Public Hearing — March 5, 2026 — Transcript
← Public Hearing March 5, 2026
It means council members and the public may participate by either method. Any council members joining electronically are reminded to enable video to confirm quorum. The meeting is being live streamed on the city's website and YouTube and meeting progress will be updated regularly on X at VanCityClerk. Now in case of an emergency where we have to evacuate the chamber, please go through, walk through the glass doors and turn left at the pillar and walk down the stairs. If that exit is obstructed for any reason, we do have four exits at the door. outside of this chamber. Also, if you need mobility assistance, please stay in place. And one of our super friendly team members will help you get to a safe location. A defibrillator is also available at the end of the hallway outside this chamber.
I do want to acknowledge that we're hosting today's public hearing on the traditional territories of the Musqueamam, Squamish and TTTTsleil-Waututh people and really want to thank them for their generosity and hospitality and love and care and share that they sort of you know share with this land that we get to live work and play on and I know we're going to have representatives from Musqueamam, Squamish and TTTTsleil-Waututh a little later on in this program here so looking forward to that and seeing some good friends as well. I also want to recognize the incredible contributions of all our team members of the city of Vancouver who work incredibly hard every single day to make this place a better place and so thankful that they choose the city of Vancouver to to work at. So with that can we please get a roll call?
Mayor Sim in the chair. Councillor Kirby-Yung. Councillor Dominato is on a leave of absence for civic business all day. Councillor Bligh is on a leave of absence for civic business all day. Councillor Fry is on a leave of absence for personal reasons from 3 p.m. onwards. Councillor Montague.
Present.
Councillor Klassen. Councillor Meiszner.
Present.
Councillor Zhou.
Present.
Councillor Orr. Councillor Maloney. This meeting has quorum, Mayor Sim.
Great, thank you. So before we begin a few announcements, the public may speak in person or by phone or may submit written comments to Mayor and Council. Speakers may only speak once and will have up to five minutes to comment on the merits of the application. Please state whether you support or oppose the application and if you are a resident of Vancouver. Those representing four or more individuals or groups, including themselves, may speak for up to eight minutes. Each person being represented must confirm their name and presence in person or by phone. It may not speak separately. Please follow the live stream or at VanCityClerk on X to track meeting progress and know when your turn to speak is approaching. Please note the live stream does have a slight delay. Written comments can be submitted through the Mayor and Council Public Hearing Feedback form on the city's website and linked on X. If you pre-registered with the presentation, say 'next' to have the clerk 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 or heritage application. Members may ask clarifying questions of our team members or speakers, including the applicant, but should reserve debate until after the speaker's list has closed. After hearing from speakers, Council may, one, approve the application in principle, two, approve the application in principle with amendments. Three, refuse the application or four, refer the application to team members for further consideration. Finally, if all speakers are not heard this evening, the public hearing will recess and reconvene at a later date. So the first, okay, so the item number one is CD-1 rezoning, 4911 through 5255 Heather Street, 637 through 657 West 37th Avenue, and 620 through 689, West 35th Avenue, the Heatherlands. So, like I mentioned earlier, to begin, I'm going to hand the floor over to leadership from Musqueamam, Squamish, and TTTTsleil-Waututh, to say a few words.
Nassiame, Toulnasa, Nishya, Toulnaka, Konek, to not, Mathquiam. I, I, to Nishkualoan, Kwan, Kwan, and ha, ha, set up to thalepka to me who I, to Nakhwanent, and who, and who Nama to, to, to Shiammathwim, and to Sililwat-Tops, Mastayo. Hay, Sepka, Siam, Nassiyyaa. My friends and relatives, my ancestral name is Tolnaka, my English name is Alec Garen, and I'm from Musqueamam, where I'm an elected councillor. It brings me good feelings to be here with you all today, and I want to thank you for taking the time to listen to the leadership of Musqueamam and TTTTsleil-Waututh. I come to you with gratitude in my heart to be standing alongside my relatives on these beautiful territories. Also feeling a lot of gratitude towards the mayor and council, as well as the city of Vancouver team, or should I say teams, because it's been a very multifaceted effort to get to where we are today. We're talking about this item, which is movement towards attainable housing in partnership between the three nations, in collaboration with the provincial government as well as the city of Vancouver. And I think it is a demonstration of how the power of working together is so, so strong. Together we can do a lot of amazing work. And this is reconciliation done right, where we can be good neighbors, good friends, and good family. There's been a lot of, I'm just going to say it, a lot of hate and perhaps naivete or ignorance in the news and in the comments section recently, particularly around the relationship agreements that Musqueamam signed with the federal government. But I just want to say that Musqueamam always is looking forward to working together. Nobody's interests are being attacked. This is another example of how when we work together, we can do reconciliation right.
Haidsepka, yes, my name, Skalatatatatat, Kwanakashalman, Adrian, Gwianzna, Tinaat, Tinaat, Chakwapal, E, I, al-Mulch, Ocho, meo, wets, or chenwa'a, a motto-chamalchastin-o-o-Mil. Good evening, everybody. My name is Kalatanaat. My English name is Adrian. I'm here on behalf of the Squamish leadership, and would like to echo the words of Musqueamam's elected councillor on, you know, the reconciliation that we're doing. We're working together to better our community and, you know, bring back the knowledge that we have of our territories. And, you know, we've been working together, you know, from time immemorial. And it's nothing new for us to be in partnership together, you know, through marriage, through resources. And, you know, as we see, there has been a lot of negativity coming up on any developments that we have as a whole or as individual nations, you know, the announcement of Senakw as well for the Squamish as, you know, is coming up. But, you know, we're here to thrive in our own, in our own home territories. And, you know, we would, you know, we want to welcome the people to achieve how to do that. which we all know is a lack there for, like, people to afford to live within the greater Vancouver area and they're getting pushed further and further out into the Fraser Valley. And, you know, we hope that we can, you know, have those professionals that, you know, work in the hospitals and close by so that they're able to, you know, students have somewhere to go and I just want to, on behalf of the Squamish, welcome you. And thank you for your time this evening. and also the staff that have, we've been working with for the past few years, getting our project rolling and moving forward. Thank you.
I'm Yasep, Adtha, Tuolowat, Kwanaski. I, Tepka, Alec and Adrian, for your words. I'd like to take this time to take this opportunity to add what I can. As an elected councillor for the TTTTsleil-Waututh Nation, is to further our focus for, with the three nations shared goals, of working together. And this started with past leadership. After the Olympics, they met and they had many big ideas, of course, many challenges, and we faced those along the way. We navigated our canoes through dealing with our economic opportunities, making sure our grandchildren's children were left for more than what we have. My first meeting actually on council, was in our Homulcheson longhouse. And I can say that being home with people, that is the place to make the relationships cemented, work together, rooted, because we all love our communities. We want to carry our teachings and all that we have and bring the best intent to these tables and these projects. My grandfather is the late hereditary chief John L. George. And he always would say to us, they're not going anywhere. We're not going anywhere. We need to learn how to work together. And that's what we want to do. So thank you for your time.
Thank you very much. And thank you all for coming in today. Okay. 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? Seeing no one on the queue and no one's hands up, the clerk's now going to read the application in summary of correspondence received.
This is an application by MSTA Fairmont Limited to rezone 4911 to 5255, Heather Street, 637 to 657 West 37th Avenue, and 620 to 689 West 35th Avenue, from CD-1-880 and and CD-1-881 comprehensive development districts to two new CD-1 districts, CD-1 South, and CD-1 North, to permit the development of mixed-use developments containing approximately 610 units of social housing, 700 units of leasehold strata housing, 2,940 attainable housing initiative, AHI units, which are discounted leasehold strata units, and commercial space. In addition, the proposal includes a 125 space child care facility to be owned and operated by the local nations, 1.7 hectares of park and public open space, a 929 square meter, Musqueamam, Squamish and TTTTsleil-Waututh Cultural Centre, and a 0.4 hectare site for a Conseil Scolaire Francophone elementary school and associated child care. A combined gross floor area of 317,861 square meters and building heights ranging from 4 to 46 storeys are proposed. The general manager of planning, urban design, and sustainability recommends approval, subject to conditions set out in the summary and recommendation, and yellow memorandum dated February 20th, 2025, entitled CD-1 rezoning, 4911 to 5255 Heather Street, 637 to 657 West 37th Avenue, and 620 to 689 West 35th Avenue, minor amendments to draft bylaws and conditions to align with terms of Heatherlands AHI program. The following correspondence has been received since referral to public hearing. Two pieces of correspondence in support, 10 pieces of correspondence in opposition, and one piece of correspondence regarding other aspects related to the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today.
Great. Thank you very much. Now, this is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833-353-8860, followed by participant code 106145 pound before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and missed speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. Now, we do have our team members from planning, urban design, and sustainability here to present the application.
Thank you. Let me know when you see the presentation in full screen. It's coming through for you. Great. Perfect.
Good evening, Mayor, councillors, and members of the public. My name is Lauren Whitney, rezoning planner for the Heatherlands rezoning application. Before I begin, I'd like to mention that there is a yellow memo attached to this report. Thank you, Councillor Alec Garen, Adrian Charlie, and Councillor Deanna-George for your welcome, your introductions. I wanted to start by personally acknowledging that I work and live on the unseeded home. of the Musco, Mouskwamish, and Slau, Tooth, Peoples, and extend my gratitude for getting to call this beautiful place my home. I also wanted to speak on behalf of the staff team to extend our appreciation for having worked in collaboration and partnership with the local nations on this project. The planning and design of the Heatherlands application is being led by the Muscoom, Squamish, and Slauptu, Slau, Tooth development group in partnership with Aqualani Development. The proposal seeks to deliver below-market home ownership options through the provincial housing initiative. This application represents an opportunity to deliver on both city and nation objectives by making progress towards economic reconciliation and cultural representation on the land. The Heatherlands is a 21-acre site located north of 37th Avenue, south of 33rd Avenue, and oopsies, I'm seeing, oh, perfect. As you can see on the map, the heatherlands is 21 acres and located north of 37th Avenue, south of 33rd Avenue, and bounded by the lanes of Willow and Ash Streets. The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of single-family, detached homes, institutional uses, low-rise strata residential buildings, with parks and a school nearby. There are several major project sites in the immediate area which are seeking or delivering higher building forms. These approvals form an emerging context in the area as a municipal town center. The area is well served by transit and active transportation, with a Canada line station two blocks blocks from the southern edge of the site, bus, and bikeways close by. The site is split-zoned, CD-180 in the north and CD-1-881 in the south, as you can see, delineated in red. Presently, the northern portion of the site is occupied by an RCMP-Fermont Academy building and two vacant temporary modular housing buildings. The southern portion of the site was cleared in 2024 under a previous approval. The heatherlands have been subject to several policy and rezoning approvals over the past eight years that have led to the application that's before you today. I'll go through this timeline to provide context for the current proposal. In 2018, the Heatherlands policy statement was approved by council. It was developed at the request of the landowners, the Muscwium, Squamish, and Slaututteoth Partnership, and Canada Lands Company, and aimed to create a sustainable, mixed-use neighborhood with a package of amenities reflecting the values of the Muscum, Squamish, and Slaugentooth peoples. In response to the policy statement, a rezoning application was approved by Council in 2022 for 18 buildings ranging at height from 3 to 28 stories. 2,600 new residential units, including leasehold Stratel market and below market rental and social housing were proved, along with office, retail, parks and open space, a cultural center, a 74 space child care facility, and a school.
Yeah, sorry. Did I stop? It's gone down. Great. Please go ahead. Okay.
In fall of 2024, the province and nations came together to deliver the attainable housing initiative. Moving forward, I'll refer to this initiative as AHA. This program would provide 2,900 strata leasehold homes at 40% below market value. The 40% discount would be financed by the province, allowing homeowners to pay less for their homes, thereby making homeownership more accessible. In response to the AHA program, the application today proposes 16 buildings ranging in height from 4 to 46 stories, a gross floor area of approximately 318,000 square meters, just over 4,200 new residential units, with a proposed tenure mix of 2,900 AHA strategy units, 700 market leasehold strata units and 610 social housing units. The application also includes retail, a 125 space child care, a one-acre school site, cultural center, and plaza, and just over four acres of parks and open spaces. The 2025 rezoning application retains the parcels, street networks, and parks from the 2022 approval. The image on the left shows the built form difference between the 2022 approval in gray and the 2025 application in the purplish blue. key changes include an increase in building heights and a 30% increase in density to support the delivery of the H.I housing units. An expanded child care from 74 to 125 spaces and a change from a non-profit model to a for-profit in a model to be owned and operated by the local nations. A reduction to the size of the proposed cultural center space and cultural plaza to provide programming flexibility. Changes to the form of development, including reduced podium heights and simplified forms. and retail expansion to both sides of the new commercial street. The proposal includes an alternative tenure mix should the HI program be tournamentated or a parcel is deemed ineligible under AHA program criteria. In this case, the unbuilt residential floor area would be replaced by leasehold market strata with a minimum of 15% secured market rental and 25% of that secured at below market rates. Staff note that since referral, further detail about the HII program's administration was clarified. The yellow memo attached to this report adjust the bylaws and the housing covenant to account for the potential scenarios in which an alternate housing tenure mix is enabled for a given sub area. These changes do not impact the overall density, building heights, land use, public benefits, or the form of development. Public consultation included online and in-person engagement events. Staff received approximately 30 pieces of feedback. Comments supported the addition of new housing, the proposed amenities, and the added density in this location. Concerns included the increased building height and scale. Staff note that the proposal aligns with the emerging context in this area as a municipal town center and that the increase in density and height is supported in order to deliver the AHI housing units. There are also concerns regarding the local infrastructure and schools and traffic impacts. Staff note the project's proximity to rapid transit, bus and cycling routes, and the proposed improvements to pedestrian and cycling networks connecting to and through the site. Additionally, staff communicate anticipated area growth to the Vancouver School Board for inclusion in their capital planning for new and expanded schools. There were also concerns about the affordability of the new housing. The proposal includes 2,900 AHA units to be provided at 40% below market value and 610 units of social housing at deeper levels of affordability. The application proposes a variety of public benefits. and would provide a CAC, DCLs, and public art contribution just over $106 million. In addition, other benefits include a 125 space child care, cultural center and plaza to be owned and operated by the local nations, 610 social housing units, 2,900 AHI units, 4.3 acres of parks and open space, and a parcel for a future Concees Squadain, Frequodal Francophone, elementary school, and associated child care. In conclusion, the rezoning application represents a significant delivery of new housing. including AHA, leasehold strata, market strata, and social housing units. If approved, it would contribute approximately 4,200 new housing units towards the city's housing objectives. It also includes a mix of public benefits and is generally in alignment with the intent of the Heatherlands policy statement. Staff recommends support of the application, subject to conditions in appendix C and D of the report. And I'd like to remind counsel that there is a yellow memo attached to the report and that staff and applicant teams are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to present the application? Are there any questions from council to our team members or the applicant?
Oh, here we go. Sorry. That's okay. Excuse me.
Good evening. My name is Brennan Cook. I'm the vice president of acquisitions and development for MST Development Corporation, the company that is jointly owned by the Mosqurem of Squamish and Swelotooth. nations. First, I wanted to thank the MST nations for having the vision and the confidence in this process to follow through with AHA. AHA. AHA marks a significant departure from traditional merchant development in the city of Vancouver and demonstrates the nation's desire to include everyone in welcoming them to their development projects. I'd also like to thank CLC for being a partner through this process. I'd personally like to thank the CLC. City of Vancouver planning staff, specifically Matt Cholito and his team. Without them, we wouldn't be here tonight. And finally, I want to thank Mayor and Council for your time and support in the past on consideration of this project. The issue at hand here is not about additional higher additional density. The issue at hand is about affordable homeownership for middle-income earners. Homeownership. in Vancouver amongst middle income earners is at an all-time low. Even with households that earn up to $200,000, which is the 75th percent quartile in income in the city of Vancouver, most of those households cannot afford to purchase real estate in Vancouver. The barrier is not necessarily the high price of real estate, but it's actually the price of the deposit. And people's savings, households that are saving to afford to purchase real estate. real estate are being priced out of the market. In Vancouver, there's a critical need for housing of this middle income to foster complete communities, allowing essential service providers to remain in the city in which they work. So how AHA will change this or improve this, AHA will allow middle income earners and essential service providers to live and own in the city of Vancouver. Many middle income earners in the city of Vancouver, are not eligible for off-market housing because they earn too much, but yet they can't afford market housing. This leads to the middle income orders and essential service providers fleeing Vancouver for more affordable municipalities. Eventually, this leads to a loss of qualified workers, essential service providers in the city of Vancouver. We believe that this program not only benefits the buyer in terms of affordability, but also benefits the city of Vancouver by promoting complete communities. This program, as we've heard tonight at Heather, will allow for up to 2,900 plus units to be purchased at a 40% discount to market, and it will encompass a wide variety of housing types from studios, one beds, two beds, three beds, and even townhouse forms. We're very excited to launch the AHA project, first ever, on the Heatherlands. MST Nations, partnering. with British Columbia and the city of Vancouver, delivering this as a first for the province. We're hopeful this pilot will be successful. We have appreciated the support over the years, and we're already looking at new funding to be able to continue this program on other projects in the MST portfolio. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from council to
team members or the applicant, noting that this is the only opportunity for council to ask questions of the applicant. Yes, we do. Councillor Kerby Young. Yeah, thanks. I have a number. I'm going to fire through them. And I wonder if we can start to
staff with the graph that showed the changes from 2022 to 2025. And I may not, my brain may not be computed against graph. And there was some noise in the gallery, but I'm just not very clear. And I'm hoping you can walk us through it in terms of the pink and the purple labels. So where the pink label, say, for example, rezoning 25 stories, is that additional? and the total is 46? I'm just not following how this is. Yeah, so the total would be 46. So the labels on black, that would be the current applications proposed heights. And the pink one was?
Was the 2022 rezoning. Oh, okay. I think it's that it said rezoning. I think that's why it was the titling that was throwing me off. So the pink was the original. Yes. Okay. And the reason for additional
density in simple terms is what? The reason for the additional density is to support the delivery of the H. H.I program on the Heatherlands to deliver the 2,900 H.I units. Even though 40% of that financing is coming from the province?
Somebody would like to provide comment? I'm hoping we can go quickly because I've got a number of questions. Hi. In simple terms, the additional density that was requested,
was to deliver a similar level of profitability as what we had approved in the previous zoning. So we've worked with city staff, demonstrated that in addition to the HI units,
we needed some market density to make it equally profitable for the nations. Okay. I think I'm trying to get my head around that because you're still doing strata leasehold and they're still funding. We are still. still doing some strata leasehold. The issue with AHI is even though the province holds a 40% mortgage, they're not contributing the full 40% of revenue. So what we're getting is the ability
to make the same profit that we would have otherwise made delivering pure market by delivering, call it three quarters attainable housing, 10% social, 10% market.
Okay, is it because it cash flows differently?
It's not cash. It's not a function of cash flow. It's more a function of cost base.
Okay. I'm still seeking some more information on that one because I'm not fully — I would like, it would be helpful to have a more fulsome explanation that would — I think also the public would be able to fully understand and appreciate — as to why the additional density to this degree. I appreciate the uniqueness of the Affordable Housing Initiative, but I'm just looking for more clarity.
So we don't make as much money on attainable housing. So I can give you an example. So if we look at a market condo that sells for $1,500 a square foot, just using round numbers here, we will be selling that product for $900 a square foot. We receive a grant up front from the province of $250 a square foot. So the discount is $600. We're receiving $200. $150 up front from the province. We have a reduction in cost base. So the reduction in cost base is lower commissions, lower interest expense because we are receiving money up front and don't have to take on financing as quickly.
You're saying that the provincial grant amount does not equate to market. There's a gap.
That's correct. Okay. So in essence, the city is accepting density because the province is not fully closing the gap. with the AHI initiative. That's correct. When we first started this, I understand. I'm going to
keep going just because we're limited on time. It's not that I'm not interested. Who will the AHI units be available to? Are they prioritized for members of MST? Are they available to the general public?
They're available to the general public. It's income qualified — right now $200,000 is the 75th percentile for household incomes in Vancouver. So anything below that will qualify. You have to be a Canadian citizen. You have to have lived in BC for two years. There's a prioritization for first-time homebuyers. You cannot own real estate at the time of closing on these units. You have asset restrictions. So if you have more than $250,000 in assets, such as cash, investments, what have you, then you wouldn't qualify. It really is targeting that missing middle. Okay. Thanks. I'm sorry. I'm at time, but thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Meiszner. Yeah, thanks. And thanks to the applicant and the nation for being here
tonight. Sorry, I can't be there in person. I'd also wanted to ask some questions around the AHI and the density increase. I think of staff. My question is — and I believe I heard this in the presentation, but I just want to clarify — that if the AHI program does not move forward for whatever reason, say a change in provincial government in the future, et cetera, there would still be the same increased height and density built out on the site. Am I understanding that correctly? Yes, you understand that correctly.
Whether it's the AHI scenario or the non-AHI scenario, it does not impact the built form, heights, densities.
Okay. And is there no mechanism in what's proposed in front of us today to revert to the 2022 rezoning applications should the AHI units not materialize? I'll hand that over to Kent McDougall from
the Special Projects Office. Good evening. Yes, Kent McDougall, Special Projects Office. There isn't a mechanism built in currently. It would stay at the height and densities as proposed. What is built in, if a non-AHI scenario is accessed, is that it reverts to a requirement for a minimum 15% rental and 25% of that being below market rental housing as a minimum moving forward.
Okay. So it's 15% rental, but that's market and 25% of that 15% is below market. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Okay, thank you. I'm not sure if this is a question for staff or the applicant, but how certain is this AHI funding for 2,900 units? What commitments do you have from the provincial government? We have already been funded $105 million from the province. We have a commitment to fund
the entirety of the Heather Lands project. So we have that commitment. We will be drawing our first AHI payment effectively at rezoning enactment. And then we have phase draws for each building, some at rezoning enactment, others at development permit and others at building permit. This has been approved by Treasury Board at the Province of BC. The money is committed.
Okay. So that being said, how certain are you that all 2,940 AHI units will be completed? Are you 100% sure? Are you 90% sure? I just want to get a sense.
I have high confidence that this program will be successful, but I can't — I don't have a crystal ball. So if the province changes government and a successive government were to squash the program, I don't have any control over that.
Of course. Okay. Thanks very much for the answers.
No problem. That's it for me.
Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Thanks for the presentation, also the applicant for submitting this application. And thanks for the presence from the MST, you know, to support this project. So my question, first of all, I saw there's a significant reduction in terms of the size of the MST cultural centre. You know, explain the rationale.
I might hand that over to the applicant team as well. The reduction to the cultural centre is really a function of a bit of time and a bit of homework that was done. So the original cultural centre was effectively twice the size, and there were concerns over economic viability as a business or as an asset. So the 10,000 square foot cultural centre as it stands now, it still has commercial kitchen, still has meeting space available, but ultimately we were a bit worried about the development viability of maintaining and operating this asset if it were not being fully utilized. We're confident that the proposal that we have right now for the Cultural Centre will be a welcome addition to the community and will be utilized at a more optimal level.
Okay, and the Cultural Centre will be open to the public as well.
Absolutely.
Okay, thank you. The other question, so, similar to Councillor Meiszner's question regarding the AHI program, so I just did a very rough conservative calculation, 3,000 units, just assuming $1 million for each unit, and the 40% paid by the province. That's $1.2 billion. Yeah, so again, how confident are you, you know, getting this amount of money from the province?
Well, we don't get $1.2 billion from the government. We have a grant that gets paid up front prior to construction, so issued at — we've already received some. Other tranches will be delivered at rezoning enactment and then development permit for each building, building permit for each building. So we don't receive the full 40% discount that you're talking about from the government. But because we receive money up front, it allows us to reduce our commissions, it allows us to reduce our interest expense. Because we're selling the product at a reduced rate, it lowers the risk profile for the development, makes it more attainable — the deal still works. Put it that way.
Okay, thanks. The other question is, I saw there are a few very key healthcare facilities in this area, like Children's Hospital, G.F. Strong Rehab Centre. And is there a way we can prioritize healthcare, frontline healthcare workers, like workforce housing type of?
So we actually tried that. A lot of this came out of a discussion we were having. When we say essential service providers, we think of paramedics, nurses, teachers. And initially, when we positioned this with the province, we had tried to prioritize certain essential service providers. Remember, this is during COVID. We were nervous about a flight of the people from the city that we need to operate. And the province — said that they can't actually focus and prioritize any one specific occupation, you know, or gender or race or any of these things. They can't do it. But what they could do is they could do it by income qualification. So what we have as part of our outreach is we will be going to the unions for the nurses, paramedics, teachers, etc., and really, and really, really making sure that these middle-income earners that are really core essential service providers in our community are very aware of what we're offering.
Okay. All right. Thanks. That's all my questions.
Thank you very much.
Thanks very much. I think a number of members of council were at the September 2024 original groundbreaking announcement that incorporated the AHI. Just on these AHI units, could somebody conceivably own more than one?
No. Not possible. So you can only own one. It has to be your primary residence. You cannot rent it out. And there are safeguards on this. So you cannot sell a contract for a unit. You cannot — if you sell within the first three years of ownership, it's a sliding scale of how much appreciation you'll receive. So there are guardrails in place to stop people from using this as a pure investment.
Also, I'd like to move a second round of questions, too, if that's possible.
Thanks. Just, the first question that came in my mind during the original announcement was the province's ability to backstop the AHI. Simply because we now see they're carrying a lot of debt load at this current time. Are other potential sources in the offing — a pension fund, other potential organizations that might be able to roll up some of the kind of financing that would allow you to provide that deep discount?
So the deal that we're working on at Heather Lands is with the provincial government, and we have those funds committed. I can say that we're looking at alternative options for other AHI-style products on other MST developments, but I can't really get into the funding sources on that.
Okay. I'm hearing questions from council today just about the long-term viability of the AHI. I think we all completely love it. I brought my own attainable ownership motion, and staff sort of took that away to do some work on, and it really can help to drive that sort of important homeownership that's eluding a lot of people and families these days. The school site that was mentioned in there — is any of the money that is generated through this development going to fund the school in any way?
Is — we just providing? That's not our obligation — our obligation is to the CSF. We've been working with the CSF to subdivide and lease them an acre parcel that's adjacent to, or across the road from, their existing school to allow for them to expand. But it's not part of the nation's mandate to provide that as a service or as a benefit.
Okay. You used an acronym there.
CSF, I think. Oh, yeah. The French school society — Conseil Scolaire Francophone. I'm sorry. I'm Francophone.
There we go. Just, you know, we've had some lively discussions in the chamber here with regards to profit and being able to take a land asset that was formerly — in most cases here, I think, federal land — and being able to develop on it, use the profit to benefit whoever the end user is. So in the case of the city, we're discussing about generating non-tax revenue. What about the revenues that are associated with — that would be generated from this development? How are those dollars kind of working their way back in? Obviously, partly from the sounds of things, funding the gap around AHI, and then clearly, you know, coming back to the nation. But this is a very large development, you know, 4,000 units. How does that money roll back into the community in some way?
Well, it's a good question. So, you know, obviously we're contributing over $100 million in terms of cash and DCLs and public art, we are contributing built form over 600 plus units of social housing, the 2,900 plus units of attainable housing, over four acres of park. You know, the kind of list goes on and on. If you're asking what happens with the actual profitability, we worked with city staff and real estate services to demonstrate that the proposal we were seeking with AHA and the additional density. was going to be very similar to the profitability in the last.
Yeah, thanks. I have similar questions, but more towards the social housing units, the 330 units that are to be built as part of phase four. So with the caveat that funding be sourced by the applicant on the condition that demonstrable effort be shown in attempting to secure said funding prior to the issuance of any development permit. So similar to the other questions, what would then happen to the units if that funding is not secured by the applicant?
So again, that comes down to the overall profitability of the site. The whole project.
The whole project, right? So if we look back at the 2020 rezoning and we recognized a certain amount of profitability
and had that when we had our CAC negotiation. And we were at that time delivering 20% social, 10% rental and 70% market. We pegged the profitability on the new concept at that same level.
Oh, I see. So we're not making more money. So the thing that gave was, and I'll be very clear,
this is a project that is a bit different than typical merchant development. The Nations have long expressed the desire and commitment to own and operate the social housing. So it's a bit different than, say, you're, and I don't want to pick on Concord or Polygon or whoever, but the Nations fully have intent to deliver and own and operate the social housing. But if we committed for the full buildout of all the social housing, there wasn't going to be any element of profitability. We need the assistance of BC Housing or CMHC to provide financing so that can get built.
You can't put a percentage on it, but you're confident that this funding will be found. I'm just kind of confused maybe just on like the word demonstrable. Maybe that's more for staff. What does that mean?
Yeah, so it's tough when we're looking at deals that are potentially 15 years in length. And if CMHC were to go broke tomorrow, we would have to find another group that would have the ability to do construction financing, but also takeout financing with 30-year amortization to be able to pay it off with the social housing. A typical bank won't do that. So this is the kind of, this is a thing where we want to do it, but we have to provide a bit of flexibility on projects that are, you know, could be 15 years in length.
And then just a quick question. It's more sort of out of curiosity, but there was temporary modular housing on the site.
Correct.
Do you have any update on where that went? Like, is that in storage? I guess that might not be.
So they're still there. We signed, prior to the policy statement, we signed a five-year temporary modular housing agreement. But the city, we extended it. I forget if it's two or three years. And we only just didn't extend it because site work is ongoing on the site right now.
Correct.
No, temporary modular housing doesn't have to be replaced.
No, I know. No, it's not like in terms of the DSRO sort of thing. I was just wondering. Just more curious if there is any sort of deep affordability.
Well, we have over 600 units of social housing. Social housing is the deep affordability. And with, you know, just there's the discussion around that's 30% of HIS, and oftentimes that it actually goes beyond that.
That 30%, sometimes it's as high as 60%. You know, that could be the case here, where it could be deeper affordability or?
We'll comply with the bylaw as it stands.
Thanks. I'm interested in hearing a bit more about the retail street and what's planned for that because I know that this is a real food desert and that's one of the criticisms of the Cambie Corridor Plan. What kind of retail facilities are being planned in to this?
Good question. So obviously the major ones that people want, and we, as developers want, obviously grocery store, liquor store, pharmacy, some food and beverage offerings, local serving retail that could include small shops, coffee shops, things of this nature. We do have a fairly well-designed kind of retail node that leans heavily on the park and a pedestrian pedestrian-only area. So the idea is to provide services for people on the site so they do not have to go. I'm not saying don't go to Oakridge, but like they don't have to go to Oakridge if they need milk, right? If they need groceries, they can get it without having to hop in their car or walk three or four blocks.
And I was interested to see that the retail street is designed on a very quiet local street rather than an arterial.
Yeah, I mean, part of that is we wanted to bring people into the site, have them be in, have them stay. The park is lovely. Retail on an arterial is fine if there's lots of retail along a longer arterial. But when you're concentrating retail in a particular node within a development, you kind of want to bring people into it.
Yeah. And I'm also interested in hearing about the plans for the park space. There's a lot of open space, public open space planned for the site. Are there any particular, is it envisioned that it would just be left natural space or is it likely to have sports spaces?
We haven't planned any sports fields per se. There are large green space areas. There are areas where we'll be working with water retention. So think water features in the winter, in the summer, more dry. In the North Park, because there's kind of two parks that are separated by 35th, in the North Park, it's going to be more natural state. There's some lovely trees we'd like to preserve there as well.
And was the idea with the height on the site partially to preserve that public open space?
It's a function of a few things. So, one, the first go around, we had podiums that were a bit heavier that disrupted the experience that we thought might be felt on the ground plane. But also when we added the density required to make the same money and the attainable housing that we would make in the other zoning, we didn't want to take up a bunch of the space that had already been allocated for public space, green space, parks, what have you. So the idea was to work with our design team, add the height where we could. There's not a meaningful impact on shadowing on the site despite the increases in heights. So the open space still remains largely untouched by shadows.
And that's all open to the surrounding local community.
Correct.
Yeah. And what about the design considerations of the French language school? I won't make you pronounce the name of it again.
Thank you. I always say CSF. So that's actually not our, that's not in our mandate. That's not in our purview. Our discussion with them is, I mean, they still have to get funding from the provincial government. And if they achieve that funding from the provincial government, we would subdivide that parcel. We already have agreement in principle on that. And the design of the school is not for us to say. Yeah. So they just gave you a certain
amount of minimum amount of space that they would need set aside or something. Was that sort of
kind of the other way around? We said this is what we can afford to give you. Are you interested?
Yep. Thanks. That's all my questions. Thank you. Councillor Klassen.
Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Mayor. I'm going to follow up on some questions. So I want to go back to the AHI funding certainty from the province. And you said that had been committed. Can you just walk us through, When you say committed, does that mean verbally? Does that mean fully signed off?
We have fully signed agreements with the province that has been passed through Treasury Board. So we have a series of agreements that talk about funding, when funding gets, when funding occurs.
How much of the funding? You said you received $105 million. How much is committed in the current provincial budget?
Well, I believe the whole, I believe the whole, I think it's close to, to $500 million?
Is in this current budget?
Well, it's passed through Treasury Board. So I don't know if they've allocated it out over this budget, next budget. We've given them a schedule of the draws as we anticipate them to come.
Can we get that information back before council has to make a decision so we can get a sense of it?
Not likely.
Okay. Okay. That's going to be helpful to know in terms of decision time. Following up on Councillor Klassen's question. We can,
Councillor, we can, we can probably, I mean, I'd have to check with the province if that's something that is for public dissemination. I think that, I'm asking
the question in the context, it would be helpful. I mean, I have to speak to questions versus comments right now, but I think the public are looking for clarity around things and when they don't have clarity, that's what's causing, I think, some of the, the sort of unsettling reactions to things. So that's the spirit in which I'm asking the question. but I'm just going to keep going because I have to stick to questions right now. Following up on Councillor Klassen's question in terms of profit, I wasn't clear, where does the profit go after the public amenities are paid in terms of the financing construction?
Where does the profit go? It goes to the shareholders, which is the MST Development Corporation's two wealthy Nations.
Okay, for them to dispense in community as they see fit.
Correct. Okay, thank you.
Can't question for staff now. And I want to be very explicit here. How, just, can council, What ability does council have to provide direction to revert back to the 2022 zoning if the AHA funding is not coming through other than just guaranteeing this density and just seeing a shift to a smaller amount of market rental housing?
Great.
So the desire would be, you're asking to shift back to 2020 and not to the non-AHA scenario presented. That's just for clarity?
Okay.
Thank you. Thank you.
Kim McDougal, Special Projects Office. In terms of the ability to revert back to 2022, I believe we would essentially have to have the report referred back to staff, the bylaws back to staff, to create that construct. As it's put forward now, there are the options of the AHA pathway, and then should parcels be ineligible or funding be withdrawn, it would revert to the market housing, rental below market stream, which would then fund all of the...
Presumably, that would take some time for
staff to work through. Correct. Okay. And then in terms of the public benefits, so the
child care is doubling in space, the school acre site remains the same. The parks and open space remains essentially the same, but the cultural centre is significantly smaller at 10,000 square feet versus 22,500? Yes. Okay. And that was in terms of affordability for a smaller cultural centre. I know that when we approved this last time, that was held up as one of the bright lights and part of the project that MST was very excited about. Yeah, and I might hand it to the applicant team again, but that was a
decision that was made by the applicant team in the MST partnership.
Here, I won't speak out of turn. Sorry, can you just repeat the question?
Yeah, the reduction in the cultural centre down to 10,000 square feet. It was the highlight of the rezoning last time. MST spoke very positively about that. Can you speak to that? Why?
Yeah, so I think I explained a little bit earlier. The 20,000 square foot cultural centre. We looked at the business plan and operations, and it's frankly challenging to commit that that would be a successful venture. 10,000 square feet, commercial kitchen, meeting rooms, ability for public to reserve and access. We're confident that that works.
Okay. That's my time. Thanks.
probably for staff, but the proposal that we have here is pretty light on any transportation planning. And I think with this increased density, potentially thousands of new residents, leaning pretty heavily on Canada Line, which is already a system that feels like it's pretty strained right now. One station is a half-kilometre away, which is a reasonable walk there, one's about almost a kilometer. So how are we thinking that this additional density is going to kind of translate into people moving essentially, people in goods moving?
Yeah, I can speak generally to how Heather Lanz was reviewed from that perspective, and then maybe I'll hand it off if there's a larger, bigger picture response as well. So as a component of the application package, the applicant did submit. TAMS, and that is a transportation assessment and management strategy. I'm pretty sure that's the theme of it. And that's to look at what the impacts of the application and the proposal would be on transportation networks and how to mitigate those impacts. So that was part of staff's review. I would leave it to engineering to comment further on their assessment. I'll also say that there are improvements planned to both pedestrian and cycling pathways, both through and to the site, with new bikeways coming in on the 33rd Avenue and 37th Avenue, and new vehicle connections leading to and through the sites that have to go look at my notes for the specific street names. Yeah.
I'm just going to wrap up with just maybe another discussion around the H.I. I personally would love to see H.I work. It really kind of fills a really large gap in the fact that homeownership has alluded. so many young people and families today is a real weight on us. But this plan right now is it pins a lot of hopes on that long term, longer term relationship with the province. So again, I'm sort of hearing again questions from council about what if the H.I. does not ultimately deliver. The resorting back to market and having some below market. and there seems to be not the greatest trade-off, but because we're really here to try and support the H.I. at the end of the day. So I guess my question is, you know, what staff, I think the applicants have a pretty good job of talking about, but what staff's evaluation of how they feel like about the H.I. And how solid it is. Dan's coming up to respond to that.
Thanks, Councillor. I would actually say I think the applicant did a good job of answering the question. We would agree. We've heard very positive feedback from the province on that. The first tranche of funding has actually been delivered, which is always a good sign. But, of course, the long-term view is always hard. It's hard to have that sort of crystal ball to look into the future. As Brennan said, governments do change. And we don't have a lot of control over that either. But in the shorter term, nearer term, the commitment does see. to be there. And as I said, the first tranche of funding has already been delivered. I would venture or guess that it's less of a change of government political decision than just whether the numbers, the math works on it. Because if it becomes something that ultimately governments decide that they can't afford for some reason, then. But again, there are risks associated with this approach, but I think we are here being asked to whether we accept those risks for the benefit of potentially having more attainable homeownership.
So, okay. That's right. Thanks very much. That's, that's my question, Mayor.
Thank you very much. Okay. This is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call a toll free at 1-833-353-86-86-86-5 pound before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on next and displayed during the recess. So we're now going to hear from the public. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the left podium when it's your turn. Phone and speakers will be unmuted when it's your turn to speak. Speakers will have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered. So our first registered speaker is Monique Choptiuk. I hope I pronounce your name correctly.
Hi, I just wanted to know if I could just say something before I start my comments. I just want to tell you that I am not racist. I'm not anti- I really do support it. My dad was an architect planner and I'm trained in landscape so the things that I am pointing have nothing to do with you. I fully support you. That's all I wanted to say okay and I was and I know my community.
I'm sorry ma'am. that the ma'am you're here to address council sorry it said sorry okay Do you've already started it? Yeah, you're taking your time so like that's part of your time everyone has a lot of time. Okay good evening mayor and council my name is Manique Chalk
Tuuk and I have half a block away from the Heatherlands I oppose this rezoning it is not a simple revised rezoning due to its scope and size the reconciliation politics attached to it the fact that is located with it in the Queen Elizabeth Park neighborhood of the Camby corridor, a depressed ongoing condo market, the city's adoption of transportation 2040 and climate emergency action plans, and that this council does not have a deep developmental memory. I'm opposed to this rezoning on the grounds that the new building heights are too excessive. A new elementary school is needed and the neighborhood road network infrastructure cannot support it. Approximately four thousand two hundred fifty units of new housing is proposed with new building heights up to 46 stories that far exceed the heatherlands policy statement and are out of scale with adjacent neighborhood rezoning the increase in building heights are attributed to the attainable housing initiative which is a bailout for the developer from province through this initiative the develop gets 60% of the cost from the buyer in the form of a traditional mortgage and the province provides 40% of the initial financing even though these units are sold below market rates the the developer will get the full asking price of that below market rate. This allows the developer to get cash for every unit upfront and still be able to cover development costs and gain profit, guaranteed buyers in sales, reduce risk, and the ability to build a project. Any units not sold in the pre-sells can be sold at market rates. Increased in building heights are directly related to profitability. Increasing tower heights increase land values through land lift and vertical premiums. Prices can increase approximately 2.3% per floor once a building it sees 35 stories. By increasing height from 28 to 46 stories, the developer gains 18 additional floors of Zone 4 permanent inventory, which in turn generates significantly higher revenue than the lower floors. At the 35th floor, values are approximately $1,300 per square foot and $1,500 per square foot above the 40th. The 2011 can be corridor plan stated, most schools in the corridor were operating close to capacity and that additional school capacity may be required in the Queen Elizabeth area. This may include identifying space for a new school on a large site redevelopment. Another document stated that further study concerning the possible need for a new elementary school should be conducted. That study was never conducted, and after this all mentioned the need for a new elementary school was removed from the plan. Heatherlands, Oakridge Park, and Oakridge Transit Center redevelopments are all located within the Annie and, B. Jameson Elementary School catchment. The school has an operating capacity of 465 students and 2024, 2025 enrollment of 519. It is listed as a school with no available spaces for certain new applications for 2026. The local transportation network cannot support this revised rezoning. This development is located within the Camby corridor where a lot of redevelopment has occurred. Since 2015, the RPSC community group has been repeatedly asking the city to conduct a third-party comprehensive traffic survey of the area because they have serious concerns about many transportation-related issue. Nothing ever came out of these efforts. This development adds to these concerns because there are a few streets that actually service it. The transportation study plan for the first Heatherlands rezoning state that, when built out, all major intersections in the area would be working at or above capacity. The city's response was to accommodate the additional development volume would require major geometric improvements in street widening, which has not been planned for the area. It's clear that all the intersections will be working over capacity. To compound this, Heatherlands was designed to meet the Transportation 2040 and climate emergency emergency action plan goals, which seek to shift the public's use of cars to using mass transit bicycles and walking. It also aims to decrease street parking. Parking has always been a perennial problem due to the proximity to women's and children's hospitals. This is a major paragraph shift, and I don't believe that the public or the infrastructure is there yet. I live on West 33rd Avenue and have already noticed the increase in traffic congestion. My concern is what happens in the interim before this shift takes place. What will be the quality of life in the neighborhood with constant traffic congestion and noise?
Can I just read my last paragraph? Because actually, I only have one more paragraph.
I know. Sorry, we have to keep on time with everyone. We have a lot of speakers tonight. I'm sorry. Thank you. Sorry, Monique. Sorry, it's, sorry. Hi. Monique. Sorry, can we cut the mic off? Monique, I'm going to, yep. Sorry, Monique. Okay, moving on. Booker number two, Sarah McLeod.
Mr. B3 over there. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you so much for your welcome. it's so strong, you can feel it across the country. And that's why I'm here, and I live here. And the intention with your welcome is so strong. I believe in it so much. I see it in the cultural interpretive plan. And I really, because I live right there, I have so much hope that it will end, or not end, but, continue in that direction, you know, move into the direction of that vision, that intention that's there because it's so powerful. It's so strong. Yeah, so I just want to thank you. And I'm so grateful to be able to live, work, and prays here. Okay, I do want to make four points, so I'll move onto those, but I can't even express it enough. I, the way that I see the rezoning, I'm not fully getting to the intention that I feel there is, I just think the things that are, that were so strong, the children, the elders, everyone, I mean, I'm praying for everyone in my pockets right now, I got six prayers. I think, I really think we can start with those. Like, they seem conditional in the rezoning, like the children's center, or it comes later with the parcel J, but there's also like a fourth floor above the French school for child care. I think that's parcel D. So I'm not sure about parcel the D, but if I'm right with J, like that got moved to phase five, and I don't know if it was, there were that even many phases in the last reason. I think there were three or something. It just seems like it's, and I think that's something that's something that we all really need now is to take care of. of our inner child and our children. And the other thing that I don't think it can, or I think it can get there, but right now in the rezoning, doesn't really seem welcoming to all. I know the nations are welcoming to all. Like, they welcomed all of us here. That's so strong. We're all here because of that. But even in the words of the applicant, like a majority of it will just really be welcoming to, it seems like doctors who can attain it. And I live there right now and I'm a renter and I don't own anything and I don't want to own anything because, well, like, of the land, it's all a gift. We've all received this gift. It's not for us to own. It's to share the gift. So those things I think can really actually really be done now because with the parcel A, that can start at any time phase. And the supportive housing, neighbors that had to leave in August, they could be a modular thing there right now. And stewards and people and volunteers and neighbors could get the space ready for those to come in right now, I believe. And then there's, can be supportive. I spoke at the development permit board meeting actually last year about how I really thought in the previous reason,
and the margins were so slim that if anything changed, they wouldn't be able to deliver on the 20% social. And just over a year later, it's currently at 14. With the, like, and community housing, below market housing, renters, I think there's a fair balance there maybe. I don't know. I have a minute. I have two more things. The cultural center, it will get used. Like, don't shrink it. It will get used. The people will come. And there's so much to do. with the education for everyone there in the cultural interpretive plan. I just want to say that I really, really, really, really love it here. And I intend to live here as long as I can and contribute to the community. I think I am a good neighbor. I really try to be. And I really look forward to building a relationship here because it inspires me so much. So thank you. Yeah. I'm out of time. Thank you.
Speaker number three, Louis Vilegis.
Thank you. My name is Louis Vilegis. I live in Vancouver. Next slide, please. Let's move two slides forward. Thank you. I have practiced urbanism in Canada and the United States for 40 years. I oppose this rezoning. Next. This proposal concentrates 14 towers on a fragmented street grid, limited street wall continuity, and large, weakly defined open space. Next. That combination triggers knock-on effects and consequences. First, we shape the city. Then the city shapes us. Tower zones like this present plenty of places for other things to take shape. Crime prevention through environmental design, as articulated in defensible space by Oscar Newman, emphasizes territorial clarity and natural surveillance. Both concepts are AWOL in this proposal. Urban form also shapes the same. the timeless values of community and the values of place. But not here, where street walls lack continuity and human scale. Commercial space is not integrated with open space. The tree canopy is concentrated on the roofs. And mountain views, well, just look at the picture. Where are the mountains? Hidden by the towers. Density alone is not urbanism. Yet, density and height is government's sole focus. With the possible exception of dollar signs added. in, but not much else. Next. The residents are isolated in towers without any connection to the ground. The extensive ground plane is itself lightly programmed and will feel dangerous. The edges are discontinuous, and there are no townscape markers for aiding wayfinding or creating the sense of place. These are all known risk factors incubated in tower zones. Next. Canada Lands Company on affordability — Canada Lands Company, limited, proposes AHI, the Attainable Housing Initiative. It offers housing that is attainable, which is not the same as affordable. The units will be delivered at 40% below market. A drop in the bucket when markets are headed to 467% beyond affordability, according to some sources. AHI offers leasehold over ownership. Units may not be rented. Revenue. Resale cannot take place for three years and carries a resale penalty. AHI is a market peg concept. Its proposed attainability moves with the markets. In stark contrast, GAAP provides guaranteed affordable housing in perpetuity. With resale capped at purchase price plus inflation, GAAP functions as fee simple ownership in every other way. Value is held in perpetuity for generations of Canadians. Next. In this proposal, physical design, what I call urbanism, accelerates crime and social dysfunction. 14 towers, a broken street grid, gumming up the walking experience of place. Street aspect ratios exceed the limits for solar penetration and sense of place. Solar penetration will be sporadic. Internal circulation separates the residents vertically. There are no eyeballs on corridors or lobbies. Only limited natural surveillance outside. Large, shadowed open spaces are difficult to defend. And there is weak support for wayfinding. Next. Compared with GAAP, AHI presents with significant constraints. Leasehold rather than fee simple, resale penalties, market pegs that fail to test perpetual affordability. Whereas GAAP preserves affordability, AHI addresses some of the gap, yet leaves the root causes in place. Heather Lands is delivering land value. Thus, government voting for this proposal is putting out the fire with gasoline. Next. In this proposal, the park is passive and unprogrammed. There is no connected space of urban rooms. Commercial uses are not well integrated with the public space. Solar reflection and wind impacts require closer studies. Mountain views, Vancouver's signature identity marker, are substantially reduced. The drawing is deceptive in this regard because it is drawn six stories up in the air, whereas mountain views function as place markers aiding wayfinding when we are on the ground. This proposal delivers much height and density. It fails to present the timeless values of vernacular urbanism, values of place, and values of community. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Speaker number four, Teresa Belton.
Hello, my name is Teresa Belton. I'm a member of the Holy Name of Jesus Parish at 4925 Cambie Street. We are the church with the triangle roof on Cambie Street and West 33rd, across from Queen Elizabeth Park. Holy Name has been a spiritual home in the South Cambie neighborhood since 1961. We offer worship services and community engagement seven days a week, not just on Sundays. According to our 2025 census, we have more than 1,000 parishioners and visitors at the church on a weekly basis. Our community is a buzzing hub of cultural and age groups. 41% of our parishioners speak a language other than English. One of our most exciting ways our church community has been growing since 2020 is the strong influx of people, especially young adults ages 19 to 39, who are moving into the neighborhood and choosing Holy Name of Jesus Parish as their home base. As this is to say, our parish is expanding rapidly and we are excited for our church community to continue growing and reaching more people who are seeking a spiritual home in the center of the city. We warmly support the development in our neighborhood, including the Heather Lands project, which is three minutes walk from our front doorstep. Our main concern with the Heather Lands project is the same concern we have down the street at our church. Parking, parking, and yes again, parking. Only 39% of our parishioners own a car and mainly our weekly visitors take public transit, carpool, walk, cycle, take Uber or taxi to the church. And yet our church parking lot of 60 spots is over capacity seven days a week. We already share our parking lot with our next door neighbor, the Youville residents, a long-term care facility, and many of their staff members and visitors also struggle to find parking in the designated lot and surrounding streets on a daily basis. We also have a number of neighbors who seem to think that church only happens on Sunday mornings and think that we don't notice them walking off our parking lot and occupying one of our spots for their own sightseeing at Queen Elizabeth Park. On behalf of Holy Name of Jesus Parish, we urge the City Council to ensure that the developer of the Heather Lands project construct the absolute maximum possible number of parking stalls for residents and users of the buildings. We need the City Council and the developer to understand that available parking on the surrounding streets of this neighborhood is already nearly impossible to find on a daily basis. Please do not be lenient if the developer proposes to create more units and less parking stalls. To move forward with the development project that neglects the current parking issues in this neighborhood, would be short-sighted and irresponsible. In 2025, our highest attendance at Mass was 834 people. Holy Name of Jesus Parish is not a member-only social club, but a place that attracts people from all over the city to worship God and may need to take the car for accessibility reasons. We are working hard to open our church doors even wider to become an accessible, hospitable, and charitable hub that offers essential spiritual services to all who come to our doors. But we can't be accessible to more people without solutions to the parking problem. Once again, we ask the City Council to require the developer of the Heather Lands project to construct a sufficient number of parking stalls in these buildings. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you.
Great. Thank you very much, Teresa. Okay. Okay, if there are any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium. Clerk, are there any additional speakers on the line?
No additional speakers on the line.
This is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll free at 1-833-353-8600, followed by participant code 106-1-44-pound. Before the close of the speakers list, the phone number will be posted on screen and displayed during the recess. So we're now going to take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in or come forward to the podium. There's no additional speakers on the line.
No additional correspondence. Just in closing, we're good. Make a closing comment. Okay, I'll go after you then. Sorry, we're going to let the team speak and then if I could make a closing comment as well. Thanks, Alex. I appreciate everybody's time tonight. I know this is a complicated rezoning. AHA has never been done. in the city of Vancouver. I'm thrilled with the prospect. There are many young families, many middle-income earners who want to live in Vancouver, earn enough money that they don't qualify for off-market housing, want to get on the real estate ladder. This is their chance. I'm looking forward to giving them that chance to own in the communities that they were They were raised, where they work, where they want to live, where they want to raise their families. Looking to counsel for support and leadership to assist us in delivering this. And I want to thank you for your time. Thank you for much. I just wanted to say as well that we're really grateful for the opportunity to hear the questions, to be given the time of day to talk on the subject and to hear the concerns from the community as well. It's our teaching that when you talk through issues, there's an invisible hook on the door and you hang up your conflicts, your preconceived notions and your biases on them, and you hear each other out. Because at the end of the day, all we really want is a better future for the next generation. And that's what MSTDC is working towards, is a better Vancouver, a better territory for future generations. So really want to thank everybody for the time, the speakers, mayor and council, as well as the staff teams. Haitsabka, Siamna, Ciaa. Haikuk. Do our team members have any closing comments? Yes, only to remind you that there is a yellow memo attached to the report. Okay. Thank you very much. Does counsel have any final questions for our team members, noting no additional questions to the applicant are permitted. Councillor Kirby Young. Yeah, thanks, Mayor. I'm just going to preface what I'm about to suggest by saying that I agree that AHA is an affordable housing initiative is incredibly exciting.
It's long been aspired to. It has been done yet. it is new and that means that there's its new ground that's being forged in new territories. I also agree with the comments from the applicant. This is a complicated rezoning and I think council has a number of complex questions. I think that it is important to provide time and space for those questions to be answered. And as we heard from Alec Garen around the importance of conversation, I think that it would be helpful for me. And I'm suspecting some of the other, based on some of the other questions I'm hearing around the table, for some of those questions to be answered. quite fulsomely and provide time for that, which may or may not result in council feeling now that it's fully answered or any potential sort of additional suggestions around ensuring that we're doing the best that we can to help that AHA vision be delivered. But I think that we need to provide a little bit of space for those conversations to happen with the staff and the applicant and for staff to be able to prepare more fulsome answers to counselors' questions. I personally don't feel able to vote on it without getting some more information on this. So I have emailed in and I'm proposing a referral amendment that we refer, the council referred to the council meeting decision on the application to the council meeting on March 31st. I think that next Tuesday puts a bit too much strain on both parties. That isn't a full week even and we're, you know, sort of heading into a weekend. I think that we should be able to fully stand behind this and feel that the due diligence has been done and the questions have been answered. So that is my proposal that, and I'll read it again, that council referred debate and decision on the application to the council meeting on March 31st. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Meisner. Yeah, thank you. I wanted to second, I'm on your counselor, Kervianz, and it was seconded, but anyways, it has my support. I am also very supportive of seeing this AHA concept come to life. I have many. I have many, many, many friends that cannot afford to buy their first apartment in Vancouver, let alone a house. And, you know, I was fortunate in the 2010s to be able to buy a very modest small condo when prices were much lower by using my RSP, actually, as the homebuyers plan. But I know with prices nowadays, that's not possible. So I really want to see this comes to. to fruition, but like Councilor could be young, and I know some of my other colleagues around the table, I need more information on the AHA aspect of the project. And I know that from the applicant, they stated that they likely wouldn't be able to get some of that information and the contract between the province and the applicant to counsel tonight. This is a very large city building project, 4,000 homes. It's really like another Oak Ridge. And
And it has great social goals. It's not just housing. It's affordable housing. It's led by the Musquiam. And they have every right to see this vision through. And I'm supportive of it. I just have a few more questions. So I'm in strong support of the referral. So council can get more information, have a bit more discussion, and then make a fully informed decision at the end of this month. Thanks. Thank you very much, Councillor Klauson. Thanks, Mayor. I don't. I want to add too much more than what has already been said by Councilors Kirby Young and Meisner and this project, which is being led in partnership with MST Corporation and the Aquilic Aquilini Development Company. They've done a lot of work to get us here. And as somebody who's championed attainable homeownership and trying to make sure, and I know they've had several conversations with my council colleagues about. the fact that we need to do what we can to try and make sure that people are able to purchase homes. It's sometimes described as the Canadian dream. So let's give this one a little bit more time for staff to work with the applicant and get the information. I'm actually quite taken aback at how much detail is in this report, and it would be easy for things to kind of get missed. So I'm happy to support the motion to refer to March 31st. Thanks very much. Thank you very much. Okay. So seeing no one else in the queue, I'm going to put the motion to refer to a vote. If we can please go to the voting panel. This is the motion to refer to March 31st. Mr. Mr. Do we have to close public comments first? Is that the... Sorry, can we take one moment here? Sorry, I just wanted to make sure we got the process right.
Okay. So, oh, everyone's... Okay. The motion to refer had... Oh, sorry. Yep. So we're voting on the motion to... Okay, thank you. Okay. So the motion to refer passes with counselors or and Maloney in opposition. And, um, okay. That complete... What doesn't complete item one, but, um, that's... as far as we're going to go with item one. I'm going to thank everyone for coming in and all the hard work you're doing and the questions that were asked. Okay, so we will move to item number two. And that's CD-1 rezoning, 3295 through 33333 commercial drive. Before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it. Does anyone have a conflict of interest to disclose? Right. Seeing none, the clerk's now going to read the application and summary of correspondence received. This is an application by 3333 Commercial Drive Limited Partnership to rezone 3295 to 3333 commercial drive from R1-1 Residential Inclusive District to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District to permit the development of a six-story residential building containing 133, rental units. A floor space ratio, FSR, of 2.52 and a height of 22 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. 32 pieces of correspondence in support. and 23 pieces of correspondence in opposition. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today. Great. Thank you. This is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to counsel about this item, please call toll-free at 1-833-353-86106-10, followed by participant code 106-1-445 pound. Before the close of the speaker's list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity. for new speakers and miss speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. Now, we do have team members for planning, urban design, and sustainability here to present the applications. Good evening, Mayor and Council.
My name is Zoe Acton, and I am the rezoning planner for this application located at 32-95 to 333-33 Commercial Drive. The site outlined in red is comprised of two parcels located mid-block on the west side of commercial drive between. East 15th and 18th avenues. The surrounding properties are primarily residential, including single-detached dwellings, townhouses, and six-story residential buildings. The Croatian Cultural Center and the elevated Skytrain Guideway are located across the street on the east side of Commercial Drive. Sorry, I'm just realizing my presentation's not coming up. Is there? Stuck. Should we take a quick two-minute recess? Take your answer. It's all good.
Please go ahead.
Okay, great. Thank you. I'm going to restart from my comments on this slide. So the site is outlined in red, and it is comprised of two parcels that are located mid-block on the west side of commercial drive between East 15th and 18th avenues. The surrounding properties are primarily residential, including single-detached dwellings, townhouses, and six-story residential buildings. The Croatian Cultural Center and the elevated sky train guideway are located across the street on the east side of Commercial Drive. 18 of the 21 existing residential tenancies are eligible under the city's tenant relocation and protection policy. The secured rental policy, or SRP, encourages new purpose-built rental housing and aligns with the rental housing goals of the Housing Vancouver Strategy and the Vancouver Plan. Updates to the SRP were approved by Council in 2021 to create residential rental zones and a map with eligible areas for the standardized. R-R zones. Sites that meet the secured rental policy criteria but are highly irregular in size or shape may be eligible for rezoning subject to a customized review and response. This map shows sites that are eligible for rezoning under the SRP. The sites are close to public transit and local shopping and are located on and off arterial roads. The yellow star indicates the proposed rezoning site. The applicant is proposing. to rezone to a CD1 zone to allow for a six-story rental apartment building with 133 rental units and a density of 2.52 FSR. Approximately 56 submissions were received during the public consultation period. Support was received for the new rental housing and the site's proximity to amenities. Concerns were expressed for the proposed height. In response, staff note that six stories is consistent with the intent of the SRP at this location. Regarding concerns about increased traffic and loss of street parking, the site is well situated to encourage reduced vehicle trip and parking demand. It is in close proximity to bus services and the Skytrain. Concerns were also expressed regarding the proposed site grading. Staff note that confirmation of site grades occurs during the development and building permit stages and must comply with city standards.
The public benefits from this application include a DCL contribution of approximately two point. million dollars as well as the secured market rental housing units.
Staff review of the pro forma revealed that there is no lift on this site and therefore staff support no below market rental rate units at this location in conclusion this proposal meets the intent of city policy by delivering a market rental building staff support this application for a rezoning to a CD1 zone. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to present the application? Good evening, Mayor and Council. We're just looking to share our screen here and then we'll be up and running. Thank you. I just need someone to give us permission to do that, please.
Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you very much for allowing us to speak today. I'm Jordan McDonald and I am the CEO of Fabric Living. We're here tonight to share our vision for a new secured market rental development at 3295 and 333. 333 commercial drive. Fabric Living is a local developer focused on building residential projects that reflect the unique character of the neighborhoods that we're developing in and we're super excited about this one. Next slide, please. Actually to the next one, please. The proposal before you tonight is to replace an aging two-story rental building and a duplex with a modern amenity-rich purpose-built rental community. This project aims to provide new, secured long-term rental housing in a highly walkable transit-connected neighborhood really close to Trout Lake. Next slide, please. Our vision for all of our purpose-built rental projects is to provide efficient and financially attainable living spaces complemented by carefully planned amenities that focus on wellness, community, and social connectedness. The vision is guided by a careful study of each neighborhood we build in and by the evolving demographics of each unique area. We intend to do our very best to develop a building. building that will add to the legacy of completed projects in Vancouver that we're very proud of. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name's David Jacobson. I'm a partner
of Fabric Living. I'd like to just introduce this project to pick up where our planner left off. This proposal is for a CD-1 rezoning. It's based on the SRP policy and reflective of recently approved area plans that call for secured market rental of up to six stories and 2.7 FSR. The city's official development plan due to be released later this year is expected to further support this built form in this area. The neighborhood benefits from excellent public transit access and proximity to existing amenities. Next slide, please. Commercial drives long sense, a strong sense of community is bolstered by several thriving businesses, the strong dining scene and an attractive area for all residents at all ages and stages of life. It is a three-minute walk to local bus stops north and south, five minutes to Trout Lake Community Center and Park, five minutes to Clark Park, 15 minutes to Broadway commercial, and it's in walking distance to local public and private schools. Next slide, please. The development represents a significant six-fold increase in rental homes on the site, with a proposal to replace an aging two-story building in a single-family home with a modern, sustainable, multifamily building. Next slide, please. Key features of the project include an appropriate scale that makes the building a contextual fit with newer development in the area. 133 new rental homes, providing a mix of studios, one bedrooms, twos, and threes for families. Next slide, please. Residents will enjoy social and wellness-focused indoor amenities and a safe, secluded private courtyard, featuring a children's play area, outdoor exercise, and social spaces surrounded by lush south-facing. landscaping. These amenities are envisioned as extensions of private living spaces and function to encourage the building of social ties and a sense of community within the building itself. Next slide, please. We are using the slope of the site to create some innovative ground-level bike sheds to support car-free living and tucking the bike shed into the slope edge of the site against a necessary retaining wall. Next slide, please. This outdoor structure includes areas for bike maintenance and presents a unique opportunity to celebrate and encourage cycling and sociability within the project. Next slide, please. We've also used tree protection setbacks and retaining wall structures to create a landscape of terraces and play spaces. Next slide, please. Following a productive collaboration with city staff, we have revised our initial submission to better fit with the neighborhood context. To address massing and privacy, we include the South setback, improving the interface and privacy for our neighbors to the South. To address tree retention, the grading and terracing plans that you see in front of you have been revised and maximized to ensure that we can retain and maintain trees to the west and the south along our property lines, as well as introducing new tree clusters along commercial drive. Regarding comments from our neighbors, the majority of the questions that we've received to date were related to the tree retention and grading. at the shared edges that I've just mentioned, as well as a concern with an original idea that we had for an outdoor pool in the courtyard and the associated proximity to their property and noise. After consideration, this pool was removed and the amenities were adjusted to a more acoustically subdued program. Next slide, please. We are committed to being good neighbors and good landlords, and we are collaborating with Somerville Community Relations to ensure that all existing tenants are fully aware of their rights and protections under the city's TRP. Since initiating this proposed development back in the fall of 2024, we have had a total of 10 unique touch points with our tenants. These include direct letters, phone calls, emails, and an in-person digital meeting. We will also be hosting a follow-up meeting with the tenants in April to discuss the outcome of today's public hearing and answer any questions they might have. Tenants are eligible for compensation or support under the TRPP and will be provided assistance that include compensation based on length of tenancy, moving expenses, assistance in finding alternate accommodation and right to first refusal. Our team will continue to work collaboratively with the tenants and city housing staff. Next slide, please. This rezoning is a rational urban design response that aligns with the city's vision for this emerging village area. The proposal is consistent with the vision expressed in the draft official community plan, official development plan, pardon me, with a proposed scale that is already familiar and established in this amenity-rich neighborhood. It provides the housing supply necessary to address some of the city's affordability challenges, while creating a positive legacy for the special commercial drive community. We look forward to answering any questions you might have. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Are there any questions or two team members or the applicant, noting that this is the only opportunity for
council to ask questions of the applicant. I just wanted to ask the applicant a quick question about your your bike room. Does it
accommodate oversized and non-standard bikes like those used by families to get kids to and from school and daycare? Through the chair, yes, to the councillor's question. Yes, that bike shed is intended to be for cargo bikes, bikes that need to be charged, bikes that cannot easily be
maneuvered through parkhays. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Orr? I have a question just probably to staff around the blow market.
He said there's no landlift. Can you just sort of walk me through that? So under this SRP, because this is six stories, this would usually have 20%. Yes. Yeah, why does this? So that's correct. So typically projects that are six stories under SRP require 20% BMR units. However, our real estate group did review this and confirm.
that there was no lift on the site. This is consistent with other east side six-story rental apartment developments. And it's also in line with the fast-tracking low-density rental rental program, which is coming to City Council within the spring of this year. And so that's looking at changing the RR zones and not requiring 20% BMR for six-story developments on the east side of Vancouver. And that's precisely just because it's on the east side and rents are lower? Yeah, so city staff are doing a review right now and they've confirmed that on the west side, then the development affordability levels that can be achieved on a site are a 10% reduction below CMHC rates and maintaining the 20% BMR just at a lower reduction from the CMHC rates. And then on the east side, the land economics show that no way. BMR is achievable.
Okay, so there's a policy coming that hasn't come yet, and this is kind of before that? I'm just a little confused. That's right. Why this is coming before the policy that you haven't.
Yeah, so to give a little bit more background on this project is that it came in in late 2024, and through working with staff, staff had some ideas, and we worked with the developer about the form of development. And so through those conversations and them addressing our concerns, then they came back with a revised proposal from their five-story development, which had no BMR, to now proposing the six-story version with no BMR. And so that was done because of some of city staff comments on their proposed design.
It's just anticipating that this would go through, or this would be recommended kind of thing. Okay.
There have been a few. few other projects that have proposed no BMR, too, that have passed the council recently.
I see. So I just sort of based on those precedents. And then just in terms of the tenant relocation, so obviously there's, if there's, there's not going to be any BMR per se, but there's around 20 tenants that are eligible. So then there is a right of first refusal. Is that, am I correct?
That's correct. So they would get it. But then if they end the tendency, then that's those that that's gone. There's no sort of vacancy control for the, for those, sort of security of tenure for that. Right. Maybe I can just have that confirmed by my colleague, Molly Blower, who's on the line. Good evening, Mayor and Council, Molly, with housing regulation. Yes, that's correct. The, the 20% below CMHC average market rents is only for the first tenancy. And upon turnover, it would go back to market rents.
Okay. And then I was going to ask just to the applicant around, it seems to be kind of a lack of one bedrooms, but then I heard that there is one bedrooms in it as well. I don't know. Was that not finalized? I just thought I remember seeing there's almost no one bedrooms in here.
Thank you for a question through the chair to the counselor's question. We are still looking at the overall mix in collaboration with staff. Once we go through the development permit process, we will be meeting the minimum family unit count, but in terms of how many of the single occupant or smaller units or other studio or one bed, we'll work through open design to make sure that that's clearer through the development permit. Okay. Yeah, thanks. That's my time.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Kirby Young. Yeah, I have a simple question, and I think it's
to the applicant again. And it was really about pool that you said, proposed and taken out and that was in response to feedback from adjacent neighbors or I was just looking for confirmation we we see very few projects nowadays are being built with amenities like pools so I thought that was a nice creative addition so it's coming out because
thank you for your question counselor the the swimming pool was a great idea we still lament the fact that we needed to remove it from the project it wasn't only because there was objection from the neighbor that we removed the pool there are significant carrying and maintenance costs associated with keeping pools safe, keeping pools clean. The more we dug into it, the more we realized we could support the neighbor's concerns with regard to that pool because we also felt it was adding a lot of extraneous cost to the project. It was making it harder for us to control those rents. But we love the idea of a pool. We'd like to do more of that kind of thing. We're quite excited about the amenity program here. We do still have a a tremendous hillside slide for kids and an outdoor sauna planned for that courtyard which is hard to see but it's shown in the rendering and a lot of outdoor and indoor exercise equipment and recreational space so we're going to be putting a lot of amenities into the project but the pool wasn't feasible in this one unfortunately.
Okay the amenities sound creative and it's is it pet friendly? Yes absolutely. Great thank you thank you. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Orr. Sorry yeah with my 30
would be the expecting in the new building do we know that can I defer that question to
my colleague Molly I've got I can sorry I can grab that data I can't do it in 15 seconds
I can eventually I'd appreciate that thanks you bet thank you very much Councillor Maloney
Sorry, did you hear that online? Yes, I did. I will grab that data for you. Thank you. A minute or two. Yeah. We can just chat amongst ourselves and give you some time. No other questions?
No, I have no other questions.
As I'm looking for current tenant average rates, I can say that the current average rent market rent on the east side is around 1,900. for a studio, 2,200 for a one bed, 2,800 for a 2 bed, and 3800 for a 3 bed, and then I will find those current rents.
Take your time. I've got another three minutes.
This is Annie here. Just while Molly's looking for that data, I just wanted to clarify, this is the citywide TRP, so tenants have a right to return at a 20% discount to the market. And so the applicant, you know, would hopefully peg those rents at a 20% discount to the market. If they could afford those rents likely higher than the rents they're paying right now, they would be offered the right to return. But it isn't like the enhanced TRP in other areas of the city, like Broadway plan and NRTAs, where they're offered that 20% discount or their existing rents, whichever is lower. no income testing, just outright. So citywide TRP is a little bit different. And so tenants will be offered that right to return six months, you kind of close to occupancy. They have 45 days to decide. And if they can afford it, then they get to go in at that rate. And they get that rate with kind of RTA increases annually until they move out. And then as Molly said to your question counselor or the rents would reset to the market for, for the remainder. So I don't know if that helps clarify just while we're looking for the existing rents that folks are paying. He's nodding.
Great. So good? I think we're just waiting for Molly to come back.
Sorry, that's right. Perhaps we could just ask that after after speakers. Yeah. I yeah, I did I did just grab a sample of the existing rents. There are currently one bedrooms, two bedrooms. and I believe one four bedroom on on site currently. And so for the one bedrooms from the sample I took, the average rent per month is around 1,300. And for the two beds that I sampled, the average rent per month currently is $1,300. And sorry, that would have been at the rezoning application. Thank you very much. You're welcome. And we're at time. Thank you.
Okay. Seeing no one else in the queue, this is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to
council about this item, please call toll free at 1-833-353-8610 followed by participant code 106-14-5 pound for the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on next and displayed during the recess. We're now going to hear from the public. Any speakers in the council chamber please come forward to the left podium when it's your turn. Phone and speakers will be unmuted when it's your turn to speak. Speakers will have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered. So our first registered speaker is Philip Ostrehovsky. I hope I pronounce your name correctly. Is Philip present?
Yes, I am. Can you hear me? Yes, please go ahead. Okay, thank you so much. Good evening, Mayor and Councillors. My name is Philip Hosk. And I'm calling the speak in support of the proposal at 333 Commercial Drive. My children both attend Stratford Hall, an Indian school that is right across the street from the site. And this location is in the Kensington Cedar Cottage neighborhood. And it's incredibly rich with amenities. We all know about trout Lake and the community center, the ice rink, where my kids skate, the farmers market, which are just a block away from the site, as is a block away from the site, as is Clark Park, which is right beside it. Commercial Street is just around the corner from the site and small independent retail and coffee shops are within walking distance. The well-respected Equinoff's gallery offers free admissions to their contemporary artworks, and Little Italy and the drive are just a short distance to the north. Simply put, more people should have the opportunity to live in this great area. The number 20 bus runs a long commercial and SkyTrain is, less than 15 minutes away by foot. The project proposes 133 new purpose-build rental homes and keeps the height at six stories to respect the current built form and character. This should very easily or could very easily be the future home of Shepard Hall staff, faculty, and even students. With respect to that, I encourage a speedy approval of this project and effort to renew our aging housing stop. And I appreciate your time. Thank you.
next speaker speaker number two brin davidson staff and uh mayor and council i'm bren davidson
kona lane fab calling the speak in support of the project um in this case i'm speaking as a business owner resident of the neighborhood our office is is is just up the block on commercial street um it is as the other speaker said it's a really it's a great location um i love these two blocks because it kind of breaks all the planning rules and is this kind of crazy but lovable mishmash of everything from industrial to commercial to retail to townhouses and so i think this project at six stories is a great size it's going to fit right in i walk past this site almost every day either with the dog or i'm on my bike we walk to trout lake we walk to sky train um i can i don't know it's almost hard to think of a better location in the city for a bunch of folks to be able to have their home um for the project um i think like to say i you know i generally think that the fabric team does great work um they've got a nice project uh six stories great package of amenities i love the bike shed um and so i would just hope that you will go forward and uh keep this thing going because i think this is exactly the kind of project
that we need so thanks great thank you very much speaker number three is neil wiles yeah speaker three is disconnected okay uh speaker number four ruth cherry with here
Speaker number five, Grace McKenzie. I have a handout for the mayor and council. It's just my it's just my speech in point form because it's case I dropped out of a stroke while I'm doing my speech, at least you'll know what I wanted to say. Thanks. Okay, all right. I get me self-organized here.
Am I? We can hear you great. Okay, maybe I'll just squish that down a bit. Okay. Let me just. just get organized. I'm started already. Here we go. I'm, shh. Wait, I'm started already. Please, please don't start me because my speech is exactly five minutes. Okay. But we do have to start the timer. I'm just sorry. I'm ready. Okay, my name is Grace McKenzie. I own the property directly south of the proposed development. I am opposed to this proposal if it involves close to my 60 foot property line. My backyard shares a 60 foot property line with the southwest section of 333 commercial. The southwest section of 333 commercial is approximately 20 feet higher than the eastern section of the lot. This 20 foot elevated land is currently level with my backyard and I want it to stay that way. The elevated section of 333 commercial is currently supported by a well-drained retaining wall that that begins at about 15 feet tall at the northeast corner of my property and becomes shorter as it runs north across the site. If this wall is demolished or if the land is excavated too close to my property line, my land could collapse. There was another development to the east of me in 2020, and they had to go onto the property at 33333 Commercial Drive to rebuild their retaining wall that abuts my northeast corner because my land was collapsing during their construction.
Along my back property line, I have four, 72-foot-tall trees, including two in the northeast corner. Any excavation near these trees risks destabilizing them. They could topple easily if their root systems are disturbed. These trees are essential for my privacy and will help protect me from being overlooked by the new development. I want to make it absolutely clear that I will not sign off on having my trees removed. The project must be redesigned to retain them. This is per the staff report on page 12.1.5. I'm here to ask council for larger setbacks of the unexcavated land at the back 60-foot length of my property to allow my trees to be retained and to let council know that I want to be consulted on the final design and updated arborist report to confirm that it adequately protects my trees. Based on the applicant's material and discussions with a rezoning planner, the proposed underground parkade is proposed to be a 40-foot deep excavation surrounded by a concrete retaining wall for the parkade and only 12 feet from my backyard. The setback was changed from 11. 11 feet 10 inches to 12 feet. Also proposed is a 15-foot drop in elevation with a retaining wall running directly along my property line. I do not want any drop in elevation or underground parkade retaining wall by my property line. The council report says the parking is not being decided at the public hearing, but is being left to the development department to decide. Landscaping is in this position. as well. The development permit department may decide that the parking required for a building this dense will require an excavation as large as is proposed. The site sits on a steep hill and there is significant rainwater runoff from properties on Fleming Street to the west and East 18th Avenue to the south. If too much land, if too much land behind my property is excavated, the remaining soil may not absorb or redirect this rainwater runoff properly. My property could become waterlogged, causing instability. My requests to council are larger setbacks of unexcavated land along the full 60-foot length of my property line. A commitment that I will be consulted on the final design and the updated Arborist Report to ensure my trees are properly protected. No drop in elevation between my backyard and the south section of 3333 Commercial. A redesign of the project as necessary to retain my trees and to avoid deep excavation near my property. If the excavation cannot be reduced, then the height and density of this project must be reduced, meaning less units and therefore less parking stalls will be required by the development permit board. I'd like to see a Tranquility Garden on the site behind me. Thank you.
Thanks, Grace. And yet a few seconds to spare. Thank you. Thank you for coming in. Is that it?
Don't want to ask me anything?
I can't hear very well.
Thank you.
Speaker number six, Lee Chappelle.
Oh. Thank you.
Mayor and council members, my name is Lee Chappelle. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. As a Vancouver resident who lives close to this site, I oppose the development in its current development in its current form and these are my concerns. Density distribution. The city previously committed to spreading new density evenly across neighbourhoods. But this proposal further breaks that promise. There is about 10 new large rental projects that have been built in this immediate neighbourhood in just the last decade and they all have vacancy signs on them. Next is city policy. A six-story building is being proposed, even though according to section four of the secured rental policy of July 2025, buildings of this height are required to provide 20% secured below market rental units. It's unclear, confusing, I heard the explanation, but I still don't understand it, why the developer is being permitted to build six stories without providing below market units and without making any community amenity contribution, while the city still receives its financial return. Next is issues with the development. and parking assumptions. The number of required parking stalls is a major factor in calculating a pro forma. The council report on page 7 item number four says that parking requirements are not finalized until the development permit stage. If parking is not yet determined, then how did real estate services conclude within the pro forma that the project lacks the capacity to deliver below market rental units? This inconsistency raises questions about the validity of the financial analysis. Infrastructure and site stability issues. There is a history of inadequate drainage in this area, including problems with the neighbouring Conrad's site retaining wall slash dam. Extensive excavation raises concerns about undermining the stability of the surrounding land. The Conrad's retaining wall is tilting eastward in the 10 years since it was built. I am concerned that the same undermining of soil to surrounding properties will happen with the huge excavation of this project. Concerns about the status of the development company. Our neighbour, I want to say with all due respect, this was done and I'm going to read it out. Our neighbourhood group, the CCAN, used a public library service to access the BC registry, and we were informed that the 3333 Commercial Investments Inc. is not currently in good standing. Companies that are not in good standing, generally cannot legally enter into contracts, raising concern about the legitimacy and the reliability of the applicant. So finally, this proposal is now moving to the development permit stage, where the detailed design of the project is reviewed. At that stage, the public does not have an opportunity to provide input. The applicant should be advised now to revise the plans to retain neighbouring trees and increase setbacks. In particular, the underground parkade's retaining walls need to be positioned farther from adjacent properties to preserve unexcavated land around the new building, ensuring proper rainwater runoff from the site. Thank you.
Speaker number seven, Vanessa Savage.
Good evening, Mayor and City Councillors. My name is Vanessa Savage. I work at Lakeview Care Centre, which is right across the street, just south of of the Croatian Cultural Centre from the proposed site, and I'm here to support it. As a staff member, I'm on the recreation team there. So I, along with, it's a 177-bed, two-building care facility, long-term care home. And it's 24-hour staffed. And so from my perspective, providing more housing in that community, community benefits many people in the community and a long-term care home is a community with families, with staff, with the residents and the staff, I'm lucky enough. I live in Strathcona, so my commute is short and sweet. I did live in the Trout Lake area in in the 90s and I love the area and I love the way it's been developed and I think we've heard a lot from the supporters about how great it is and how close it is to Trout Lake and all the amenities and so I don't think I need to elaborate on that. From my perspective, I think it would provide more opportunities for staff who have to, many staff actually live in Surrey and other places where they have very long commutes. So more housing stock provided for them would be a great benefit. And also to family members. Many, I don't know if anybody here has had that experience of a family member going into care. It's, you know, it's quite a transition. A lot of people don't have the opportunity to have family members close by, and they're, particularly in cases of spouses, they're put into homes or need to go into homes that are not close. And so it is nice to be. able to — the idea that people may move to be closer. And also people also think long-term care homes are often where people go right at the end of their lives. And of course, sometimes that is the case. But in places like Lakeview, there are people that have huge that have huge medical situations when they're as young as they're in their 40s or 50s or 60s and they live for a long time. And so it can only benefit families if they have an ability to be closer to their spouses. And in fact, I do know, while recently his partner passed away, a gentleman that moved to be closer to his wife who was at Lakeview until quite recently. So, yeah, I see it as a positive. just to increase housing stock around a place like Lakeview and a neighbourhood that I think is just wonderful. And if I didn't live in Strathcona, I would definitely love to be living in that area. So, yeah, thank you for letting me speak, and I hope that you'll support this application.
Speaker number eight, Stephen Bowes.
Yes, I have some slides. Chair.
Are they up?
Are up. Okay. Thank you, Mayor and Council for letting me speak. My name is Stephen Bowes. I'm a Vancouver resident and a renter, and I oppose this rezoning. It doesn't have any below-market rental units, and you can see the current rental building on the site. And I'd like to thank Councillors Maloney and Orr for the questions about what the current rents are, and $1,300 for a one-bed, average, or $1,400 for a two-bed. That's pretty affordable. And the proposal is to essentially force all the tenants to be displaced, and if anyone wants to come back, that's 20% below the market rent. And that could be a significant increase in rent. So this is not very good for renters. Next slide. So on this slide, you're going to see the rezoning application sign. And if you look closely, there is a sticker on it, and my concern is that there isn't any information about the updated rezoning, because this is an old application sign for a five-story building. And in fact, there is a six-story building with more units and different specifications. And all you can see is that there's this update to application sticker there and go see the website. And I think it wouldn't have been that difficult to make another sticker that would have gone over the description of the rezoning or a new sign to better inform us of what's being proposed. there. The other thing I will note is that there is no requirement here in this rezoning for the 20% below market rents, and that is actually part of the SRP. And there is land list. Like, I think that we need a different opinion than staff making a determination in light of the Auditor General's report there on that matter. Next slide, please. And you'll see a shadow study. And I'll also note that there is a difference in grade, and I really don't see that retaining wall here that much. But the concerns raised, actually, the issues raised by an earlier speaker about the huge grade differential has to be settled at the council stage as a requirement of a CD-1 rezoning if you choose to pass this. It's unfair to shuffle this off. to the DP stage, that kind of drop on a slope site has, will create geotechnical issues or I believe it will, and it may damage trees on neighbouring properties. So the request to have, you know, a setback of the retaining wall is quite reasonable or to keep the existing profile would make a lot of sense in terms of neighbourliness. The other thing I wanted to bring up is that these shadow studies are linked on the agenda page for this public hearing. You click on one of the pages for renderings, and then you get this. And the interesting thing is that, one, you can see that the shadows for the equinox are cut off on the left-hand side, and like which equinox is it?
Is it the spring or is the fall because the shadows are slightly different? But the bigger issue is that the shadows are incorrect. So staff have put forward incorrect shadow studies. and this also brings my question up about is the determination on other things and stuff that there is no land list actually correct. Next slide. So on this slide, you can see, I've just gone to NOAA's solar calculator. You can use many others on the web. And here you can just grab a location, put it down, type in the date, 10 o'clock, May 20th. So that's the spring equinox. and then turn on the azimate elevation. And you can see the degrees from the sun's above the horizon and from north as that line. Next slide. And here I've taken that line that shows the direction of the sun and superpose it on the shadow city. The shadow city is wrong. The shadow cities are all wrong here for the equinox. And I think that staff can have an opportunity to explain when they're asked, are there any more questions why the shadow cities. are incorrect because you shouldn't be presenting incorrect information. And there are a lot of other issues, but these are my five minutes. I hope that you can do something about the great condition and defourability because we need 20% below market as part of the SRP. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is number nine. Andy Sylvester. Mayor and council for the opportunity to speak this evening. I support this project. My name is Andy Sylvester. and I own Equinox Gallery on Commercial Street, which is just a few blocks away from this development proposed, from this proposed development. My gallery represents the work of several Vancouver artists, including the estate of Fred Herzog, Sean Hunt, Sonia Sue, Bobby Bergers, and the estate of Gordon Smith, to name just a few. The neighborhood is culturally active, partly due to its diversity, walkability, the proximity to Trout Lake Park, amazing cafes, and of course, good galleries. In my view, Vancouver residents would welcome access to a variety of housing options to call this neighborhood home. I look forward to seeing this project delivered, and I think I'll be a good neighbor. Thank you very much. Good night. Thank you very much. Speaker number 10, Michael Barak. Hello, can everybody hear me? We can hear you great. Please go ahead. Sure. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I appreciate the opportunity to share a few brief comments on this proposal. I know you've been here all day, so I won't keep you much longer. In effort of full transparency, I will also note that I do work in the development industry. However, I am also raising my young family with three kids in its neighborhood,
which is why I've been following this project. And I've generally been living in this area for the last 10-plus years. So we love the area, and a big part of its appeal has been its family-friendly and small business friendly nature. An additional 200 rentals will further animate our streets and parks and will support our unique independent businesses, not to mention adding much-needed rental housing stock to the city. As you've heard, this area is extremely amenity rich with Clark Park, Trout Lake Park, and Community Center and several schools within walking distance. This is the right location for new housing, especially for projects of this type. Our family is pleased to support and welcome new residents and neighbors. Great. Thank you very much. Speaker number 11, Samantha McQueen. Hi, can you hear me? Okay, great. Hi, my name is Samantha McQueen. I'm a resident of Vancouver. And good evening, Mayor and Councilors. I will also keep my comments brief, but I live just off of Commercial Drive with my two children and husband. And I am in support of this project because I'm happy to see new homes particularly rental homes being built nearby. Living in the area, it's nice to see a project of this size that's near transit, near those amenities like Trout Lake, Trout Lake Community Center, and it's nice to see that there are family size units available in this building. And I just also wanted to add that fabric. seems to be a good developer with a great history of doing urban projects in the area. And so I'm looking forward to seeing this project come to life. Thank you. Thank you very much. And that is the end of our speakers list. Are there any additional speakers in the chamber? If so, please come to the podium. I have a presentation. You have a presentation, Louis? Yeah. Here we go. Let's go for the first slide, please. My name is Louis Villegas. I live in Vancouver. I have practiced urbanism in Canada and the United States for over 40 years. I oppose this rezoning.
Two slides forward, please. That's good. The proposal is too tall for this neighborhood. The slender facade and carefully calculated angle of view in this drawing hides a humongous block in behind it. The architecture is cheap and speculative. Garage doors do not belong on the street. The ground floor is missing doors and door yards opening directly to the street. Around the next corner on commercial street, not commercial drive, we enter an original 1900s town site. Hey yet, heritage, tradition, sense of place are the baby's government is throwing out with the bathwater. The sky train operating on elevated guideways across the street is noisy and dehumanizing. And one or two, and it's one of two. primary causes triggering the housing crisis. Next. Government badly miscalculated choosing SkyTrain. Capacity and costs have degraded the system to a people mover status. The exorbitant cost of the SkyTrain have produced predictable results. Housing pressure to build big buildings in the neighborhoods and land speculation. An alternative is available. Modern LRT streetcar delivers more capacity at approximately one-tenth the cost. Next slide, please. Let's consider the SkyTrain loop. It measures just 8.5 kilometers, miles, I'm sorry, but it concentrates capacity in too small an urban footprint, hitting neighbors in a bidding war for housing. Next. The SkyTrain must queue to enter the loop further degrading capacity. In engineering terms, this means longer headways or separation between trains. As train separations increase, fewer passengers are carried per hour. Considered that Broadway tunnel trains will run on six minutes separations. That is four times longer than the Mark 5 spec delivering one quarter the capacity, or just 8,000 people per hour in the Broadway tunnel built for $3 billion. Next please. This is the context in which this overly high proposal is being wedged into one of Vancouver's oldest neighborhoods, a rail transit system with constrained passenger capacity. While the Mark 5 trains will deliver or are rated to deliver 32,000 people per hour, the real numbers are different. The Broadway tunnel will deliver just 8,000 passengers. The Canada line, 9,200, and it is full at peak. The Expo line, 16,000 people per hour, and it's also full at peak. The Millennium Line has less than 8,000 riders because its cross-down function is negated for the downtown trains being full.
The markets respond to the untenable conditions created by a captive population by lifting land prices and causing monsters like this one to build in the neighborhoods. Next, please. Consider that over the first 40 years of service, the Skytrain has delivered an average of just two kilometers of route. No, the building. No, no, no, the buildings are the models. Scale economy. Developers are honest Canadians making a good living, okay? It's just, you know. Okay, you probably, maybe I'll change that. But thank you for the observation. Next slide, please. The regional scale puts it all in perspective. Capacity is concentrated in an undersized loop. The trains cannot reach the places where land abounds for delivering affordable houses and quantity sufficient to meet or exceed demand. Government then responds by adding too much density in the constricted core area. Next. In Stark Relief, LRT. Skytrain travels 150 miles. Cheaply, it can reach Whistler, Hope, Chilawak. Gap doors can build along the new lines, revitalizing neighborhoods and seating up to one tram town every mile. Housing affordability will retain, return, and the pressure to build over tall buildings in the neighborhoods will simply disappear. Monstrous buildings. Next. Comparing the two scales makes the miscalculation crystal clear. Next. Consider the difference, 21 kilometers of SkyT or 140 kilometers of LRT. Seven times more route will greatly expand housing choices, doing away with these untenable pressures. Next. Stark contrast, interregional LRT streetcar is a win-win for the city. All lines converge here. Vancouver wins when the regions build out because this city hosts the supply lines. Rather than permitting out of scale buildings. buildings in the neighborhoods. Next. Not this, and I'm sorry I don't have a slab building, so I'm throwing towers. Or this, or this. Nobody wants to live in a sterile architecture. Next slide, please. Like this one. One more slide forward, please. And one more slide forward, please. Government made the housing crisis. Next slide. Government must solve it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We're at time. Thank you very much. Okay, Claire Carr, there are any additional speakers online. No speakers are on the line. Thank you. This is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll free at 1-833-353- 353-86106-1-445 pound. Before the close of the speakers list, the phone number will
be posted on next and displayed during the recess. We're now going to take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in or come forward to the podium. Do we have any speakers in the
council in the chamber or online? We have no speakers on the line.
Okay. Seeing no further speakers, the speakers list is now closed. Has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item since 5 p.m.?
No, there has not.
Okay. Seeing no, seeing that there are fewer no public comments received after 5 p.m., I'm now closing received of public comments.
Does the applicant have any closing comments? Thank you, Mayor and Council. Only that we're willing to work collaboratively with our neighbor to make sure those trees that are of great concern and the retaining wall that's been brought up will be properly managed. We already do have a design that
that deal with them to explain that and to bring them some comfort. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do our team members have any closing comments? Staff have no closing comments. Thank you. Does council have any final questions for the team members, noting no additional questions to the applicant are permitted. Counselor Classen. Thanks, Mayor. Just a real quick question.
Just regarding the trees and it's hard to tell from all the renderings. I realize that there is quite a grade that kind of change in that one. So I just from for staff, just, I have seen retaining wall challenges and other projects. I was notified about a child care that had retaining wall that fall down from neighboring property. So I just wondering what to what can be done to ensure to give some peace of mind to the neighbor that's raising the concerns about that. And I actually, looking at the renderings, I can see there's significant vegetation, land, escaping that is intended to try and be good with any kind of water retention for the soil and so.
I'd like to defer that to my colleague in engineering, Kava, who's on the line. Okay. Hi, there. Kave Imani with Devon Major Projects Engineering Services. The design of the retaining will will be something that the applicant and their consultant, along with their professional engineers, will have to work through as part of the development and billing permit process. That will be submitted for review and approval by the city. So something that would be looking
into a little bit further down the line. Thanks very much. And just I did read in the report that says that two neighboring trees would be sacrificed as a result of this. A neighbor talked about
having all these 72 foot high trees. Are any of those? going to be affected? So the two trees that are on the neighbor's properties do require their
assigned letter of consent from the name the owner in order to remove them. So
without that, there would need to be some rework in order to not disturb the trees.
See, okay. All right. Thanks for answering those questions. Thank you. Councillor Kirby Young. Yeah, following up and one quick question, on the one speaker, the adjacent neighbor we heard from, and it was referenced page 12 provision 1.5 and I know it says here should consent not be received in the event that tree removal consent cannot be obtained design development will be required to retain all of the trees in the neighboring properties and or any trees that straddle a property line and just for looking to staff or clarification the applicant is well
aware of that obviously correct and feels that provisions could be made if the adjacent neighbor does not provide consent that is correct the applicant is aware of
that condition okay thank you
Thank you very much. Okay, so clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the close of public comments? And I know there's email that.
No further correspondence has been received.
Okay, so council will now make its decision on this application. Do we have a mover for the recommendation? Councillor Kirby Young, seconded by Councillor Klassen. Council, is there any discussion?
Councillor Klassen? Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Just a real brief comments to say that I've been really marveling at how this neighborhood has evolved. It was once industrial land and so slowly over time, we're starting to see some fantastic looking projects, housing projects in this area. We heard from Brent Davis and called in a visit his office down there. That commercial street area is really a fantastic neighborhood node, which is right near to this location. And just the other comments that really spoke to me were the representative came in today from Lakeview Care and speaking really to the fact. Something I think about a lot is the importance of aging in place and aging with dignity and allowing people to have partners and friends close. And this care home has a service a really important community need for for people late in their years. And this new housing will certainly potentially benefit some of the families that have people and care of there as well. So I plan to support this project.
Yeah, thanks. I'll also be brief. I am pleased to support the project. I think it's a thoughtful response to the specific site conditions. And I actually think it's an attractive-looking project. And I actually think it's an attractive-looking project. And I actually think it's an attractive-looking project. I appreciate applicants that bring forward some creativity with respects to provision of amenities. I think we're starting to see more and more of that in rental housing. But I think it's unique to contemplate things that add sort of quality of life to residents. And so we heard things about sort of some thought and attention to landscaping. Maybe there's some play or large slide, asana. And I sort of appreciate the additional extra level of effort and just thought to how people are going to be living day to day. I'm sort of assessing that. It is not a particularly high building, but it does achieve because of the width, a fairly substantive number of units at the 133. So I appreciate the thought that's gone into it, and I'm happy to support it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Seeing notice in the queue, oh, sorry, Councillor Orr. Yeah. This one's tough for me. I mean, like many people have heard, I think below market rentals are very important and that the policy for six stories should include 20% BMR.
But just that up to six stories may be considered for projects on materials where residential components include the minimum of 20% secure below market rental housing. And then it says this application complies with the location criteria. So I'm just still a little confused by. I really want to support this. It's like a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's, a nice looking project on a unique site and near the Skytrain and all that. I'm still wavering on whether to support outright or just to sort of support in a different way. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to call the vote. A reminder that any council member participating virtually Hughes videos disabled will be marked absent for the vote. Section 14.13 of the bylaw, procedure bylaw, that is.
Okay, let's go to the voting panel, and that passes unanimously. That completes item number two. Okay, item number three, CD-1 rezoning, 3553 through 3563 East Hastings Street. Does any counselor have a conflict that they need to declare? Okay, seeing no one's hands up, the clerk's now going to read the application and summary of correspondence received. This is an application by PC1 developments to rezone 3553 to 3563 to 3563 East Hastings
Street from C-2C1 Commercial District to CD-1-comprehensive Development District to permit the developments of an 18-story mixed-use building containing 178 rental units with 20% of the residential floor area for below market rental units and commercial space on the ground floor. A floor space ratio, FSR, of 8.60, and a height of 59.1 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. 15 pieces of correspondence in support, 10 pieces of correspondence in opposition, and one piece of correspondence dealing with other aspects of the application. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today.
Thank you very much. This is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll free at 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 106-1-445 pound before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. There will be an opportunity for new speakers and miss speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. Now, we do have team members from planning, urban design, and sustainability here to present the application.
Thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor and Council, members of the public. My name is Ricardo Peggy. I'm the planner assigned to this rezoning application at 3553 to 3563 East Hastings Street. The subject site is located mid-block on the north side of East Hastings between Skeena and Cootney Street, immediately west of the Cootney Loop Exchange. This portion of East Hastings between Highway 1 and Boundary Road contains a mix of commercial and mixed-use residential buildings with a range of heights up to 14 stories. The neighborhood to the north of the site, is predominantly low-rise residential with Sir John Franklin Elementary School located a block to the north. The site itself is currently vacant. The site is within Tier 4 of the transit-oriented area's rezoning policy, which enables residential developments with heights up to 12 stories and densities up to 4 FSR, within 200 meters of a bus exchange. This proposal is to rezone the site to a comprehensive development. development to enable the development of a mixed-use residential building with ground floor commercial space. The proposed height is 18 stories or 59.1 meters, and the density is 8.6 FSR. The development will contain 178 residential housing units, and 20% of the residential floor area will be for below-market rental units. This application required careful review to achieve a viable development, that would support additional density next to a transit exchange while also meeting urban design objectives. The proposed height, density, tower floorplate, and tower setbacks were reviewed against applicable policies and design guidelines. In this case, assessing the broader urban design principles, staff support the proposal. 37 pieces of correspondence were received during public consultation. Supportive feedback cited new rental housing in a transit accessible location, with many noting that the vacant site is well suited for the development. Some also noted the additional commercial space would add vibrancy to the area. Some concerns were also expressed. The primary concern was about height and shadowing in relation to the elementary school property to the north. Shadowing was carefully considered and reviewed. In this case, staff found that the proposed building meets the solar access guidelines for areas outside of downtown and will not result in adverse shadowing over Sir John Franklin Elementary School. Another concern was about impacts to street parking and traffic in the area. The development is required to provide parking and loading as per the requirements of the parking bylaw. The site also provides excellent access to transit given its location next to the Kootenay Loop Exchange and is within walking and biking distance of many neighborhood amenities to complete. daily errands. Lastly, there were concerns about the impact of increased traffic on the function of the rear laneway. Staff point to recommended conditions of approval from engineering, which will ensure functionality of that rear laneway. The public benefits of this application consist of DCLs and a public art contribution with a total value of $2 million. The proposal includes 178 rental units and 20% of the residential floor area as below market rentals. The below market rental units are proposed to be rented at 10% below the CMHC citywide average. Based on the review of the projects pro forma, staff consider the proposed rate to be supportable. In summary, staff recommends approval of this application subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix B. This concludes my presentation, both staff and the applicant team are available.
to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to present the
application? Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name's Tim Grant. Sorry, I can't be with you in Chambers this evening, but my colleague, Cheryl and I, Cheryl, who is in Chambers, are representing PCI developments. We don't have anything further to add to staff's presentation other than just to thank them for their work with us and thank the members of the community that continue to work with us closely on hopefully what will be another great positive rental housing development.
for the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for, from council, to our team members, or the applicant, noting that this is the only opportunity for council to ask questions of the applicant. Not seeing anyone in the queue. So I'm going to move on. This is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll free at 1-833-353-86-106-14-pound. Before the close of the speaker's list, the phone number will be posted on and displayed during the recess. Now, we're now going to hear from the public. Any speakers in the council chamber, please come forward to the left podium when it's your turn. Phone and speakers will be unmuted when it's your turn to speak. Speakers will have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered. Our first registered speaker is Dennis Agar, or ajar. Is Dennis on the phone? Yes, I am. Great. And sorry if I didn't pronounce your name correctly. Please go ahead.
Hi, everyone. I'm Dennis Agar. I'm the executive director of movement Metro Vancouver transit riders. But I'm here just speaking in my capacity. I was a resident of Vancouver. I'm excited to see development in this location. It's a vote of confidence in the ability of buses to drive transit-oriented development. You know, Jared Walker is one of the key thinkers about public transit network design. He says that a really important principle of transit planning is the easiest way to get good transit access is to be on the way. between two key nodes. And this site is extremely on the way. It's on the way between SFU, Burnaby Heights, and downtown. It's on the way between Metrotown, which is a really important node, and the North Shore. It's at the crossroad of those two major axes in the region. And for that reason, it's always going to be well served by transit. In fact, it's only going to get better from here. We can expect bus rapid transit to be launching soon, which will speed up the link from here to the expo line, which connects these residents to hundreds of thousands of jobs. And, you know, I don't think it's controversial to speculate that we can expect a higher form of transit on Hastings from downtown. At some point in the next few decades, we'll certainly be fighting for it. So I love the high FSR in this location. I love the way it adds retail to the street. I look forward to seeing what designs we may see to put some housing over top of bus loop next door, eventually, and fill in that streetwall. So I'm here to just just. speak fully in support of this application.
Speaker's not on the line. He's in council.
A bit on me, a bit on my involvement, a bit on the community, a bit on my involvement in the community, and on PCI. I support the project. I lived in the community since 93, do the math. I tend to think of myself as a community builder, I'm engaged in many different things within the community and within a whole bunch of boards. I don't tell my wife all of them. But there's half a dozen at least. On the community, it's a bit of a tired place. The stretch along Hastings between, sorry, between Cassiard and boundary. It's a dead zone when we first moved there. There were bridal stores, lots of them. And other stores with no apparent owner or with no apparent clearly apparent product they were selling. That's changed. And developments like this are opportunities for change. We all know we need more housing in this city. Yes. We need more housing around dense, sorry, around transportation nubs like this. Yes. And I think this project will give us that opportunity, especially as, and I'm supportive of, the fact it's, has a portion I'd like to see higher of non-income housing in it. The PCI to the project itself, there is a lot of pushback within the community around the two developments on Yarrow and Astor, those of the names, across the street and up a bit. But PCI did a lovely job on navigating that, both the safety issues, the congestion, issues, and I did not hear much, if anything, negative on that. And if this project proceeds, I will certainly endeavor to push them on that, as well other members in the community, and to push them on engaging better in street, what I call this streetscape. I do not want franchise X or American or some foreign product. They're selling something. I want local stores and local entrepreneurs. entrepreneurs is we don't have much in the way of walkable green grocers in our little strip area. And we need something walkable. The city has done a very decent job recently in changing the area from, sorry, in the traffic calming. Some of those measures have come into place, and I've seen a reduction in people zipping through the neighborhood as a result of that. But they need to focus, I think, on making the whole city more walkable bikes, of course, bikes. And have the residents be able to go and get all of their daily products from their neighborhood. Those are my comments. Thank you very much.
Can you guys hear me?
Please go ahead. And Councilor, can you turn on your camera, please? Thank you.
Yeah, hi. I'm just, I just thought I'd take the opportunity to call in and just a little bit on myself. I've lived in the area for 50 plus years. I was born and raised with schools in the area. And I think I've got a little bit of perspective on where we've been and where we're going. I think in terms of perspective, I think as the previous fellow mentioned, that area of Hastein has been a relative nomadsland for a number of years, well, probably decades, if not more. You know, we're not, we're not the area west of Renfrew, which. has more of a vibrant commercial area, nor are we North Burning. So we lack retail of any scope. We also don't have a lot of housing area, especially rental. Another thing I've noticed over the years is it has historically been, I wouldn't say run down, but it hasn't been the best area and it tends to attract a lot of unfavorian characters on either side of Hastings. Now, having said that, I think we definitely need investment and revitalization on that part of Hastings. and as for that, I'm completely in favor of this project. Now, in terms of PCI, again, as the last gentleman mentioned, they came in three or four years ago and they proposed two significantly large buildings in the neighborhood, which for a lot of people was quite alarming. And I must say, based on the outreach they did and based on their performance in terms of building, I was pleasantly surprised. Given the scope of those buildings, I was impressed by both the lack of issues on the site. They seemed to go in, they did the construction, their employees respected the neighborhood, whether it was parking, whether it was creating noise, whether it was addressing concerns from the community. They did an outstanding job in my view. And to this day, the building is well maintained. There seems to be a lot less graffiti, vandalism in that part and that alley. And just overall, my hope is that with this proposed building, which is replacing essentially an empty lot, they can continue to add more housing, add more retail opportunities, and really turn that strip of Hacy's into a more vibrant area where we can walk to shops instead of having to take our business by a car, you know, a kilometer either way. So in summary, I'm very supportive of the project, and I look forward to having it completed. Thank you.
Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Patricia Peron. I'm a Brazilian architect and urbanist and a former resident of Yero, the PCI-built rental building directly across the street from this proposed rezoning and Hastings Street. I'm in opposition of two to this rezoning at this time based of my direct experience in the purpose-built rental and moderate income model delivered at Yero by PCI developments. I moved into Yero immediately after occupancy in December 2021 under the Vancouver's moderate income rental housing program, now below market rental, which was presented as a rare opportunity. You have won the lottery moment. It promised long-term affordability, stability, and community. I supported this model because I believe in urban density done well. But what I experienced was the opposite. A couple of years after completion, Yero was quietly sold by PCI to Real Star. Tenants were not informed about how the sale would affect the moderate income program, the city's requirements, or our housing security. After the ownership change, residents who raised concerns about building issues face intimidation. Common areas, amenity rooms, and rooftops were closed indefinitely without explanation. Fees increased. Rules change arbitrarily. I personally experienced. I personally experienced. verbal harassment from the new management and received formal written warning letters implying eviction despite no legal grounds, simply for creating a tenant Facebook group to build community. Those letters created fear. They created instability, and they directly contradicted the housing security promised by the program and by a purpose-built rental housing. At no point were tenants clearly informed about one, whether the most of the most moderate income program will continue. Two, whether affordability requirements remain after the sale. Three, whether tenants could be displaced. Four, whether amenities or extra fees could rise unchecked as they're not controlled, like rent increases. Or lastly, how the city would enforce the original conditions after ownership changed. Many of us were left with unanswered questions and no accountability. To this day, those questions, those questions, remain unanswered. After two warning letters and a final eviction notice, I was forced to leave, not because I wanted to, but because I no longer felt safe in my home. This experience matters tonight. The project before you uses the same framework, same neighborhood, and same development model as as Yerol. Yet, there has been no public review of what happened in the Eero after it was sold. And there has been no evaluation from the city. of whether moderate income program protections survived the transfer, and there has been no acknowledgement of the harm inflicted on tenants. Density alone alone does not guarantee affordability. Policy language alone does not guarantee tenant protection. Resoning alone does not guarantee long-term community stability. If a building can be completed, sold within a few years, and effectively reset in terms of management and, accountability, then council must ask, what truly binds this affordability commitments over time? Before approving another similar project across the street, the city must, one, review enforcement of moderate income program after ownership changes. Two, clarify how tenant protections survive a sale. Three, strengthen oversight and enforcement mechanism, and four, ensure residents are not left. in legal, financial, or emotional limbo. Approving this rezoning without addressing these structural weaknesses, risk repeating the same harms. As a former resident, I could list number of designs, livability, and management issues. But tonight, I will summarize simply saying that I am opposed to this project at this time, because the city has not demonstrated that it has corrected the failures experienced in the building directly across the street. Housing policy must protect people, not only at ribb cutting, but five, 10, and 20 years later, until enforceable long-term accountability is embedded in this model. I cannot support expanding it further, especially across the street from where it has already failed its residents. Thank you for your time in consideration.
Speaker, Councilor Kirby Young has some questions for you. Yeah, thanks for speaking
the council on sharing your troubling experience. I just wanted to clarify, have you been in touch with city staff? You said you hadn't been able to rectify it, but have you been connected with staff at city of Vancouver? Sorry. Have you been in touch with City of Vancouver staff at all, or who have you been trying to?
No, we tried contacting the new video management, and they were unanswered for most of the time. And when we started raising those concerns, yeah, we didn't get. any response other than the like an eviction notice.
Okay. I'm just going to flag that hopefully our city staff can connect you with some of our housing.
Yeah, we reach out to the media and it has been like the media has made some some reports regarding this issue. Okay, thank you.
Thanks, Councillor. Okay, so that concludes our — sorry, that's — okay, first of all, are there any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium. Clerk, are there any additional speakers on the line?
No additional speakers on the line.
Just — oh, one moment, yes, there are. Just one moment. We just need a couple minutes to connect them.
Hi, Your Honour. I'm here about the gentrification that I don't agree about them tearing down the buildings and the Oppenheimer Park and the area of my shelter.
Speaker, can you just state your name and whether you're a resident of the City of Vancouver?
I'm a city resident. Yes. And I don't agree with the gentrification of them pushing out the poor and pushing in the rich.
Ann?
Just do need to get your name. I'll let you speak, but I just need to get your name for the record. That's all.
My name is Ann.
I don't agree with the gentrification that's going on about them tearing down Oppenheimer Park and the building, the shelters and the homes around the area where the shelters are and the homeless that's going on out there and all the bad stuff that's going on. And I don't agree with them pushing out the poor and putting — I mean pushing out the poor and pushing in the rich. and taking their homes and displacing them and having places for them nowhere to go and being homeless and out there. And everything is so expensive for everybody to live. And there's a lot of conflict out there with the...
Yeah.
Yeah. On Oppenheimer Park about them pushing it out and also pushing —
Yeah. But it's on... It's for the private current and the social and the shelter rate and the current and the current and proposed about them pushing out the homeless and pushing in the rich and having these places, these people with nowhere to go.
That's it.
We showed that full screen for...
Oh, not so quick.
My name is Louis Vileges. I'm an urban design specialist working in Canada and the U.S. for over 40 years. Next slide, please. I oppose this rezoning. Next. Government land-lift policy has triggered a housing affordability crisis, that has no end in sight. Next. The way to end the crisis is simple. Stop building towers outside the downtown and stop building SkyTrains. Use human-scale build-out and modern street LRT streetcar instead. Next. Housing costs double. Housing spending is cut in half. This year, the price-to-income ratio is forecast to reach 14. That puts house prices 467% over affordability. Next slide, please. And — reduces the 20% below-market policy to a rounding error. Next. At 467%, the shell game is changed. When housing costs quadruple, housing discretionary spending collapses to one quarter, devastating the local economy. Next. Yet even on Hastings Street, there are practical, more valuable approaches with more to offer the neighbourhood. Next, let's do some urban design. I've practised urbanism from Florida to Alaska and many places in between. Hastings is widening to a 90-foot right-of-way. That places it squarely within Parisian Boulevard territory, where the proposed tower would be a bad fit. Across the street is a human-scale building. It presents a 1-2-3 street aspect ratio. When the street is 90 feet wide, the building is 30 feet high. Why? So that the winter sun reaches the sidewalk in our northern city. The 1-2-3 ratio is also a constant in humanist urbanism, creating the sense of place in towns and neighbourhoods. A fourth floor may be added without blocking the winter sun if it is set back to the 1-2-3 ratio. Next. What happens when we build the tower on its side? Restored street symmetry, Hastings lined with trees, sidewalks, and LRT streetcars, riding in the centre median. Next. In order to support four rows of tree planting, the future LRT streetcars can be attached to the northern sidewalk. Next. In all, we would have two 12-foot sidewalks, a seven-foot centre tree median, two traffic lanes on each side, and the LRT attached to the north sidewalk. Four rows of large urban trees would establish Hastings Street as a new boulevard. Next. The neighbourhood form-based code would propose covered arcades on the south side and a 15-foot setback on the north combined with a depressed ground-level floor; the north building would be able to achieve four storeys. Next. This is what human-scale urbanism looks like. Next. Living below the treetops instead of being crowded out by towers. Next. Not this. Next. Not this. Next. No. Next. No concrete jungle in the neighbourhoods. Towers belong downtown, which you can see top left where distance reduces their visual bulk. Next, when government builds towers in the neighbourhoods, it plants the flowers of evil. Next. But if we reverse course and reverse the slide, we can see the alternative. Government created the housing crisis. Now this government must end it. Thank you.
Okay. All right. So.
we have Nile Murphy on the line.
Hey, hi.
Okay. My name is Nile Murphy. I'm a resident of Vancouver, and I oppose this project. I'm a lifelong resident of Vancouver and I've lived on the west side and the east side and both rented and owned accommodations in houses, a three-storey low-rise, now a high-rise. I have lived for 20 years at Kootenay and Pender. and I can look out my living room window and see the Yarrow, a PCI previous development. I want to acknowledge that my statement is partly informed by the letter, affordability through bold evidence-based policy, sent by 27 urbanists to BC politicians, calling for a reset of development policy, and also to my own lived experience. My observation is that the city in its search for affordability continues to make towers the default solution for development. Towers have their place in the city, but they are not always the best form. The right housing supply is livable, secure, affordable, and suited to local neighbourhoods with larger units for families. High-rises inflate land values through land speculation while creating the wrong kind of supply that is mostly small, expensive units in oversized market towers. If we have learned anything in Vancouver, it's that housing strategy must deliver affordability, not just more supply, and that affordability is defined relative to local incomes, not market rental medians. Consistently renters, especially families, support gentle, ground-oriented density options that better match household needs in local context. What has our neighbourhood learned from the two, yes, two existing MERP towers on the 3,600 block of Hastings, which is — what has the neighbourhood learned from the two existing, which were built by PCI as part of the city's pilot project? Neighbours that threatened to move did. Among them, the couple that raised their family in the heritage house behind the Yarrow sold their property and moved. Our closest neighbours who preceded us in the neighbourhood by a few years, and were a binding family in the community that Tom knows, the earliest speaker, sold their property and moved. Why? The scale of these towers is brutal. When they were approved, we were told by the city and PCI that these towers, with their limited on-site parking, wouldn't impact local on-street parking. Yet, there has been a dramatic impact with constant ticketing and towing. Cars now regularly encroach on crosswalks, stop signs, and laneways, which has decreased pedestrian safety in our neighbourhood. Also, during that development application, the city, including councillors still sitting on council, agreed to traffic-calming measures to protect the neighbourhood from cut-through commuter traffic. Six years later, it is still in the works and has not been fully delivered as promised. Come down during rush hour on Adanac and tell me that there isn't constant traffic. You can see why we feel like a neglected neighbourhood. PCI claimed that they would be a long-term committed community partner invested in the neighbourhood, yet they've already flipped both the Yarrow and the After, selling the buildings to a real estate investment company. The CBC already covered the story the previous speaker talked about where they were using these aggressive methods and threatening eviction to tenants who are trying to communicate with each other about service deficiencies. Anyways, while the city budget suffers, PCI is receiving over a $2 million reduction in fees for this project. This is not the right model for the neighbourhood. I'd ask the city to revisit this application and commit to a six-storey village plan with 12-storey buildings allowed where zoning allows for our neighbourhood and place affordability, livability, community, and the environment over profits for developers. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay. So this is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353- 8610 followed by participant code 1061-445-pound for the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during the recess. We'll now take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in and come forward to the podium. Okay, we're back. Clerk, do we have any other speakers in the chamber and on the line?
We have an unknown speaker on the line and we're just getting some information one moment. please. We have Samuel Um on the line. Speaker number eight. Thanks for my speaker.
Are you just want to check, are you a resident of Vancouver? Okay. Thanks very much. You go ahead. You start speaking. Hi. My name is Sam Um, and I'm a resident of Vancouver.
We are the proposed side of the project. I'm very much in favor of the project. I am all for the densification around neighborhoods such as this where we have high traffic, high population near transit hubs. I believe this is a product for the densification that Vancouver very much needs. My only concern is around the future of the neighborhood, especially with recent items such as Whitecaps Stadium, signing on MOU with City of Vancouver. near the project site plus proposed sky train line, specifically the purple line that goes from North Vancouver via William Dun Street to Metro Town and the Hastings line that will eventually connect downtown and go through the Hastings Corridor. And I am, I have a minor concern around how prepared we are, around the future of the neighborhood where higher type of transportation is coming in. And that there are two points of concern in my mind, one of which is if there is a project being proposed so close to the bus loop, we that we are concerned in our expansion of current transportation station system into a higher grade. say sky train in the future and the second is are is the city ready to allow identification in accordance with proposed the sky train in the future in other words is 18 floors are enough you know in a site nearby a potential sky train station in the future. Thank you very much. Okay.
Any other speakers? We have speaker number nine, Edward Eaton Evans. Hey? Yeah, hi there, everyone. Can you hear me? Hi, Speaker. Can you just clarify if you're resident of Vancouver? Yes, I'm resident of Vancouver. Go right ahead. So good evening, everyone. My name is Eddie, and I live about 10 minutes away from the site. I moved to this area from Mount Pleasant about two years ago with my family and our dog Reggie. As we expected, this is a very, it's great community, very close-knit, welcoming, and we're extremely happy and lucky to count ourselves as part of the community. I'm calling to offer my support for the proposal, primarily because the site is unoccupied and wouldn't have any displacement to existing tenants. But also, it's immediately adjacent to a bus loop and along a rapid bus line. So future residents will be able to get where they need. to go with easily access transit. And that's one of the things I love most about living in this area that you could hop on a bus, zip downtown, head to Northman for some of the trails. Really, you can get anywhere you want. So I think that is just a great opportunity to provide residents with the option of living in Hastings sunrise. So thank you. Thank you.
There are no more speakers on the line.
Thank you. Seeing there for no further speakers, the speaker's list is now closed. Clerk, has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item since 5 p.m.
No, there is not.
Okay. I am now closing the receipt of public comments. Seeing there are few, so, sorry, seeing that there are a few or no public comments received after I'm now closing the receipt of public comments. Okay. Does the applicant have any closing comments?
And nothing further than the applicant other than just hopeful of being able to move forward with this market bowl market rental project in a T.O.A area. Thank you for everybody's time.
No closing comments from staff. Thank you.
Okay. Does counsel have any final questions for staff, noting that there are no additional questions to the applicant are permitted?
Also, or? Yeah, I just wanted if you could sort of talk about the evolution of the, basically the security of tenure and below market in terms of how it's different from the, I can't remember what it's called MIRP program. And, you know, just how that, you know, just to touch on that it lasts for the life of the building and just to maybe answer some questions around what happens when in a change of ownership in that situation.
Yes, thanks for the question, Annie Moble, us with housing regulation. the modern income rental pilot program, which the two buildings across the street came through, they came through under that pilot, it effectively evolved into our below market rental program. And those two buildings, they were sold. PCI sold those buildings to another company. But you're right, counselor or the housing agreement, which secures both the tenure and the affordability, is secured on title 60 years life of the building. We do have a housing agreement monitoring, enforcement, and compliance program, Hammock. And we do require building owners, whomever the building owner is, to report annually. And then every five years, do an income verification, just to ensure that the people that are living in that below market rental floor area are income testing in to the below market floor area. So, we do have a lot of checks and balances just to ensure that the affordability that's secured in the conditions remain, no matter of the change in ownership. I think some of the issues that were raised by some of the speakers are more related to the Residential Tenancy Act, which is outside of the kind of purview of the housing agreement. The rents really are separate from other fees that might be charged. parking, for example. Really, the only thing that we stipulate in the housing agreement is whatever the fees are for the market rental tenants must be the same as the fees for the below market rental tenants. So landlords can't arbitrarily raise fees for parking, higher for below market rental tenants to try to bring up those rents. So that's the only place we really talk about fees outside of kind of the rents on the rents on the door for the tenants. So hopefully that answers kind of some of what I've heard from speakers and to your question, Councillor Orr. Yeah, I did. That was very comprehensive. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thanks, counselor. Okay. Clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since the close of public comments?
So now council will make its decision on this application.
Councilor, okay. All right, council members, is there any discussion? Okay, seeing none, then we'll call the vote.
Or can you please the voting panel? Thank you. Okay, so that passes with support from all present in the meeting today. Thanks very much. Okay, that concludes this item. We'll move on to item four. C1 rezoning, 22, 19, 22. Oh, me. Sorry, I just realized the clock. Love this work so much. We might have to sometimes. So I think if we're, Councillor Monique. Yeah, just looking at the time, we have one item left, not during many speakers. I would like to move to finish the agenda for the day. Move, I think we extend past 10 o'clock. Okay. So is there a second for Councillor Kirby Young? I realize that we have a lot of business piled up, potentially for meeting reserve date. So I would get, we'll have. to get a vote of all of counsel to do in support to continue that to complete the fourth item. So calling a vote, all of those in favor? Opposed. Okay, that carries. So we'll continue on and complete this item.
Thanks very much. Okay. Let's reset here. Okay. So before we begin this agenda item, if anyone believes they have a conflict of interest, now is the time to declare it.
Does anyone have a conflict to disclose? Okay. The clerk. will now read the application and the summary of correspondence received. This is an application by MCMP Architects to rezone 2219-285 Canby Street from C-3A Commercial District to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District to permit the development of a 32-story mixed-use building containing 230 rental units with 20% of the residential floor. area for below market rental units and commercial and office spaces within the podium base.
A floor space ratio, FSR, of 15.3 and a height of 111.0 meters are proposed. The general manager of planning urban design for below market rental unit. Commercial and office spaces within the podium base. I have some audio gremlins, but we'll continue. The general manager. of planning, urban design, and sustainability recommends approval subject to conditions set out in the summary and recommendation and yellow memorandum dated March 3, 26 entitled CD-1 rezoning 2219 to 2285 Canby Street amendments to housing condition. The following correspondence has been received since referral to public hearing. 18 pieces of correspondence. in support and four pieces of correspondence in opposition. This represents all correspondence received up to 5 p.m. today. Thank you very much. Okay, this is the first call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free 1-833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061-445 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 miss speakers to be heard at the end of the registered speakers list. We have staff from planning, urban design, and sustainability here to present the application. Go ahead. Thanks very much. Just making sure you can see the presentation.
Great. Good evening, acting mayor and council and members of the public. My name is Lex Domeniak. I'm the rezoning planner for this application under the Broadway plan. Council, please note that the application before you is accompanied by a yellow memo, indicating that the site is eligible for the rental development and relief program, and accordingly, amends the housing agreement to require 20% of the residential floor area be provided at rents not exceeding the citywide average.
The site shown in red is located on the northwest corner of Camby Street and 7th Avenue, and is in close proximity to the Olympic Village and Broadway City Hall Canada line stations. It is currently developed with a two-story commercial building, with no existing residential tenants. The proposal is being considered under the Broadway plan, in the uptown or Camby North Area C. For this site, the plan anticipates a mixed-use building up to 400 feet or to the underside of the view cone, with density regulated by the view cone restrictions and urban design performance. A minimum of 3 FSR of job space is required. The application is for a 32-story mixed-use development, with a building height of 3,000. 64 feet and a density of 15.3 fsr. Commercial space is on the ground floor and office space on floors 2 to 5. The tower includes 230 rental units, with 20% of the residential floor area in the tower secured at below market rents. During the public engagement period, we heard from participants who supported the delivery of new housing supply, the tower form, and the inclusion of below market units. Many residents also filed. felt that the site's walkability and proximity to transit make an appropriate location for the proposed development. Many residents also voiced concerns that the proposed building's height and density are out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and could adversely affect light access and privacy of adjacent homes. Several participants also expressed that introducing a tower at this location could undermine the area's character and its role as a neighborhood gathering place. It was also concern about potential. increases in traffic on Camby Street, West 7th Avenue, and the alleyway behind the site. Furthermore, many residents worried that the proposal includes too few parking spots, raising fears that it could worsen the availability of on-street parking. In response, I'll note that the proposed scale aligns with the intent of the Broadway plan and is not anticipated to affect protected public views or create shadowing on neighborhood parks. And the applicant has shaped the building to minimize impacts on neighbors. We have also added urban design conditions aimed at improving the interface with the building to the north of the site. With respect to neighborhood character, the proposal aligns with the Broadway plan's vision for the area, which calls for a mix of high-density housing, major employment uses, shops, service, and amenities, along with form of development guidelines, which support enhanced urban streetscapes, active ground floor commercial uses, and new public gathering spaces. Parking provisions comply with the city's parking. bylaw, and based on a review, the proposed development is not expected to generate significant
impacts on overall traffic patterns. Engineering conditions have also been included for public realm improvements along West 7th Avenue, Canby Street, and the laneway. At the time, the rezoning report was finalized, the expected DCLs and public art contribution were approximately $4.2 million. Additionally, the project will deliver 183 market rental units and approximately 47 below-market units. In conclusion, this proposal meets the Broadway plan, and staff support this application subject to conditions outlined in Appendix B of the accompanying report. Thank you very much. Staff and the applicant team are here to answer any questions. Thanks very much. Okay. Would the applicant like to present the application? Good evening acting mayor and council. My name is Peter Odegaard. I'm with MCM partnership architects. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I'd like to thank staff for the presentation and for the presentation and for the collaborative process throughout the design and rezoning of this building to bring this to you this evening. We're going to forego our applicant presentation tonight, but I would like to introduce Nicole the real estate. I have Josh Anderson and Andre A Lenoxeda in addition to our transportation engineer, Christopher Chang, from Bunton Associates on the line. We look forward to answering any questions you may have tonight. Thanks very much. Okay. Are there any questions from council to staff and the applicant, noting this is the only opportunity for council to ask questions of the applicant. Okay. Seeing no one on the queue. This is the second call for speakers. If you wish to speak to counsel on this item, please call toll free 1833353-8610, followed by participant code 1061-445 pound before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on on X and displayed during the recess. We'll now hear from the public. Any speakers in the chat? council chamber please come forward to the left podium when it's your turn phone and speakers will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak speakers will have up to five minutes to make their comments and should limit their comments to the merits of the report being considered our first registered our first registered speaker is stephen bohas is stephen present we're on the phone uh i'm here yes i don't have a presentation okay uh is the presentation up yes okay uh if you get extends to slide two. Yeah, so my name is Steven Boas. I'm a renter. I'm opposed to this rezoning. As you can see on the slide two, this would have a huge impact on views. And this is the massing model of the proposal that I built over the Christmas break. Next slide. And the photo is from Sunday.
This is the former height of the view cone. It's shown in transparent. And views above that would be, would have been protected. It's not from the view of the view of origin, but the view of the view of the view cone. Origin, but the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of Bucone, former view cone would have protected this view here from the city hall, held it from the plaza. Next slide. And you can again see the height of the former view cone, the lowest view cone at the time. Next slide. Here is an archival photo of where one of the view cones on Campi Street was. Next slide. And Niccolo Wealth wanted to do a 40-story or three five-story tower. There were other sites in the area, but they chose to use a site that was much lower. Next slide. Here you'll see a Google Earth view of the surroundings with the tower. There are very few low-rise or high-rise buildings here because they were all protected by the view cone. Next slide. And you should see a view from one of the top balconies there looking out. And these are views that would have been in the public view protection area, but they been since removed by City Hall. Next slide. You can see me, but you can also look back at the neighborhood that would see the tower, looking back towards City Hall. Next slide. Here is the level of the lowest view cone from Cambys Street, 9.1 that was removed. Next slide. Here are the overlapping view cones, all shown in transparent. Next slide. When the Broadway plan was passed, you'll see a slide that says views in heights here. It said that there would be, that the view cones from Campi Street would be fully maintained and this was a 30-year plan. And fast forward to January 29th, staff in 2024, staff talked about public engagement for changing the views. That never happened. And all the changes were passed at committee on July, the 10th, 2024, without any public feedback. Next slide. The view cone was cut up and very little of it was remained and this council actually voted to change the little sliver of one of the few halves from where the arrow is at top of it to where it is now with the post and trees in the way and this is what you changed on February 4th. Next slide. And there are also issues with the Child Lake Viewcone presentation that staff presented incorrect information on the boundary of the bucone per my own analysis. They put the border of the Yukon in the wrong location. slide. This is the current site in the area. You have a promenade. Next slide. With a lot of light access here, walking north towards the cross Campi Street Bridge, public
right away. Next slide. There would be huge shadows cast on March the 20th. This is 245 p.m. Next slide at 4 p.m. Next slide on the solstice on the 21st, 4 p.m. You could see that there would be shadows all the way Still across the street shading, this really public space that is an important sidewalk in connection from City Hall to the downtown. Next slide. Here is the photo of what was protected in the former view cone from 12 and can be. And this building which is go right in the middle of that. Next slide. Here is the computer model without the trees which is to show the general height of where this building would be. Next slide. And here this gives the context that essentially staff, through many iterations, have taken away the protected view that was supposed to remain per the original Broadway plan. There was no FSR limit on the site whatsoever, which is a huge mistaken planning. The remove the view cone, there's still no fsr limit with the highest view cone from QE, which isn't applicable. And this is all going to Nicola Welth. There is no public below market. rental units. And yesterday I was looking at the meeting agenda. I didn't see the yellow memo there. It wasn't posted in the mid-afternoon. So a beta switch changed in the last minute to remove the 20% BMR is unacceptable. I would suggest that this should go back to public
consultation to see if there's any support funds. So I oppose this is rezoning and thanks for time. Thank you very much. Okay. Speaker number two is Lewis Villegas. Presentation's not up yet and the clock is running. Okay. First slide, please.
The name is Louis Villegas. I am a urban design specialists practicing in Canada and the United States for 40 years. Next. I oppose as resigning as I oppose towers outside the downtown generally. Next. Government created the housing crisis. Now government must end it. Next slide, please. The problem is clear. Giving away density and height, government inflates land prices, putting housing out of reach for most of the population. Next. The solution is equally clear. Keep the towers on their side, or on the other side of Camby Street Bridge in this case. Build out the neighborhoods with four-story buildings or less, deliver gap doors in sufficient quantity to meet or exceed demand for guaranteed affordable housing in perpetuity. Next. Canada is the largest democracy in the world by land mass. We're not running out of land anytime soon. Next.
Government has run out of ideas and more than a modicum of common decency. Next. We talk about. We talked about the shell game already. When housing costs double, money circulating in the local economy is cut in half, shops close, jobs go begging. Next. But forecasts this year are for the home price to income ratio to rise to 14. Next. That will reduce household discretional spending to one quarter with the obvious results. If trends continue, Vancouver could face bankruptcy. It has happened in other jurisdictions in North America. Already. Next. The risk derives from planting what I call the flowers of evil. The shell game economy, towers in human scale neighborhoods, apartment sizes shrinking beyond decency, landlift fueled by speculation and housing programs. A crisis government refuses to end. Debt-driven expansion, prioritizing scale over everything else, quality not being made of focus. And yellow. Memos appearing six hours before a public hearing. Next. The government sees no evil, hears no evil, and adopts a silent posture hiding information. Next. We are through the looking glass when words start to mean something different. Vacancy rates suggest time product released by an industry bent on maximizing profits. 20% below market is a rounding error when prices are predicted to rise to 467%. 67%. Public input is a mere formality handled by computers. Secure tenure turns homeowners into renters. Housing mixed is reduced to towers and more towers with different size apartments in them. A housing crisis is not a public benefit. Bikes are all people are going to be able to afford to get around. Next. We can see the answer peeking at us in the distance in this slide behind the towers in the foreground. Next. Downtown is a peninsula pushing out into the inlet and virtually surrounded by water. Distance reduces the bulk of towers in our human vision. Next. Making downtown the natural tower zone, not the neighborhoods. Next, the formula couldn't be simpler. Powers downtown, houses in the neighborhoods. Next. No, that's my last slide. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, our next speaker is Ruth Cherry. Ruth, are you here? Okay. Speaker number four is Andy Sedu. Andy, you there? Speaker 3. Speaker 3 is on the line. It has been unmuted. So speaker free and go ahead. Okay. Move on to Speaker 5. Frank Hook. See, you have a representative. So we just need to confirm the others that are with. you? The other two are sitting there, and there's one on the telephone. Okay. Frank Hook, resident of the area, I object to this application. As a lifelong resident of Vancouver and a 10-year resident of Camby Village,
I am addressing this rezoning application for a 32-story building right in the heart of the Camby Village. This is more than just a rezoning application. It is about the destruction of an, of an important. Vancouver Village. Points to discuss. One, the province and cities' lifetime commitment to protecting and enhancing our villages. Two, the Camby Village part built in the city's requirements. Three, the Camby Village and its close proximity to the Broadway transit station and the sea wall. Process by which the planning department has presented this rezoning to residents. Five, the council and this. process. Six proposed resolutions. One, protecting villages. The provincial paper clearly states that our villages must be protected, specifically mentioning among others the Camby village. The city 599-page Broadway plan received from planning includes guidelines for density and height increases and also focuses on protecting and enhancing Vancouver's villages within the plan. 2. Camby Village. As per the city plan, building limits for villages are set at a maximum 6 stories, in places for decades. This limit preserves vital light into villages. On page 176 of the Broadway plan, a diagram clearly demonstrates this effect. When sidewalks, wide sidewalks are also described as beneficial to villages, the heart of the Camby village between 8th Avenue and 6th Avenue is a direct result of the planning department's requirement for it to meet city village standards. Visitors to this core area dwarf the foot traffic in the rest of the Camby village. This core area also ranks as one of the busiest hearts of Vancouver's villages. Three, Broadway transition station. Regulations state that the planning department can increase the density and building height for properties within a certain distance of the hub. However, we have a rare exception in the Broadway plan in that this puts this proposed 32-story building in the heart of the Camby village, 8th Avenue and 6th Avenue. This situation was wisely dealt with in the council's latest city transit paper dated January 6th, 2006, two months ago, which recognizes that if the village is located next to the city transit, to a transit station, the council has the right to continue to protect the village, found in Heritage Section 5.5.3, more on this shortly. Would the building Broadway plan be a failure if the planning department were not allowed by council to destroy this two-block center? There is no shortage of other properties immediately around the Broadway transit station to the east, southwest, and north on Camby, B to 8th Avenue. Density and building heights can exist right next to a village. There was a significant lack of transparent for planning department's process. There was a significant lack of transparency in their elimination of the Canby village, mostly discovered by figuring out what is not said. On page 49 of the city's Broadway plan, a diagram shows the location of seven villages, large ones, three large ones. Three large. ones, Kisselaino, Granville, and Main Street, and four other very small ones, all of which the Broadway plan states it will protect and enhance. Glaringly missing on page 49 is the long-established Camby Village, as if it never existed, even though flying every pole from every pole, every summer, from 25th Avenue to 6th Avenue, are flags stating, Camby Village, City of Vancouver. In November, 2004, the city canvassed the public about what would help villages thrive in the future. The conclusion was a commitment for newer buildings up to six stories high and more shops and services within walking distance to meet daily needs. At the same time, the planning the department was eliminating Camby Village with no public notice. In an email exchange, I had with him, the heart of Camby Village was suddenly referenced as a neighborhood in a nonsensical, confusing explanation. It is impossible to keep up with everything the city is planning. However, no notice was ever sent to residents regarding ending Camby Village. This deserves much more discourse and public disclosure. Counsel in the process. Coming back to Heritage Section 5.5.5.3 of the recent Todd document, the overriding document in these matters tonight, states, and I quote, districts that have been community focal areas offering vibrant and cultural uses and services and services for residents may not achieve the height and or density outlined in table one or two. This may include the character and scale of critically important retail areas such as Main Street, South Granville, Camby Village, Dunbar, 4th Avenue, and Commercial Drive. Camby Village right there highlighted in this document as a critically important retail area. Because Camby Village is the only village in the Broadway plan located this close to the transit hub, please use Section 5.5.3 designated, designed to continue to protect the village. Many residents are already frustrated about the significant number of tall buildings seeking approval from council. As our city continues to darken with a large increase in higher buildings, our villages become even more important to residents. It is now your turn to step up and protect the heart of the Camby village. Six, proposal. This issue is more important than another rezoning. It is about destroying a major village with more buildings to follow. in this center. I propose three options. Option one, we ask that your actions as both a council member and as a council continue to support the retention and enhancement of its villages and reject this rezoning application for a building higher than the allowable six stories in the heart of the Canby village. Option two, the entire construction industry has slowed significantly with many condos and rentals, sold and unoccupied and more inventory coming. You could delay your decision on this rezoning application for six months to allow for the inclusion on your platform as to where you stand on this issue if you are rerunning for counsel, telling people a lot about who you are and about how you care about people's lives. Option three, to have all this issue included on a ballot and next election as done for other key city proposals. are a key aspect of Vancouver and it lights them. Running out of time. To those who choose to approve this rezoning, done with their disregard to the city's protection and disrespect to the public, that position will likely become a topic in the next election. Thank you for your patience and your much needed consideration on this milestone decision. Coming in today. Okay. Our final speaker, number six, Robert Davis, on the list, that is. Hi. Robert, go right ahead. Yeah, good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Robert Davis, and I'm a lifelong Vancouver resident. I'm here tonight to express my support for this proposal. I've lived in Vancouver for many years and raised my children here. Wonderful city, great place to live, and this means a great deal to me and also my family. So all my kids grew up, where they went to school and where they started building their lives. Unfortunately, my family has experienced Vancouver. housing challenges firsthand. My children had everything we told them to at a young age, worked hard, went to school, began their careers. But despite that, they had to make the difficult decision to move away because the housing market made it nearly impossible for them to afford or stay anywhere here. As a parent, it's a hard thing to accept. This is the city where our family built our lives, yet it's becoming a place where the next generation simply can't afford to remain. I know our family story is not the unique. In fact, it's becoming increasingly common, but that doesn't mean it should be something we accept as a norm. As I get closer to retirement, I also find myself wondering what the future will look like. I sometimes think whether I will eventually have to leave Vancouver just to be closer to my children as they get older. One of the things I hope I can help address situations like ours is building more rental housing. I understand that. solving this housing crisis is going to take time and not a single decision will fix it overnight.
But years from now, people will benefit from the decisions we make today. Rental housing provides flexibility for people at different stages of their lives, young people starting out,
families saving for the future, and seniors who want to downsize but remain in the communities they know and love. In a city where homeownership is out of reach for many, rental housing can provide stability and allow people to continue. building their lives here. Supporting rental developments is one way we can help ensure Vancouver remains a place where different generations can live, work, and stay connected to their families. I hope that the decision made today will help ensure that the future generations still have the opportunity to build their lives here and continue calling Vancouver home. I hope you will support this application. Thank you for your time tonight. Have a good night. Thank you very much for calling in. Thank you. Speaker, the next speaker, speaker, Speaker 7. Can you just remind me to the name? Charles Wattie? Hey, Charles, are you on the line? You bet you. Go right ahead. I'm a resident of Fairview, and I'm opposed to the size and elements of the design of the project. In the response to the public comment regarding traffic congestion and laneway safety, there is no acknowledgement that even today, at the end of the working day, 7th Avenue is frequently backed up from Camby to Ash with vehicles attempting to access the bridge. Ash, too, is often backed up from 6 to 8. Similarly, with vehicles trying to access the bridge or otherwise get down to 6th. And exiting residential and commercial vehicles from a 32-story tower into that same alley, attempting to join the backed up 7th or Camby Street via the loop to the north, suggests to me that no one's actually visited the location at rush hour. I'm materially concerned about the added volume that's going to add and the congestion and stoppage it's going to result in. Additionally, there are three parkades already serviced by the alley to the west of Canby Street. And one of those parkades is serviced by a vehicle elevator as opposed to a traditional kind of drive-in, drive-out access. Necessitating that vehicles entering. or exiting the elevator have to cross both lanes of the alley traffic in order to angle themselves and allow entrants. And I struggle to see how, when again, we've got, you know, 100 plus units plus retail and office exiting in there, that we're going to be able to do that dance without some manner of conflict or frustration.
The proposal that I read ignored the multiple floor to ceiling south-facing windows on 2211 Canby Street, the building to the north. and placed glass windows at the podium of the new development within six feet of those windows,
blocking all light from the south and affecting the privacy of the residents there. The referral report that I read noted, quote, design development to improve the contextual fit and architectural expression of the podium levels. Note to applicant, this can be achieved by further improving the interface between the podium and the existing building to the north to maintain privacy. End quote. It's not. not clear to me what's required for compliance by the developer and whether it will actually address the concerns related to privacy for that building 2211 to the north. The one other topic that I wanted to mention before I yield the phone is that the roof, again, on 2211 to the north, is frequently used for private gatherings, and the planters on that roof support fruit and vegetable gardening. The massive 32-story tower is going to cast a shadow on the garden and the rooftop, affecting privacy, among other things. The top level of the podium, from what I see, shows it a budding 2211 can be, roughly one story above the roof surface, allowing anyone in that upper level of the new development to directly overlook and impose on the privacy of the space just a few feet below. So again, like in summary, in summary, my issues. center primarily around the shadow cast by the building, the privacy on neighboring buildings, and the additional traffic it's going to add and congestion is going to bring to the neighborhood, which is, you know, at times during the day, particularly around rush hour, is already feeling, feeling the stress. So I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening. Thank you very much. Thank you for calling in. Okay. Okay. Okay. If there are any additional speakers in the chamber, please come forward to the podium.
Clerk, are there any additional speakers on the line? There are speakers on the line. We need to find out who they are first so we can bring them on after the two-minute recess. Okay. So this is the third and final call for speakers. If you wish to speak to council about this item, please call toll-free 1-1833-353-8610, followed by participant code 1061-445 pound before the close of the speakers list. The phone number will be posted on X and displayed during recess. We'll now take a two-minute recess for any additional speakers to call in and come or come forward to the podium.
Okay, will we continue the meeting? Clerk, do we have any additional speakers in a chamber or on the line? Yes, we have two additional speakers on the line. Okay, very good. Speaker 8, Andrea Duncan, are you, on the line. Speaker, are you there? Yep. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.
I'm opposed to this project.
I was born and raised in Falls Creek, and I've seen all the changes over the years and 40 years old. I love the neighborhood. My daughter, we live here now with my daughter. This is an incredible place to be. I just, I'm opposed to the size. of the building, to be honest, I think, I mean, visually it's an eyesore, but I understand we need more rental properties. I completely get it. I'm just going to go through a few quick things on my list. The first was an issue with schools. So where we are right now, we're in the Falls Creek School catchment. Already when my daughter started school, there was too many kids, not enough spaces. So we got stuck at Mount Pleasant because there wasn't enough spots right now. our building, there is 15 units and eight school children in the building. So I would guess in about a 230 unit building, there's probably going to be close to 100 kids that will have no school to go to. Following up, my next point was right now the alley that they show that comes off of seventh. Well, it's very pretty in the rendering with cars driving both ways and a bike and people walking. Not sure if they've ever actually been to. to this alley, but it is very congested. The best of times, you can't actually get two cars going opposing ways, especially towards the north end of the alley. It is very, very narrow. So very concerned about that, especially emergency vehicles accessing it at all times is also a concern. Parking is a concern. We actually can't even get a parking permit right now for the street. We only have one vehicle. We can't get another vehicle because we can't get another vehicle because we can't. can't get street parking. So, I mean, if there's no parking for us and there's not going to be enough parking for everyone in the building, it would be a big concern. Also, the building 2211 can be right to the north. In the renderings, the buildings are almost pushed up right against it, which is concerning for me regarding privacy. It almost looks like the buildings are going to be like almost touching. You'll be able to see into the. the residence windows, which, you know, it's a huge invasion of privacy.
And also, I just wanted to point out that I went on a field trip for my daughter's school today at Falls Creek, and I was talking to some of the parents about this. None of them had actually heard about the building going up, and when I told them the size,
they were all quite horrified.
Everyone lives in the area and couldn't believe that a 32-story tower would actually be going up here. It's just really out of character.
for the neighborhood.
And also the four and against numbers, I feel, are off because when this proposal was originally happening, I know several people who wrote in that were opposed to it,
and then, you know, it changed from 30 to 32, and those people, I guess, their votes are opposed, but their complaints, the rodent didn't count because they didn't write in again. So I just feel that the numbers are a little bit off.
and skewed and it just doesn't give me any confidence and everything. And that's it. Thank you for your time. Thank you for calling in. Okay.
Speaker 9, Stephen Liu. Yes. Go right ahead. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Consul. My name is Stephen. And I'm a resident of Vancouver. And I'm calling to speaking in a post, opposition to the resident rezoning for 219-2-19 Candy Street. I understand Vancouver needs more housing and increased density, but I have several concerns about this proposal. First of all, is the overall traffic around Camp Corridor and South Samuel, like the previous caller, mentioned that it is extremely busy around the small alley, and I don't think that Vancouver have around the area have enough capacity to take over more traffic around the area. And I understand it's close to the transit hub, and it's easier access for people to just use the transit, you sky train. But consider as you need delivery drivers, you have your postal delivery, delivery, everything, that you still got tons of traffic going through the area. And I don't think that's a very peaceful option to putting it as such a huge tower right in that area that will just create more and more traffic around the surrounding area, which is already a big problem right now. And you often see if you walk by around 3 p.m. You'll see the whole traffic is a mess in area. And the second point I want to make is I was looking at the application and some of the units are extremely small. It's only around 477 square feet, 483 square feet for one bedroom, which is not really a good size for people to live in. I went to unview a place at these Hastings and it's about the same site. And it's just extremely narrow and crowded and you don't feel like you're living. You just feel like you're living in a box. You're not living in that place. And I don't think that's really a good idea to put in such small unit to let people live in. Especially in Vancouver, people just want to enjoy living in this place. And such small unit doesn't seem to be feasible to live in. And the third concern, I don't know this has ever been inconsidered, is that. that the BPD headquarters just right across the street and such high building right across the street from the headquarter. I know if that's a safety issue that needs to be concerned as well. So, yeah, that's all three points I want to make. And, yeah, for this reason, I urge also to reconsider about this rezoning and thank you for your time. Thanks very much for calling in. All right. So we're going to go back to Speaker 4. Andy Sudu. Are you on the line? Yes, yes, I'm here. Okay, go right ahead. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Andy Sidu, and I'm a Vancouver resident. I'm speaking in support of this application. I moved to Vancouver as a graduate student at the University of British Columbia. While I'm studying computer science, like many students who come here, I was excited about the opportunity to study at a world-class university and to live in a city with such a strong reputation for quality of life and innovation. Before arriving, I heard that Vancouver's rental market was challenging, but I didn't fully understand just how difficult it would be until I started looking for housing myself. Listings would receive dozens of responses within hours. Viewings are crowded and in some cases, people were even being asked to put down deposits just to secure a viewing. Rents were often far higher than what students or early career workers can reasonably afford. I was fortunate to eventually find a place to live, but the experience made it very clear how limited the rental supply really is. Vancouver's universities attract students from across Canada and around the world. While they are here completing the degrees, many also work part-time, contribute to the local economy and build connections in the community. In fields like spirit science especially, many students hope to stay after graduation and continue contributing to Vancouver's growing technology to the sector. But if we want talented people who study and train here to stay and build their careers here, we need to ensure there is housing available for them. I'll be honest. If housing continues to be this difficult to find, I may end up looking at other opportunities in places like Seattle, simply because it's easier to build a life there. Purpose-built rental housing plays an important role in that. It provides stability for people who may not yet be able to buy a home, and it allows residents to focus on their work, studies, and long-term plans in the city. Increasing the supplier rental housing won't solve every challenge overnight, but it is a necessary step toward making Vancouver more accessible. and sustainable for the people who live, work, and study here. This site is particularly well suited for rental housing. It is well connected to transit, walkable, and closest services. Exactly the kind of location where adding more homes makes sense. For those reasons, I encourage counsel to support this application. Thank you for your time. Thank you for calling in. Okay. Clerk, do we have any other speakers on the line? No, we do not. Okay, seeing there are no further speakers. speaker's list is now closed. Clerk, has there been a large volume of public comments received on this item since 5 p.m.? No, there has not. Okay, seeing that there are a few or no public comments received after 5 p.m., I'm now closing the receipt of public comments. Okay, does the applicant have any closing comments? Thanks very much. Does staff have any closing comments? No closing comments, just a reminder of the yellow memo and a note that we have confirmed that it was posted publicly on March 3rd. Thanks very much. have any final questions for staff, noting that no additional questions are allowed to the applicant. Councillor Kerby Young. Yeah, thanks, Chair. I have one question to staff, and it's just I wonder if staff could address this, maybe it was second or third to last speaker with respects to the village area relative to the proximity to rapid transit with the Broadway subway line.
And just with respects to those comments. Thanks, Counselor. Yes. John Grotonberg's special projects office. So under the Broadway plan, there are three significant village areas, main street, south, Granville, and west fourth. Canby from 16th to the bridge is not a village area. The plan seeks to intensify job space and housing in this area, given the proximity to two rapid transit lines and jobs. And so that's the land use policy that this application was evaluated under. The Camby Village BIA does extend through that area.
Okay. So just distinguishing the BIA area and that's separate than the future village's planning process,
which might include areas around sort of the nucleus of Canby Village, which is further to the south.
That's correct. South of 16th and the Camby corridor plan is the Canby Village area.
Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.
Okay. Thanks. Thanks very much. Kelsa Roar. Yeah, thanks. I have a question sort of on a yellow memo you answered. It was posted a few days ago, so it was good to clear that up. I asked a few, I don't know how long ago now, it's been a week. What was your answer to, like, that kind of like the comment, like where it's a bait-in switch? It's just like kind of unfortunate that, like, there's projects that are in stream, and then it's just that's how it kind of rolls out that you just have to juggle these yellow memos and you do your best kind of thing?
Yeah, with respect to the timing, thanks very much for the question, Councillor Orr. When the Rental Development Relief Program was approved in February, eligible sites could apply for relief. And they can apply for that relief before rezoning or after if they are eligible. We were notified more recently that the applicants had applied, and we felt that it made sense to include that in yellow memo and signal that before the public hearing.
And then can you walk me through what the applicant's, the application looks looks like for for that program in terms of, you know, I guess I may this probably could have been a question to the applicant around sort of financial
viability. But yeah, what does that, what does that look like in terms of what do they have to provide in terms of like proving that this can't go forward otherwise? Yeah, I'll refer that to my colleagues in housing. Thank you. Hi, anyone else? Oh. You want to answer Molly? Go for it. No. Okay. Sounds good. Yeah. So the rental development relief program, as you have mentioned, counselor, is a program that was approved to provide a time-limited, expedited processing path to kind of respond to sustained financial pressure, currently experienced by the housing market. So the conditions proposed in the yellow memo allow eligible projects for the program to increase the maximum starting rents for the below market residential floor area portion of the project. So it can increase to the CMHC citywide average rents for all of those units. And then to maintain eligibility for these relaxations, the project. the project must obtain a stage one building permit within 24 months of council approval, should council approve this project. And if they do not obtain the stage one building permit within that 24-month timeline, the affordability will revert back to the 20, for this project, the 20% of residential floor area at a 20% discount. I hope that answers the question.
Sort of, I think. I just, that's the only condition. to sort of this timeline. Like, I'm just saying, does the developer have to sort of prove, like, prove that the viability would not go forward in any way, like, in terms of the actual application?
This was a way to provide a program that allowed for an expedited approvals process. And so as part of that, there were specific plan areas and specific eligibility requirements for projects. For example, there can be no more than 10 existing purpose-built rental units on the site, and there must be a below-market rental requirement in the plan area. So there is a limited number of projects that would be eligible for the program, and then they could go through this expedited process.
But they don't have to sort of prove that their financial viability, that through their performer or whatever, that they have to, like this project wouldn't be able to go forward without this program kind of thing. They just, anyone can kind of apply or?
Yeah, so that data was contemplated in the development of the program. So that's why there are these specific areas with the specific eligibility requirements that are able to qualify for the program. So that was the land economics and the pressures on very specific scale projects were considered in the development of that program. the development of the program, but it's not like per applicant, like, doesn't have to.
Thanks, counselor.
Okay, clerk, did we receive any additional public comments since to close the public comments?
No, we did not?
Okay, thanks very much. So we will now close public comments. I'll remind council that we need to move the recommendations for item four together with the yellow memo dated March 3rd, 2026, titled CD1 rezoning 2219 to 22, 285. Camby Street, amendments to housing conditions. Can I have, Council will now make its decision on the application? Can I have a mover and a seconder? Right, did I saw a mover? Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't, sorry, Councilor, I didn't see you. Thanks very much. Okay. Council members, is there any discussion?
I will advance myself. I guess I'll have to cede the chair to, Councillor Deputy Mayor Kirby Young.
Thanks very much.
Thank you. I'm just going to speak very briefly on this item, noting the context of the area. I consider this part of Camby Street to be one of the most successful parts of our city because it was designed in such a way to, that embraced. the public and I think it's proven itself over time to be a really fantastic example of urbanism. Who would have thought that big box stores like Canadian Tire and Home Depot, in the case of Home Depot, have housing above it? It's a very vibrant and lively streetscape, the wide sidewalks, the wide sidewalks, the restaurants, the the services and amenities, but it also is adjacent to the Olympic Village can be, the Olympic Village Canada Line Station at just over 100 meters away. And also within a couple of blocks of what will probably, in short order, become one of the busiest rapid transit intersections in all of Canada at Broadway and, of Broadway line and Canada line where they intersect when that opens in 2027. The project brings over $4 million in a cash contribution. It also brings over 180 market housing units and 47 below market housing units. So for the reasons that I've stated, I think that this is a project that will meet some of the demand that will happen in this particular neighborhood. I think that we're going to start to see a lot of a lot of the demand for the office and for housing in this area that will follow with the opening of the Broadway line in
2027. So with that, I plan to support this application. Thanks very much. And seeing nobody else on the queue, council members, we will now make our decision. And that passes with all all present in support. Okay. Okay. Okay. Seconder. The meeting is now all in favor of adjourning a meeting? Opposed. Okay. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you,
staff. Joe.