priority. As we witnessed at the last council meeting on February 17th, as part of a motion that was passed for the East 10th and Guelph development, these below market promises can be stripped away at the 11th hour without adequate public awareness. Why are we trading the safety of our school zones and neighborhoods for fragile promises, while the original 20% non-market market? a goal for this very area remains unfinished. If we are going to build density, shouldn't we hold it to the gold standard that we co-authored decades ago, rather than a broad target that bypasses our safety and our history? Counsel, I am asking you to return to the visionary spirit of the Arbutus Walk. Do not allow a 25-story tower to hollow out a neighborhood that was built on trust. work with the community to find a path forward. I urge you to require the promised non-market housing, a cumulative block impact analysis, and a true safety study before ever allowing a project of this scale to proceed in this neighborhood. Let's return to a Vancouver that works with its residence and not in spite of it. Thank you for your time and your attention.
Thank you for your time.
Appreciate it. 35 is Diane Henry. And I see we have Diane.
Good evening. Thank you very much for your attention. I'm Diane Henry. I'm a longtime resident of Vancouver, and I live in Kitsilano for the last 12 years. I came here from Ottawa in 1996. And I wish to put my objections to this proposed rezoning plan forward because what I saw when I arrived here in Vancouver was what I thought was just amazing architectural, livability, sustainability. I saw the False Creek project. I saw so many developments that were livable and habitable and green. And it was just, I loved this city. And now all I can think of when I hear and see what the Broadway plan and it's really going through almost turbocharged, with development. All I see is they paved paradise and they put up towers. So many towers and so in this block, it's such a narrow place, such a small space for a huge tower to go into. And I've lived in an apartment building that was 28 stories high. I was in the 21st level. You cannot sustain something that has delivery trucks and vans
and people who have to do the maintenance and waste removal and so on and so forth,
there's just too many vehicles. In this space, there's going to be already a vehicle every 42 seconds, someone said.
And then as of February 22nd, 2021, the peak was 82 vehicles passing through this block. That was one. vehicle per 43.9 seconds. If you go forward with this tower, how are you ever going to keep it under one vehicle every five seconds, 10 seconds? You vastly underrated and underestimated the amount of traffic congestion that is going to happen to this small little place. And I just want to say in closing, I'm a senior citizen. I visit friends who are at Seasons and assisted seniors care. home. Many elderly people are walking in that block with walkers or canes. There's dogs. There's students. There's children. How are you ever going to manage the congestion if you go forward with a 25-story building? So many people who have come tonight have said, look, we were fine with six stories. We were fine with eight stories. These people aren't against more apartments. They aren't against helping with our housing situation. They're against something that is so out of character and so out of scale and so out of proportion. And I am going to just close by saying, I'm begging you, please consider that you must adjudicate this land use in a fair and honest way. Just go there and look at the traffic between 330 and 530 and ask yourself, how are they even going to build it? I just don't know how it's going to work. And I really, really hope you consider this carefully and reject this proposal. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I appreciate you speaking to counsel. Number 36 is Dennis Agar. Hello, everyone. My name is Dennis Agar. I'm the executive director of movement Metro Vancouver Transit Riders. I'm a Vancouver resident as well. And I'm speaking in that capacity. You're not going to be surprised to hear that I support density in your transit.
So I support this project.
You know, in addition, this site has lots of excellent schools, both private and public, as well as massive park that probably could use a few more people.
This is a perfect place to raise a family, and we should allow more families to live here. I also love that it doesn't displace any renters. You know, high rents remain a crisis. They're down, and your council has made a lot of progress towards addressing this. But there's still a lot more work that needs to be done, and we can. can't, you know, rest on our laurels. We remain in a housing crisis, and we need to keep seeking out sites like this that will allow more housing to be provided without displacing renters. In addition, you know, adding residents here will support the independent small retail businesses in this part of the West Side. It'll help them handle the rising rents and rising costs by adding more customers into their catchment. I really think this is the solution to retail, can see that we see in some parts of the west side. So yeah, thanks for having me on. I really support this development. Great. Thanks very much, Dennis. Speaker 37, Jeff Wilson. Hi, there. You have five minutes to address council. Go ahead when you're ready. Thank you. My name is Jeff Wilson, and I am a resident of Vancouver. In fact, my front door is on Marstreet Avenue, and I am in opposition to this project in its current form. I would like to see this site developed. I support housing. I support density and replacing a parking lot with homes is a good thing. But I'm here tonight to put facts on the record that I believe create legal and political exposure for this council if this project is approved in its current form. As everyone's mentioned tonight, Marston Avenue is narrow. It's only 20 feet wide. And as we've heard, it's half privately owned and maintained by residential strata next door. There is a sidewalk on the north side, but it stops at the Telas development site. And after that, you're on the road walking across to get to the sidewalk on this outside. And there's a sidewalk. And there's a sidewalk on the sidewalk. And there's a sidewalk. There's no proposed sidewalk going in along the frontage for the proposed site.
On garbage day, I have to stress this that three days a week, we've got garbage dumpsters that have been shown in photos tonight that didn't quite do the justice in my opinion. Lined up along that road and three times to a week, they are reducing the lane down to a single lane of traffic. And now we've got cars that are speeding in and out around those dumpsters throughout the day. And then during the school pickup time, as everyone has been lamenting. well, that back, that Marstrand lane becomes incredibly dangerous as you've got kids and families walking in and out amongst those dumpsters as the cars are going around to try to pick people up. And so it's just a really unfavorable situation. I don't believe the majority of you have stood on Marstrand during that school pickup time. And if you had, I don't think he would be comfortable proving what's in front of you tonight. And it wasn't always as bad. You know, back in 2020 when they converted that West St. Avenue to the one way and then eventually the bike lane, the applicant actually admitted that it's gridlock after that change in their own words. It's a parking lot during school pickup and drop off. And they're saying that as if to say that routing the traffic to Mark Strand is a solution for that. They've got their parquet access going there, and they've got a proposed graphic of drivers cutting through Marstrand to get away from the 10th Avenue traffic. And we've obtained through freedom of information and confirm that after that traffic changed, in fact, Marsrand traffic has jumped by over 60% during peak hours. And we know already that 10th, that 10th cannot handle the traffic. So I don't understand how the statement that this will be safer when we're done could possibly be true if we're only increasing the number of units, the number of cars. And yeah, the solution to raise the sidewalk. I agree with the previous speaker is not going to make any difference at all. And we've got 78 parking, parking stalls, a parkade ramp, loading bays, years of construction traffic onto Mars Strand, which is already over capacity. There's no proposed safety upgrades to Mars strand in this plan. And the applicant has said tonight that after they're done with the block, we'll be safer. And again, I just don't understand how city staff has confirmed that the applicant's process sequencing means there's, there's no policy in place that requires them to do significant street or public realm upgrades. We've been told that there's a refusal to upgrade portions of Mars Strand due to the, yeah, We've just heard that there's nothing really going to be changing there and that the sidewalk is going in. We did recently hear that there might be like a three foot sidewalk or something going in on the north side, which would be still insufficient considering the frontage and the scale and the building in place. The strata owns the road and it's formally objected. So you've heard that that the SRW is compliant because it does not expressly limit traffic volume, but an SRW established for local residential access does not become an infrastructure easement for a 25-story tower just because because the document doesn't say you can't. It was not written for the dumpsters, added dumpsters on the road, increased vehicle per hour at school pickup, arcade ramps with more 78 parking stalls or the years of construction
excavation that needs to take place on that road. The accident of a prohibition is not consent from the people who own the road. And if you approve a 25-story tower that uses a private road as a primary infrastructure without the owner's consent, you are setting a precedent that every developer in this city will use. Any strata in Vancouver could have a tower's traffic force into the property because the SRW didn't express the prohibit it. Is that the precedent that this council really wants to establish? There are 930 kids on this block just at the schools alone. 580 at St. John's school and another 350 at Fraser Academy, two doors down. And the city is simultaneously, the landlord, I think, of Fraser and approving the tower of a couple doors down. I just don't understand the safety implications if they were properly looked into as it pertains to this as everyone's been pointing out tonight. But I really want to belabor the point that the amount of children walking around on this street is intense. And throwing another 25 stories with rental housing in there is just going to make it worse. And so in closing, council, I'm asking you not to kill this project. I'm asking you to attach three conditions before you do anything with it. Require an proper traffic impact study, Speaker, require a construction management plan from our strans and require the applicant of sidewalk. You are at time and I do need to be fair. to all the speakers. So we do really appreciate your comments, but I need to be fair to everybody. Thank you. Speaker number 38 is Janet Bruce. Good evening, Deputy Mayor and Council. My name is Janet Bruce, and I live, I'm a Vancouver resident and live in the Abutus Walk area. I'm opposed to the Talis Tower in its present form. The speakers before me stated many valid reasons why the Telas Tower is largely not supported by the community. The research responses were 82% against it. Of the limited amount of people that responded, as so many people have given up on the chance of having these type of developments changed or overturned. A lot of the points that I was going to make have been covered. So I will just say that, I guess, 30 years ago, I was part of the public that participated in the vision of our Budus walk and it was quite a radical change at that point but it should be the one that this becomes again the low-rise buildings should be substituted in because this type of development you could actually have successful in Kairsdale in Dunbar and all the other areas that are similar to this but when you talk about towers you limit where those are acceptable and I think it's
It's really sad in a way that people have reached the point where it's a tower or it's not enough homes. There's lots of alternatives. They're inventive. Scandinavia has all sorts of interesting solutions. So I would urge counsel to refuse this application, send it back to the drawing board, and see if you can't get something a little more visionary, a little more truly Vancouver, rather than memory. mimicking high rises that you see in other American cities. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate you speaking. Speaker number 39 is Mack Wilson. No Mac. Okay. Speaker number 40, our last registered speaker is Verena Mushcheru. Hello. Hi. My name is Verena Mushire. And I don't live in Vancouver, but I'm a teacher who works in the area near this proposal. And I'm speaking in support of this application. You've heard from some of my colleagues already, so I'll keep this pretty short. Our school is a very special place where we are dedicated to personalized support to our dyslexic students. We're all very invested in our school community, and so many of us take extremely long commutes because Vancouver is a tough market to rent or own a home in, especially for us younger teachers in the area. And the commute adds many hours to our work days. In my case, it adds in a lot of work day. additional three hours, maybe more depending on how bad the traffic is coming out of Surrey. And it takes away time from me preparing lessons and supporting my students outside of class hours. And it also adds additional costs. I have to pay anywhere from $150 to $200 a month for public transit. More housing options that teachers and sports staff can access are just incredibly important. And in this area, there are four schools with hundreds of staff that are all considered essential workers because without them, none of our schools could operate. So through this development, many of them could have an opportunity to actually live in the neighborhood that they work in. And it would allow them to have a better work-life balance so that they're not going to spend hours commuting every single day to work. Thank you so much for taking this into consideration. Thank you so much. Appreciate your comments. We do have a few additional speakers at this time. First in person is Eric McDonald. Please come forward. And you have five minutes when you are ready. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm Eric McDonald, a long time Vancouver resident and father of two young kids. And I oppose this project. I'd actually make some very brief points. The developer's own shadow study shows a tower almost any height, a tower of almost any height, will shadow the outdoor play areas of St. John's school during recess and lunch for almost the entire year, affecting 580 students aged 4 to 18. The graph presented earlier was a bit misleading. As one speaker said, the bars should have been stacked on top of each other to show the increase in shadow. The shadowing the school playground would not be permitted for a public. school and independent schools should not be subject to a lower standard. All children deserve equitable access to sunlight and safe outdoor space to play. And approving this rezoning would effectively endorse unequal treatment and affect our children's health. We also create, as everyone said, lots of traffic and safety risks for kids and cyclists, you know, big trucks falling debris, potentially. So we all want more housing. But sacrificing people's health for developers' profit is not right. Thank you.
Thank you very much. We now move to some additional speakers on the phone. First is Barbara Oaks.
Thank you. Good evening, Councillor Kerby Young and Council. My name is Barbara Oaks, and I'm an Arbeda's resident. I'm born and raised in Vancouver, and I'm ready to express, or I'm actually speaking today. I've submitted my written opposition on January 23rd, but I'm speaking today to express my deep concern in opposition to this proposal, and it across the streets and the site. To be clear, I support increasing housing supply density and especially the creation of additional non-market housing. Replacing the surface parking lot with homes is in principle, a positive goal. However, density must not come at the expense of basic safety due process the neighborhood livability. I'm asking counsel to reject this proposal based on the following concerns. Traffic gridlock, number one, West 10th is a one way-way street with a dedicated bike lane. Introducing approximately 300 additional daily vehicle trips on this already constrained block creates a heightened risk for pedestrian and cyclist collision. Freedom of information studies show the block is already operating beyond capacity. There also does not to be, there also doesn't appear to be any clear plan how council intends to manage the increased traffic in the area beyond reducing parking spaces in the new building in an effort to discourage vehicle use, a strategy that in practice rarely works. It feels as though insufficient consideration has been given to how this project will affect the day-to-day lives of current residents. By approving a 25-stored building in an established low-rise neighborhood, the city risks creating long-term congestion and safety issues and then stepping back and leaving the community to deal with these consequences. Marstrand is not a standard city street. It's a privately owned space with the statutory right-of-way, SRW, granted to the city. This SRW was originally intended to a local. allowed for frequent trips and local parkade access for the three condominiums. It was never intended to facilitate a high-volume block circling traffic pattern. It is a space without sidewalks. Vehicle frequency is the primary predictor of pedestrian safety. On March 20, or sorry, on February 22nd, 2021 at 3 p.m., a peak hour saw 82 vehicles pass through the block. This is one vehicle every 43 seconds. In 2017, a car passed every 73 seconds. In 2017, a car passed for 73 seconds. So the current frequency has sharpened in that time period almost 40%. There's no safe intervals for residents to navigate their own street. Because there's lack of continuous sidewalks, pedestrians of course, to cross mid-lock or to walk on the street. Proposal lacks required setback, sidewalks, and meaningful public realm improvements. It attempts to exempt the project from standard safety requirements on a block that currently lack sidewalks by mislabel by mislabeling at illegal street. The proposed shadowing of St. John's outdoor players with significantly undermined student well-being, shadowing the trouble's play space is discouraged by the Broadway plan. The Broadway plan envision towers along major arterials, not inserted into internal residence lock. This proposals directly conflict with the key plan principles, including requirements for human-scale urban form and sunlight protection for the public realm a need for cumulative impact analysis on multiple developments on a single block, particularly with the upcoming Fraser Academy application, and the commitment that a new development is sensing enough to existing neighborhood content, which in this area consists primarily of three to six-story low-rise developments. Public trust has been safe, sorry, public trust is sincerely eroded by documented processes, including failure to post-recar and legal signage and failure to properly notify residents, later confirming through FOI requests. Refusal to reopen public Q&A despite acknowledging these notification failures, nondisclosure of relevant shadow studies, and continue insistence by planning staff that Marshon Avenue, while legally as a street, is exempt from safety, standard safety requirements. I request mayor and council, as I urge council to exercise its oversight role and oppose this project as it is presented, while planning staff assess policy compliance, The council is entrusted with protecting the real-world safety, livability, and long-term well-being of the neighborhoods affected by these decisions.
At a minimum, I ask the council require a cumulative block, impact analysis, and a genuine safety and livability study before allowing this project to be meaningfully considered. Vancouver's best neighborhoods were built through collaboration with residents, not in opposition to them.
We do support growth, housing, and density, but we also expect development to be safe, transparent and genuine and genuinely sensitive to the communities in which it's supposed. The mobility is not an abstract concept. It's the daily experience of residents who walk these streets for these children here and the alliance-based functional infrastructure to support their lives. So in closing, I just want to say that as a long-term resident of this area, I'm not opposed to this. Thank you, Barbara. Thank you. I'm opposed to the project as it's down. Thank you. Thank you, Barbara. I appreciate it. And if I can just ask all speaking. to just that are calling in now to identify themselves and if they're a resident of Vancouver I think next we have Lorraine Lowe on the phone. Hi, good evening deputy mayor, councillors and city staff. Lorraine Lowe here, I'm born and raised in Vancouver, a long-time resident. So I'm here representing as a resident tonight and I'm in strong support of this redevelopment application. I want to focus on something that we don't often think about when we look at building, but we absolutely should. And this facility is quite literally the home of the internet for our region. And behind those walls sits the legacy telephone and data infrastructure that keeps our city connected and the digital hub that businesses, hospitals, schools, and first responders rely on around the clock. Most of us never see it. But without it, Vancouver's economy simply doesn't function. Now here's a challenge. That infrastructure is aging and in an era where high-speople. data is an essential as electricity. We can't afford to let this critical backbone fall behind. This redevelopment replaces outdated systems with a state-of-the-art facility, future-proofing our digital foundation from what's coming next. And what's coming is AI, Cal Computing, Telehouse Smart City Technologies. These are all engines of our modern economy, and they require reliable, high-capacity
connectivity. This upgraded facility will deliver just exactly that. This also matters for Vancouver's competitiveness. Companies and major events don't just look at office space.
They look at digital capability. This project sends a clear signal that Vancouver is ready for the future. And the housing component adds to that story. Rental homes, including family and below market units, on a major transit corridor. This is a rare opportunity to address multiple city priorities all at once. and I encourage council to support it. Thank you. Thank you very much for calling in. Next speaker on the phone also is, I believe it's Hartstar Crawford. Hi there. You have five minutes to speak to council. Please start when you're ready. Hi, thank you. My name is Hartstar Crawford. I am a resident in Vancouver. I run a small consultancy that is based in Kim, Vancouver, and it specializes in the building industry and specifically around energy efficiency. I don't, I have not done any work with, um, like court development or TELUS, uh, for context. Um, I do support the project. Uh, in general, I support the, uh, increased density to deal with affordability of housing in our city, especially if that density complies with the, you know, kind of the rules of the game that's been set out and, uh, and along with any kind of reasonable compromises. Um, what I specifically like about, about this development is that there's no loss of existing rental. Having lived in, you know, many neighborhoods in Vancouver, including the West End. And, um, uh, you know, I've seen the buildings that I've lived in turn into the high rises on those, those ways. And, uh, there, you know, even though there is some compensation there always is, uh, you know, displacements that happens with that. I also think the, uh, the ability to integrate with the existing infrastructure to tell us building.
Uh, and recover heat is a unique opportunity to this site that allows, uh, the greening of a building in a very effective way. Um, and then along with that, it typically comes any kind of upgrades to will happen to the existing, uh, you know, cooling system associated with that infrastructure, improving what's already on site, uh, on that end of things. Um, yep, and that's, that's basically it. I think if all the rules, uh, more or less is required and, uh, and, uh, has a bunch of unique aspects that make it a good project. Great. Thanks so much for calling in. Okay. Next speaker is the number ending in 5336. If you can just identify yourself and if you're a resident. Hi, good evening. My name's Taylor Fisher and I'm a recent graduate and a young professor, a young professional living here in Vancouver. And I'm calling to support this redevelopment application. I want to be direct. I'd love to live in this neighborhood. It's vibrant, walkable and super close to where I work. Um, but unfortunately I have to commute. When I started looking for rental housing here, I quickly realized it wasn't affordable on my salary and I'm not alone. This is what I hear from nearly all my friends in these similar situations. This redevelopment, uh, would change that. Adding those 221 rental homes and including 45, uh, below market units means young professionals like me and other people could actually afford to live here. And that matters more than you may think.
I think what's also important is that this project, unlike many others in the Broadway corridor involves zero tenant or business displacement and we can add much needed housing
without the place, uh, displacing existing residents or businesses. When we move into these neighborhoods, we support local businesses and Broadway is struggling with that right now and the foot traffic from new residents would really help revitalize it. We'd also have direct access to the future, our beautist sky train station, making it easier to get around the city without a car. This project isn't just about housing. For me, it's about making Vancouver livable for the next generation of workers. and professionals who want to live there life here. And I encourage council to support this application and to help make this neighborhood accessible to young people like me. Thank you. Thank you so much. Appreciate you calling in. The next speaker is Lewis Galvin. Hello, my name is Louis Galvan. And I live in Kittalano. I'm speaking in support of this application. And I'll keep my comments short. I've lived in Ketilano for about seven years and currently live in an older rental building. As I've come in. I'm starting a bit older and more financial stable.
I've been hoping to move into a newer building with amenities and close to transit. The challenges there aren't many options like that in Kittalano, just because there hasn't been much new development. If I want to something newer, it likely means living the neighborhood, which I would prefer not to.
My daily life is here, my friends routine and places where I like to shop and eat. This application is only a few blocks from my home. It's currently has no tenant. which is a huge benefit and only blocks from our beauty station. I think it will be a positive addition to the neighborhood and I hope we move forward. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. Next we have Mack Wilson. Yes, we can hear you. You have five minutes when you ready. Go ahead. I'm a resident of Vancouver. If I can just identify, sorry, if you are a resident of Vancouver, then and then proceed with your comments. That'd be great.
I'm a resident of Vancouver. I'm against this project. I live on Marston Avenue. I'm 12 years. 12 years old and I walk to school to Lord Tennyson every day. When I get home from school, especially, the street is very crowded due to drop off, I mean, pick up from Fraser Academy and St. John across the street. And if we double the amount of people with the new parking garage going into the new building, then everywhere would be jam-packed and I wouldn't be able to walk to school back to school on the sidewalk and nobody would be able to move. Thank you for your time. Great. Thank you so much. I'll just check with the team to see if we have any additional speakers in the chamber or on the line at this point. We do not. We do not. Okay. Thank you very much. So I am sort of making a third and final call now because I'm not seeing any additional speakers being advised. There's any on the phone or in the chambers. This is my third and final call. For any folks that do wish to speak to counsel about this item, the toll-free numbers, 18333-353-86-10, followed by the participant code 1061-445 pound before the close of the list. That phone number is posted on X and it's displayed and available during the recess. Council, we will now take a two-minute recess to allow any additional speakers to come in and we'll reconvene at 7-11. Thank you. Speaker or potentially speakers on the line.
First one is Bobo Iric. Bobo, are you on the line? Do we have team, do we, if we, do we have Bobo, do we have someone else? Boat is this calling speaker Bobo Iric?
Yes, that me?
Yes, that is you. You have five minutes. Please go ahead.
Thank you. Okay, I won't take up five minutes. Yeah, sorry for missing my time earlier today. I was in work meetings and couldn't get away, and now I'm trying to avoid some construction at home. Yeah, my name is Bobo Iric. I'm a resident of Vancouver in Mount Pleasant, as part of the Broadway plan area, and I'm calling in support of this motion. Yeah, I mean, I think one of the things that's really struck me about this whole proposal has been the sheer volume of opposition. And when you look at where that opposition is coming from, it's once again this idea that there are different rules in the city and depending on sort of how wealthy and well-connected people are in terms of rising opposition to much-needed housing. You know, a lot of the opposition today has been sort of gathered from the St. John's school, which is a private school where tuition's sort of range between $25,000 and $30,000 a year. And so, there's clearly a lot of money and wealth and access that an organization can try to sort of drum up a lot of opposition, summon, or complain legally that things might not have been done exactly to the letter, and that sort of prompts to in-person open houses and information sessions about a proposal that's no different from anything else that's happening on the Broadway plan. And anything, it's less controversial, it's replay. a tele-switching station as opposed to replacing existing housing. There's no displacement of tenants. It meets all of the Broadway plan requirements. We're just once again sitting through a rezoning that complies with all of the city's housing policy guidelines. We're sort of going through this whole process. I think there are a couple elements that I flagged then when I caught a bit of the staff presentation is how much this building has all done. been shaped to try and accommodate the school. We've got a smaller floor plate, which means smaller homes. The shape of the building is sort of gone for a narrower tower instead of so the, yeah, so it's more of a tower and a podium as opposed to a longer building, which I think when we've seen some of the ones that are pretty iconic in the West End in particular, those older buildings, they just have more sides. And that means more windows, and it means sort of more visibility. for the people who are living in them. So, you know, we've already seen a process that has really bent over backwards to try and accommodate the winds and specific, the minutiae and details that sort of a very exclusive private school would want. I remember riding through 10th Avenue about sort of 13, 14, 14 years ago, around drop-off time in it being totally crazy. So I'm really glad that there's the... the separated bike path now. I think that's good. I'm hoping that 10th Avenue will be continued. So if there's concern about parents dropping their kids off at school, like maybe their kid, maybe they shouldn't be going on 10th, right? There are other streets around that can carry cars. Another thing I sort of wanted to flag is in some of the documentation around this project is the headmaster trying, made the claim that when this proposal first came forward and they were discussing with the applicant. They were trying to negotiate for a presentation space, whether that was some sort of a communal theater. And this was supposed to be some sort of benefit. They could benefit the community. But really, it's all about benefiting the school. The school was trying to extract space from a private development and trying to use the city's process to extract something that they could use for their own benefit. And I think that's pretty. pretty important and pretty objectionable. So all that's be said, because I've gone on longer than I wanted here, I do hope city council will approve this project. It's a Broadway plan proposal. It's much needed housing. It has no displacement. And yeah, it's really along the transit line. So let's move forward. Let's approve it and let's go on to what's next. Thanks. Bye.
Great. Thank you very much. Next, we have Christina Shorthouse.
Thank you, asking mayor and council members. I'm calling as a long time resident of Vancouver and I'm actually calling on behalf of my young adult children. They're busy at work and studying in their school studies. I have lived near the Broadway and commercial sky train station and I currently live near the Broadway and Granville SkyTrain Station future. And I am calling to say that I'm calling to say that. support this project. So I'm not obviously right next to this project, but I do look out my window at the tower at Broadway and Grenville, and it's AOK. There are many similar development proposals around where I live that will displace people. And I can feel the anxiety of my neighbors with that process. And so the positive aspect of this. This development of not displacing anyone is huge and density around SkyTrain just makes sense. It's just part of having lived at Broadway and commercial, having living now near Broadway and Granville, these are, it's just a part of a vibrant and sustainable city. I'm a university instructor. I work with young people, young adults every day and they are concerned about the They're concerned about sustainable cities and having some place to live. So if I am going to have launch my children and if they're going to have an opportunity to, along with all the other young people to live in the city that they grew up in, or it doesn't even matter if they grew up here. Everyone should have a chance to live in Vancouver and experience this beautiful city. And we just need more housing. like this where young adults can hope to stay here in the city and enjoy it. Thank you.
Thank you very much for calling in. Okay. I'm just going to check in one more time with our team to see if we have any final speakers that have joined. Oh, we have one more with the phone number ending in 8494. If you're on the line, if you can just identify yourself and if you're a resident of Vancouver, please.
Council and Mayor, Jeb Sinclair, and I'm a Vancouver resident.
Okay, go ahead. You have five minutes.
Thank you. I'm here speaking as a resident of Vancouver, but my comments are more focused on my experience as a long-time Marilloma Club member and coach and administrator, which is how I was just down the road from the proposed development in Knawark Park. I'm very glad to be speaking in support of this development and this application. In my 10 years, I'm involved with the Marloma Club as a coach and administrator, all of our membership, uh, averages between 19 and sort of 35 years old. And, um, many in that city that fall within that rate, uh, age bracket. Most are renters. Um, they're young students, young professional tradespeople and early career workers, coaches, volunteers and active participants in the community, um, a project like this delivering new rental with in close proximity to the transit and the park, um, and all the other community amenities will be a meaningful benefit to all the young people in the area creates an opportunity for future residents, many of whom they already spend much of their time here to actually live here. Um, Kitslano always evolves, always has, supporting new rental housing is appropriate, inappropriate locations is part of ensuring the evolution remains inclusive and welcoming.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, we'll do my final check in with our team, to see if there's any more speakers. No more speakers, Chair. Okay, seeing that there are no further speakers, I'm now officially closing the speaker's list and asking the clerk if there has been a large volume of public comments received on this item since 5 p.m.
No, there has not been.
There has not been. Okay. I'm now going to close the receipt of the public comments, seeing that there are a few or none received after that time. At this point, we will return to the applicant to see if you would
like to provide any closing comments. Thank you. Thank you for your time tonight. We recognize that bringing critical infrastructure and housing to an established neighborhood requires careful consideration and integration. I want to directly address several items, including the traffic and safety concerns raised this evening. Demonstrate exactly how this project responsibly manages its local impact. I would also like to first off, I answer the question about the reach of this central office. I called a friend during the break. and this central office covers the territory, I guess, everything west of Laurel, inclusive of UBC, south to 33rd, and north to the water, but not downtown. And this includes UBC Hospital, Children's Hospital, as well as VGH, and the many offices along the Broadway corridor.
Community engagement. I just want to reinforce, we maintain an open and transparent community engagement process, including a project website, voluntary open houses, and offers for specific information sessions for co-ops,
schools, and we held many of meetings in lobbies of condos in the nearby neighborhood. I understand the concerns expressed by the residents. The Arbutus Walk Plan,
However, the Arbidic Swak plan was adopted by council 30 years ago. And I want to emphasize this project not being considered under that plan. This project is being considered under the Broadway plan. Broadway plan has come about because of the billions of dollars of investment
the province is made in rapid transit along the Broadway corridor and will likely made to extend it to UBC. This land use plan is responding to that. I want to directly address the traffic and safety concerns regarding West 10th and Marstrand Avenue. Starting with West 10th. Safety around the school is our priority. Cycling safety. The city, sorry, we will be replacing the existing plastic bollards with fully grades separated bike paths. This will be an improvement to cycling safety, a concern that's been expressed by many that we heard tonight.
traffic running. We do not expect development traffic to travel along 10th in front of the school. As we demonstrated, traffic circulation will come out of our driveway along Mars Strand and turn left onto on to Vine or go down you to Broadway. It will avoid West 10th Avenue. And I think if someone did go down West 10th Avenue during that peak time, they will not go along West 10th Avenue again because cars do not move during that time. Pedestrian upgrades. To offset any incremental impacts, we are funding upgraded crosswalks and improved street lighting.
It's also important to remember that existing congestion here is limited to brief school windows
during the AM drop off mostly and as well as the PM pickup, about 20 minutes in the morning and 45 minutes in the afternoon. Not an all-day operational issue. Regarding Mars Strand Avenue, these volumes are manageable. Projected traffic equals about one vehicle every 40 seconds. This is completely safe and functions just like existing local streets with parking on both sides.
And finally, driveway safety. We've aligned our driveway directly with the one across the lane. This is proper transportation planning and is the typical practice by traffic engineers to minimize conflict from driveways on the same lane.
This maximizes driver visibility and is inherently safer than an offset design. To conclude, this project fully complies with the Broadway plan, including strict shadow mitigation.
More importantly, it delivers unprecedented sustainability, critical infrastructure, and 45 below market rate units, just steps from rapid transit, all with absolutely zero-frocently.
commercial or residential tenant displacement.
Thank you. Great. Thank you very much for the closing comments. At this time, does staff have closing comments to provide? Yes. Can we, clerks, we have the slide that we wanted to share.
You want the original staff presentation up? Could we get the last slide, a slide 20 for this one? A slide 20, the very lost. Yes, the one? Yeah. Perfect.
Thank you. My name is David Shah, a development planner, and I wanted to provide further clarification
on the shadowing onto the St. John's schoolyards directly across from this rezoning application. During the inquiry and application review process, staff worked with the applicant and requested a comprehensive design analysis to explore time. power masking options that would minimize shadowing onto the St. John's schoolyards during the school hours. In summary, this rezoning application has demonstrated that the proposed tower location towards the east, tower orientation in north-south direction instead of the west-east direction, and a slimmer tower floor plate size at 6,500 square feet minimizes shadow impacts on the St. John Schoolyards located at the ground. level and the rooftop. Also, the analysis confirmed that a six-story building in height, so roughly the height of the existing TELUS building on site, represents the baseline at which no shadows are casted onto the schoolyards. Applicant also undertook an analysis of comparing a 20-story tower with six-story podium, as you can see in the screen, and a 25-story tower with four-story podium. And, confirm that the shadow impacts on the St. John's schoolyards during the fall equinox is generally the same. As a result, staff determined that the proposed 25-story tower with four-story podium fits better within the neighborhood context and mitigates shadow impacts on the public sidewalk. In summary, this resulting application demonstrates comprehensive design strategies to minimize shadow impacts on the St. Jones schoolyards while providing rental housing on this large site. Therefore, staff determined that this balanced approach and tradeoffs align with the policy direction. And also, could we go to the slide 17, please, just to wrap this up. Thank you. In terms of the shadow impacts during fall equinoxes, staff review the two key times during the school hours. at St. John's schools in 10-minute increments. These are recess at 1030 a.m. to 10.45 a.m. and lunch at 11.45 a.m. to 12.45 a.m. As you can see on the screen, given the sun angle and the shadow impacts are concentrated toward the southwest corner, as you can see on the screen, on the St. John's schoolyard. And the main rooftop playground continues to maintain sun access. As for the lunch period, shadowing becomes more noticeable beginning around 1145 a.m. As you can see, and as we move into 1230 and 1245 a.m., if you go to the next slide, 18. Yeah. Yeah, as we move into 1230 and 1245 a.m., additional pockets of sunlight emerges across both the rooftop and the ground level schoolyards. And, yeah, just wanted to share that clarification. And with that, I'll invite my colleague, Daniel, to finish the closing remarks. Thank you. Thank you. So my colleague outlined some of the design considerations. What I'm hoping to do is outline some of the policy considerations around shadowing. So we prepared some notes here. So I'm going to speak directly for my notes. We heard that public and private schools would be treated differently. Staff would like to clarify that the Broadway plan does include slightly different language for private and public schools, but the intention of minimizing shadowing impacts on the schools is the same. To further clarify, if this application came in with shadowing impacts onto a public school, staff would still conduct the same assessment against policy without discriminating between public or private education institutions. Staff note that the public school yards are essentially function like parks, outside of school hours on weekends, holidays and during holiday periods. This approach is the foundational rationale to the solar access guidelines, which focus more on publicly accessible spaces as opposed to private spaces. Staff also want to respond to the question that was asked on whether there were other examples of public schools that are subject to shadowing. Staff were able to come up with several, but will note Lord Roberts, King George, Cole Harbour and the future Olympic Village School as current examples. There's also an in-stream application close to Mount Pleasant Elementary for which there are potential shadow impacts onto the school. And Council also recently approved a 22-story tower near St. Francis Xavier School on Great Northern Way. This development shadows a portion of that independent school during school hours as well. So we unpack the policy considerations. There are quite a few things that Council could choose to unpack from the engineering side of things. that we do have staff from engineering available if council do wish to unpack any traffic issues or engineering considerations and that would conclude staff's closing comments. Thank you very much for the planning wrap-up. So council at this time, do you have any final questions for staff and just reminding councillors that there's no more questions the applicant? Councillor Meisner, go ahead. Yeah, thanks Deputy Mayor. Just some clarifying questions for staff. I'm still not clear on the sidewalk issue that was brought up by several of the speakers. Is it correct that there will not be a sidewalk on the border of the property on Mars Strand? I think so much Daniel Klein entering services, so the applicant is proposing to deliver a sidewalk. Okay. It would be in the public right away. Okay. So is that, what is the width of that? sidewalk? That I don't have off hand. Is it a standard sidewalk? It would be less than, it would be less than the standard and likely equivalent to the current sidewalk. The current sidewalk on that. There's a closer to the corner, closer to you. Okay. A piece between the property line and the existing curb, although we can work with the applicant at a later stage to determine what the appropriate, what is feasible based on the required travel lane. width, which of course is dictated by, for example, fire truck access. Yeah, okay. But there will be a sidewalk that will be maybe not like super wide, but it will be to a standard that is considered safe by the city. That's currently being proposed. Yeah. Okay, great. Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. I think that's my only traffic. Actually, I had a question around the bike lane as well. There was a mention around the ballards of the bike lane being removed and then a permanent separate bike lane. Since we have so many different versions of that in Vancouver, can you give me a sense of what that might look like? It would be raised, so it wouldn't be at the same grade as the travel lane for vehicles and separated. This would be kind of determined at a later point based on kind of more detailed design and work between the applicant and the engineering department. Okay, but obviously an enhancement to what's there now? Yeah, that's correct. Okay, thanks. And then my last question was probably for housing staff was, I just want to confirm because it was mentioned by one of the speakers around the blow market requirement. And one of the speakers mentioned that they're concerned about the 20% low market requirement being, I guess, not being maintained in this process. Can staff speak to that? Thanks, Councillor. Emily Brocker Housing Planner on the line. The project, would maintain the 20% non-market rental housing component. Does that answer your question? Yeah. I just, we have that development viability initiative right now, and I just want to ensure that I guess my question is, is this eligible for that or is this required to maintain the 20% BMR? Right. The applicant hasn't applied for our rental. The Relonment Relief Program right now. If they were to apply, we would assess it at that point. Okay. But they haven't applied. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That's it for me. I do have one clarifying point on your question, Councillor Meisner. So, engineering is going to provide that clarification. Hi apologies. On the sidewalk on Marsrand, so there's not a condition to deliver that sidewalk. There's an existing component of sidewalk, but currently that's not conditioned. That's correct. Okay. Thanks, Council Meisselor. Councillor Fry, you have the floor. Yeah, thank you. I just want to get some clarity, because I heard a few times people talk about six-story, eight-story. This is within the provincially mandated transit-oriented area that suggests, and I think in this ring, it's a minimum of 20 stories. Is that? It's in CIR-2, which is actually the minimum of 12 stories. Okay. So the Broadway plan exceeds the T-O-A legislation. So it's not within 200 meters of the... 220. Oh, okay. So it's almost within, okay. That's correct. Was there, so there was some, the one presentation that showed one of the nearby residents had a lot of traffic displayed along 10th Avenue and stuff. How were we like, I mean, it seems compelling, and I mean, obviously it's a point in time, and it's probably around school drop-off time, so there's a lot of cars. How are we imagining that this plan, with this potential building, mitigate some of those traffic impacts?
and realizes the potential for more vehicular access to this building, et cetera.
Thanks so much for the question, Daniel Klein Engineering Services. So, yeah, as was brought up several times, there's significant congestion around mostly pickup and drop-off time related to the school. This is a particular challenge for private schools. These are generally regional serving. A lot of students are arriving by car. The priority for the city and, of course, for the schools, and the applicant is safety for vulnerable road users. Those are pedestrians and cyclists. So some of the improvements in terms of that are the raised crosswalk, which was conditioned at Vine, the enhanced bike claims, so the renewed bike lane along the frontage on 10th. And then in terms of other considerations, historically, there's been work directly with the schools, one with the school active traffic program worked with the city in 2021. There were some traffic pattern and other changes made at that time. But at a higher level, this is kind of managing the reality that these schools are generating a large volume of vehicles. It's predictable. And what we want to do is make sure they're moving through safely. So in relation to this development, what the applicant was talking about, they've done some traffic assessment work, is we don't see from that work or the findings of that work as communicated, we don't see a large overlap necessarily between. that current existing condition that we're looking to manage as safely as possible on the school, a lot of that actively as well. With the potential increase, they'll be localized, traffic impacts, as was brought up by the applicant, it's unlikely those would be traveling along the frontages of those schools. And then as well as the proximity to transit, bike infrastructure, 10th and Arbuta's Greenway, as well as the limited number of parking provided. We don't expect there to be an unreasonable impact. on kind of the traffic situation.
Now, is the St. John's pickup supposed to be on you? Are I correct in that assumption?
It's both. So there's pull out along 10th Avenue, most of the frontage of the school, as well as on you.
Right. Okay. And Fraser Academy is also on that block, and they do their pickup drop-off on...
Generally along Vine.
Right. So is it possible that as part of the conditions around this, that the pickup drop-off for St. John is modified? to accommodate 10th in a safer manner? Or does it have to be there?
That wouldn't necessarily be triggered or like a requirement for this applicant. It's something the city can manage in an ongoing basis. My understanding, and there was also study completed by St. John's School in 2016, they had a similar, I think the same student population at that time, that given the constraints and the realities that pick up and drop up has managed fairly well. And subsequent to that work, there was an expansion of the pickup and drop-off locations. And again, the focus is moving vulnerable road users, pedestrians, and bicycles safely through, and not kind of an emphasis on getting people through quickly. We want to see kind of a safe situation.
This just potentially trigger some improvements to the bikeway, because as I recall to it, I was down there a little while ago, and it didn't seem super separated.
It was the plastic. things. So beyond the improvements that will be delivered by the applicant, the city also is contemplating through the Broadway Public Realm Plan improvements along the 10th Avenue by claim. Now, those will come along the pace of development and as the plan builds out over the next decades. But the city is, like engineering considers these through several mechanisms, through ongoing programs, as well as responding to feedback. So that would be three-on-one or or conversations with the schools, etc.
You are at time, sorry. Thanks for that. Councillor Maloney. And any counselor could, if we feel that we need more time, any counselor could move for additional round. But go ahead, Councilor Maloney.
Thank you. One of the difficult things about school drop-offs is that everyone needs to get to school at the exact same time. But in my experience, generally the peak congestion time only lasts for about 10 minutes. Is this particular situation different because of the number of schools or different start and finish times or different patterns in relation to private schools?
I think in comparison to public schools, there's just more, there's a higher percentage of kids that are being dropped off by car. I know that as part of, as I said, previous work to kind of address this, there's staggered class times, I believe, for St. John's school. And so I think that that. can extend it, but also there's good rationale to try and limit the number of cars. So in previous work and assessments, it really is tied to these short periods of pickup and drop-off. And in fact, because of the stagger, there's kind of peaks. And in between, it can even be a bit quieter. And then there's another wave as the subsequent classes let out kind of thing. So it's not unique. We see these challenges. I know there was conversations last week about Olympic Village School pickup drop-off. This is a challenge. Schools generate this. Private schools are an additional challenge because they're generally more regional. But again, our focus is to make sure that this is happening safely, recognizing we want to prioritize children, pedestrians, vulnerable road users, and move the congestion as best we can. And my understanding is it's fairly well managed. This is a daily operation. And the school employs crossing guards at times and things like that.
Do you expect with the improved, infrastructure that a high percentage of families might be able to convert from car drop-off to active transport, walking or riding?
I think this development, and I don't want to speak too far theoretically, but in terms of just where it's placed, in terms of proximity to transit, in terms of cycling infrastructure, this would be an ideal spot to see if that's possible. Again, with the school population, sometimes they're coming. from out of the city or whatever, that's more challenging. But we would imagine if we're thinking about converting trips to, let's say, the new Broadway subway, this is an ideal location.
Thank you. There was an issue raised by a speaker about us having an excess of studio and one-bedroom rental units. And I'm wondering whether the reference to the vacancy rate being at a 30-year high was, that figure relates to the whole of Metro Vancouver, whether there's anything different about particularly the city of Vancouver. Could you, could someone speak to that, please?
Your colleague on length. Oh, there we go. Thanks, Daniel. Yeah, thanks for your question. The city of Vancouver is seeing an increase in vacancy rates, and that is kind of the city of Vancouver as a whole, as well as kind of in specific neighborhoods. This neighborhood, we are seeing, yeah, a slight increase in vacancy rates. It was 1% last year. It's 1.7% this year. So it's minor, but it is increasing, and we're seeing that in the city as well.
Thanks very much. And I just want to follow up on the cyber truck issue. I know we don't have jurisdiction to ban cyber trucks, but would the raised curb and the bike path being at grade with the sidewalk instead of the road, would that overcome that issue somewhat for the parent that was concerned about the safety of his children writing to and from school?
Thank you for the question. Daniel Klein, engineering services. We haven't done cybercrack specific analysis, but that's something that could be considered as part of the design, the more detailed design. I'm not sure about that process, but it's a consideration. But generally, a large, large car would, at least their wheels wouldn't be able to proceed. beyond the curve. Typically, that's right. It wouldn't be the same grade, and that would be ideal. I'm not sure the capabilities of the cyber truck, but that would be the intent. It would be to separate the cycling, the cyclists from the vehicle infrastructure, and it would be enhanced beyond what is currently there with the ballads. Okay. Thanks very much.
Thanks, Councilor Maloney. I'm going to advance myself and take the opportunity to ask a question. I just wanted to follow up with the respects to comments who were raised about the lane designation in the street right of way. And I had some noise in my area of the chamber, so I just wanted to confirm a couple of points. There was a kind of reference to, I think, in the presentation from the staff that the street right away permits unrestricted public access, including vehicular and pedestrian traffic. But it was also commented by a number of speakers that the strata has some responsibility for maintenance. Can you comment on, can you just clarify what that responsibility is? And would the applicant have any commensurate responsibility for their? with respect to their development for maintenance.
Thanks so much for the question. Daniel Klein Engineering Services. So this SRW essentially is for the in perpetuity access for essentially is treated exactly like a road, public street. As was previously mentioned, the history and context of this is likely that tied to the extension of the parkade into the road right-of-way. At that time, the decision was made to keep that with the history. within the private property and not dedicated to the city. Hence, we have the street right of way and should be treated the same, but that does transfer the maintenance responsibilities to the private property owner.
For that portion, yes.
We wouldn't anticipate significant difference to the current maintenance structure or the maintenance requirements. There will be local traffic increase. in traffic with the new development, but it would be kind of aligned with the intent of the SRW, which would be typical access that we would, that all citizens would experience
passing through. Okay, but there's nothing contemplated similarly for this proposed development because they're doing it within their own footprint. Is that correct?
That's right. So that was a very atypical situation. Typically we would dedicate that portion and then the ownership of the right of the right of way would become the city. So in this case, and I wasn't around, that was 30 years ago, but there was a decision made that that portion of the March Strand would remain private property, and then the requirement from the city was an SRW for access.
That's my understanding. We could defer to legal for the legal opponents if they're online.
That's fine. Okay, thanks. That's fine. Okay, that concludes the, I'll just follow up on the, the question from, Councillor Frye. So the opportunity, the TOA minimum is 12 stories and the Broadway plan policy in place is 20, correct?
That's correct.
Okay. The Broadway plan also allows for additional height if it's a larger site. Okay, but as we heard, there were tradeoffs made for a taller slender building to reduce shadowing, so that was part of the iterative process and the...
That's correct. So the more slender building orientes, the building north-south, so it does create that lesser tower separation to do. the building to the south. Okay. Thank you. Okay, counsel. That concludes questions from
council. I'm just going to check out with the clerks if we have received any additional public comments since we closed them earlier. We did not. Okay. Thanks very much. Council, we will now make the decision on the application. So do we have a mover and a seconder for this project? Moved by Council Meisner? Seconded by Council Frye. Okay, council members. Is there any discussion? Please add to the queue. Councilor. Yeah, thanks. I appreciate all the speakers who called in and showed up to speak to this
application over the past few days. I think on balance, this project is worthwhile in particular because I feel that the applicant has been really responsive to concerns raised by the neighborhood, by the school. they've relocated the tower and placed it in the most optimal spot to minimize shadowing. And a reality of any of this higher density development is that there will be shadows throughout the day. But I feel that the applicant has been very mindful of this, and they've worked with the community to minimize that impact. There's also no displacement on this site. And when I think about a lot of our broad plan projects, there is displacement. And that is part of ensuring that we can deliver more homes on those sites. But this particular project in my eyes is quite ideal in that there's no displacement of anybody. And it also will see critical infrastructure for TELUS upgraded. I also think the 20% BMR aspect of this project is significant. to provide 45 low market units on this site. So I think all those things considered, I think it's a worthwhile project. And I certainly hear the concerns around pedestrians in the alley or the laneway and the concerns around that. I just wanted to comment on someone who I live in a tower as well and I live close to transit, rapid transit, where this tower will also be close to rapid transit. of transit. And I can tell you that my laneway is pretty quiet and there's three towers on my laneway. In fact, I would say 90% of the time I come out of my parking garage, I'm the only person driving in my parking garage. So yes, it will introduce new residents in traffic, but I don't feel, in my experience, having lived in several towers myself, around this size and taller. it likely will not generate as many vehicles as some of the neighbours are worried about. So I hope that is a bit reassuring. But to the point of the sidewalk, absolutely, this is a unique situation with the laneway, and pedestrians need to be able to pass safely through there. So considering there already is an existing sidewalk on the north side to the west of this site, I did ask staff for some language around. around ensuring that there's a sidewalk on this property as well, on Mars Street. So if we could go, I guess we need to go to the amendment queue.
Are you proposing an amendment now, Councillor?
Yeah, yeah, sorry.
And we'll move to an amendment queue, if you can put yourself back on, please.
As I mentioned, received some language from staff around ensuring that there's a sidewalk on Mars Street to ensure that there is safety for pedestrians moving through the site. So that's the language on the screen. And it's just essentially adding some conditions to the end of the street. A.
Okay, and just checking all council have received and had a chance to review that. Yeah. Okay. Do we have a seconder for the amendment? Seconded by Councillor Orr? Is there any discussion on this? I'm not seeing any. Okay. I'll ask staff to move us to a vote. Okay. The amendment passes with none in opposition.
And Mayor Sim, Councillor Bligh, Councillor Klassen, Councillor Zhou, and Councillor D. Councillor Dominato absent.
Now that brings us back to the main queue. Councillor Meiszner. Any further comments?
No. I just wanted to say thank you, Council, for passing that amendment. I think, again, it will help address the concerns around movement in the laneway, particularly by pedestrians. Thank you.
Thanks, Councillor Meiszner. I just want to check in if there are any other questions or comments from the rest of council at this time. No. Okay. Just a reminder that for those participating virtually, please have your video on for quorum, which I see we have. And I will now call the vote. Okay, that also passes with none in opposition and
Mayor Sim, Councillor Dominato, Councillor Bligh, Councillor Klassen, and Councillor Zhou absent.
Okay. That concludes the business in the docket for today, everybody? Do we have a motion to adjourn? Moved, seconded by Councillor Meiszner. In favour — okay, thanks everybody, the meeting is adjourned. Thanks to our team and thanks to staff.